One reason people might want to go to the shops is to buy some toilet paper. But it's not the only reason people might want to go to the shops. Nor does it mean that only people who want to buy toilet paper should be allowed to go to the shops.

the problem is that it does affect us.....when our kids are in school that are promoting this lifestyle and it is not what the family believes

I do not disagree with you. That is why I say marriage and the civil part of it must be separated.

There is a civil contract portion of marriage, and another part. To some the other part is religious, to others its validation, to others its security.

My argument is simply that the civil/contractual aspects of marriage must be separated from the religious/emotional portions of it.

If you do not separate them, when a church refuses to marry a gay couple because they see that activity as a sin, they are preventing that couple from getting married, and if marriage is defined by law to be for all citizens then you have a discrimination lawsuit.

By separating the civil part away from the religious part, and then allowing everyone to have the civil a society is able to respect the beliefs of all while provide all with equal civil contract.

The marriage at city hall is a civil union. All government forms should say civil union on them. That is what you are getting at city hall and its the only part of marriage that should matter on a government form. Those people who enter this contract have all the legal changes that occur with marriage today. The forms are updated to say civil union and only the government provided the civil union.

The separate piece that a church would do, or vows that are exchanged or who has sex with whom would be removed from the government when done this way.

The real issue is that Marriage (which was nearly always religious) was hijacked by a government contract because it was easy to do. That contract is a civil union and the government should have created it, other than hijacked the religious ordinance of marriage.

The very fact that some people do not do it in a church any longer is the reason why the two should have stayed separate and should be again today. If they are sepeate, and the civil union is just a city hall item, then yes civil unions should be available to all.

As a marriage contract you cannot rule that its discriminatory to gays to not allow marriage without opening up religions to discrimination law suits when they choose not to marry a gay couple. In order for all to have there freedom the two must be separated. The religious union and the civil union must be two separate items in our society.

great! did you think no one was talking on this site pre tweets?

You might be right, but I think it's also quite plausible that you're being melodramatic. (Again, no disrespect intended.)

I think that failing to distinguish between European-style socialism and genuine slavery is ignorant and counterproductive. Sure: state the case against socialism---just as Rand did. In my view, it is a strong case that deserves to be heard. But claiming that European-style socialism is identical to slavery is, I think, tantamount to saying A is B.

You said you lived in Australia for some time, right? I live in Australia, and whatever you might think of our current government, our population is most certainly not enslaved. Sure, we have a welfare state, subsidised health care, etc. But we also have a great deal of individual liberty, and this is an important part of the Australian national identity. Compare this to, say, North Korea. There is simply no comparison.

I don't say we shouldn't state the case for individualism, laissez faire, etc.---I just think we harm that case by arguing that any departure from our ideal is slavery.

the purpose of the court system is to settle disputes between people who can't settle disputes on their own. without this function, you've got Hatfields and McCoys

You know what is great about this site? The fact that we actually have a conversation going here. I posted this link onto Twitter and got two replies and a handful of retweets. I posted it on Facebook and basically got a "meh." I post it onto here and actually get people talking. Glorious.

lost gave an historical framework, nothing more.
we have also acknowledged that technology today can make for complicated contractual arrangements. point is, no special rights for one group

Of course it would need to be certified by a third party, but why would it follow that the best entity for this would be the government? When you are hired by your employer you enter into a contract with them, does that necessarily mean that the government is the keeper of your contract? We use notarization as an authentication method simply out of convenience, in reality any third party would suffice and a contract can be held in trust by anyone mutually agreed upon by the contracted parties. Your assumption that the government would be the best place is part of the problem. We need to separate ourselves from the idea that the government is something that we can or should give responsibility to in private affairs, whether by choice or assumed need. Government is in place (on a federal level) to defend us via the military, arbitrate dealings with other nations, regulate interstate commerce and insure that Constitutional law is upheld. Anything else that they are empowered with is an unlawful expansion of powers and, by extension, a loss of freedoms for the individual.

You said that marriage makes sense from the biological perspective. So if there is no biological perspective, i.e. you cannot conceive, it does not make sense. I am just pointing out where the biologic argument leads to. I agree that it is not "what ought to be," because there are many people for whom marriage makes sense but has nothing to do with a biologic origin, like my grandmother who can never have any children.

jmlesniewski and UncommonSense

the opening paragraph of the Constitution does not say "protect", it says PROMOTE --- there is a big difference

Nobody is disputing that BHO has professed some collectivist ideals and that his administration has been active in trying to move the USA in a more collectivist direction. But that does not prove he is a communist, nor does it prove the existence of an international communist conspiracy. And to my knowledge, there is no public record of BHO claiming to be a communist.

Showing that someone actively supports *some* collectivist ideals does not prove that person is a communist. Drawing some parallels between Cold War era KGB tactics and some current events does not prove an international communist conspiracy. And---with all due respect---arguing that it does makes you sound like a fringe conspiracy lunatic. (Note, I am not claiming you are, and I genuinely mean no offense.)

I want to marry my horse. Or perhaps my sister. They both look the same and have the same whinny. Is that OK with Libertarians as well? Perhaps I can marry both? What if I want to marry a 10 year old girl as well? Is that OK too? I'd have her parent's permission since I'm also her father and her mother doesn't really care either way. Are there any moral lines? And if so, what gives you the right to draw them where you do? I think that "let them marry whomever they please" position is not so consistent as you claim LeoRiz

Yes, I saw that. And indeed it's true that resolving these types of contractual disputes can be a messy business.

