Straight Marriage

[B_VinylBoy]

Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations.

Everyone knows the dictionary and the current, bigoted definition given for "marriage" already. But what is your point?

 

[Calboner]

It's a perfectly rational approach, which is exactly why it will never work in the U.S.

I do agree thatIt's a perfectly rational approach, which is exactly why it will never work in the U.S.

There's an echo in here.

 

[scottredleter]

Well, I concede... you guys have changed my mind. I was wrong. What I can say is that I think marriage... all marriage is a false promise. I support everyone's right to get married. And I support my right to stay as far away from anything that even looks like marriage/ownership of another human being. I feel like it is a small step up from slavery... but I support everyone's right to become enslaved to each other (and the government).

 

[ColoradoGuy]

Well, I concede... you guys have changed my mind. I was wrong. What I can say is that I think marriage... all marriage is a false promise. I support everyone's right to get married. And I support my right to stay as far away from anything that even looks like marriage/ownership of another human being. I feel like it is a small step up from slavery... but I support everyone's right to become enslaved to each other (and the government).

When you go door-to-door to campaign for those equal rights you support, please leave out all of the commentary about slavery and the evils of the government. Okay? And before you put on your "I am Howard Roark" t-shirt and proclaim that all government is evil, you might want to visit Haiti and view first-hand what a society that is cash only and free of government intervention looks like. Or visit the Congo. I would offer up either as an example of where rules-free "democracy" has failed. You might (might!) decide that your cushy little San Diego lifestyle isn't so bad after all.

Government serves a purpose, even if it's only to preclude somebody from pointing an unregistered gun in your face and pulling the trigger as you quietly walk through Balboa Park during broad daylight.

 

[Calboner]

When you go door-to-door to campaign for those equal rights you support, please leave out all of the commentary about slavery and the evils of the government. Okay? And before you put on your "I am Howard Roark" t-shirt and proclaim that all government is evil, you might want to visit Haiti and view first-hand what a society that is cash only and free of government intervention looks like. Or visit the Congo. I would offer up either as an example of where rules-free "democracy" has failed. You might (might!) decide that your cushy little San Diego lifestyle isn't so bad after all.

You seem not to know about Somalia -- libertarian paradise!

 

[idesofmarch]

But why hasn't their population halved?

They haven't had this one child restriction for such a long time yet. The population hasn't halved, but the estimation of growth has gone done.

India will, just in a couple of years I think, have a larger population than China.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

You seem not to know about Somalia -- libertarian paradise!

An excellent point... how could I forget them?

[I love the video, by the way. "I have cholera!" Haha... Actually, I was trying to keep my talking points on countries I had actually visited and some familiarity with. However, you're right: Somalia is probably one of the sadder cases. At least Haiti and Congo can point to colonization as the root of the evils in their present-day society.]

 

[Bbucko]

I have often said that the quest for marriage equality is the most bourgeois revolution since the 1840s. It would not be high on my personal list of priorities: however it is the current front-line of the struggle for civil rights in the US and as such am an ardent proponent of seeing it happen.

If there were any attempt to repeal or otherwise tamper with the 1138 benefits conferred on married people unavailable to those who are either single by choice or whose legal marriage is barred from being recognized on a federal level by DOMA, there would be rioting in the streets. Having marriages recognized strictly on a state level would result in just such riots to occur. So we're eventually going to have full federal recognition of same-sex marriages: it will just require the right case to be presented before the SCOTUS.

The genie is out of the bottle: it's not if but when. My guess is it'll take no fewer than fifteen years, no more than twenty-five; social change in the US is glacial but reasoning eventually does prevail.