If I understand your position correctly, no married couple (straight or gay) should be entitled to 'special benefits' from the government. Whether or not you are in agreement or not, heterosexual married couples have long enjoyed certain benefits (many of which are not 'government funded', such as inheritance and property rights, legal survivorship benefits, hospital visitation rights, just to name a few) to which same-sex couples have been denied.

That being said the choice at hand is whether to either recognize the legitimacy of same-sex relationships (with all of the same benefits under law afforded to heterosexual couples) or to remove these same benefits from heterosexual couples. Its a question of "all or nothing" in the final analysis. One can only presume which path will ultimately be taken.

The explanation I gave says nothing about *what ought to be*.

I was simply providing a plausible biological reason for why men and women who choose to have sexual relations with one another might wish to enter into a mutually binding agreement.

Finally! Somebody said it! :)

Based on the biology origin of marriage, the next step is to confine marriage to only couples that can conceive. If you can't have children, you can't get married. Tell that to your grandmother.

Reading through these comments, I feel that maybe there is a general misunderstanding about marriage equality issues in this board.

The 'gays', or as I like to refer to as, Americans, just want the same thing that non-gay Americans have. Sure, let them get married, then let them have marriage benefits. Why is that such a radical idea?

People here are talking about how these benefits are 'government handouts'. Well if that is true, and you are a non-gay (straight) American who is married, then you should deny every benefit you get from being married! The gay marriage issue is about having the same thing that YOU have, not more!

@Mitch
"If marriage is legal between same sex couples then we have to allow polygamy"

Do you seriously believe that? Does that mean that we should then allow people to marry dogs and lamps?
Look, it is two consenting adults who want to do what they want to do and be treated like everyone else for it. Can't get much more 'libertarian' than that. Let's take a look at all the atrocities derived from marriage equality that have happened in states that allow gay marriage... oh wait, there are NONE!

Another big issue I've read here is defining 'marriage'. Yes, 'marriage' as is traditionally defined is a religious institution. Yes, 'marriage' as is defined here in the US also has LEGAL ramifications, often without a religious connotation (think being married in a courthouse). In the perfect situation, there would be one form of legal union (possibly a civil union) that ALL people get, and this union would be the legal benefits of marriage. Then, if you choose to have your union be connected with religious communities, you can then have a marriage ceremony, that is nothing more than a public display of your love to your church and your god. Sadly, since they are one-in-the-same in the US, by denying marriage, you are also denying these benefits of equal treatment.

Also, there are religions, churches, and denominations that DO support marriage equality. In this since, the marriage ceremony would still retain the holy affiliations. It isn't like LGBT Americans are all athiests or something!

@Tuner38
"Let it not be forgotten that marriage for benefits sake can be faked and probably would be."

Umm... is there supposed to be a point in your statement? You are saying that straight marriages sometimes happen just for the legal benefits...and so gay marriages may have this happen as well? Marriage IS a legal contract, so why do you care if the two people actually love each other or not? In this case, it would seem that they just want government handouts, or maybe there is another situation they are in, we really can't tell and it isn't our place to judge their situation. Let them do what they want to do. That brings up the point about taxes that 'pay' for marriage benefits that you pay into, therefore it is automatically anti-libertarian. If a man's wife is in the hospital, only family is allowed to see her, so he is allowed in. If a man's life partner (who happens to be male) is in the hospital, he isn't allowed to see him. By allowing these life partners (in both situations) to be with each other in a time of need costs a grand total of... ZERO dollars. This is just about decency, not your pocketbook!

Gay marriage DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, but by not allowing it, it DOES (negatively) affect all gay people! Also, if by "affect" you, you mean that you may see two men holding hands with rings on their fingers in public (WHY lord WHY???), then you need to grow up.

At the center of this issue is being more comfortable with gay people. You only see the stereotypically feminine gay men or masculine gay women (or crossdressing, transgendered, or whatever it may be) in the media. The truth is, you are all probably surrounded by gay people everyday, but since they act 'normal' (you know... because they are!) then you can't tell.

Whenever you comment on boards like this, please really think about what you want to say. Don't say anything you wouldn't say to the face of your child, co-worker, sibling, boss, friend, etc.

I dare you to tell your child that their marriage to someone they want to spend the rest of their life with of the same gender is equivalent to polygamy. If you can (or have) then something is wrong with YOU, not your child.

The problem is that marriage is performed many times at city hall. No one is saying that gay marriage has to be allowed in a church or religious organization. For many people, religion has nothing to do with marriage. That's why they get married at city hall. And if you can get married at city hall, it is a government sanctioned ceremony and therefore has to be open to all people no matter what their sexual orientation is. It is strictly a contract. A marriage contract is about bringing a security and validation to a relationship. When you get married, no one asks you to sign a form that this is a sexual relationship or whether or not you can have children. It is not the governments business as to whether someone is actually having a sexual relationship or why they are getting married. I am sure there are many different sex couples who get married who do not even have sex or are not capable of having sex.

We're on the path... maybe we should just wait til we get to the end before we speak of it though. Oh wait....we won't be allowed to speak of it then..... ?