Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

You're very very confused about how a government functions in a nation of free men.

 

At one time it was one man and several women.

 

Fallacy, red herring: Assuming the private lives of free men are a matter of public policy.

 

I don't see what this issue's so complicated - if the government disappeared overnight - people would still "get married" in the traditional sense - as in have weddings, have physical relations, have kids, etc.

Government marriage is just an incentive to encourage people to start economically productive relationships (procreation) - which is why it's not a right, since the states get to decide whether a relationship benefits their interest before handing out said incentive.

It would be like saying that state college grants are a "right" which should be available to everyone regardless of merit, or regardless of whether or not they even use the grant money on college expenses at all.

 

Another fallacy. Nature is now a sentient being? Nature is as capable of defining something as my dog is of writing a symphony. It is MEN who define things. It is MEN who create cultures, form societies, and write laws.

 

Marriage is meaningless. But if you're married, stay married, because the courts give everything to the woman ... even if she is the one that ruined the marriage.

 

So then they'd have to have premarital sex? So they could put a bun in the oven to comply with your wishes?

- - - Updated - - -

So I want to be really clear here: It is your position that our government should make law when it rises to your standard of benefit to the state?

 

Or maybe some of us just want to put our government back in its rightful place, our races, political and sexual orientations being irrelevant.

 

Nature is the order of the Universe in which we exist. Are you special, thus not subject to that order?

Let me ask, how'd someone of your means come to such an exceptional existence?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes... it pays to choose wisely.

Go figure, huh?

 

Equal Rights?

How does one with equal rights, come to alter the standards essential cultural viability so as to accommodate one's personal, subjective kink, if one's rights are equal to everyone else, who is otherwise compelled to respect those standards?

Work that out and get back to me, will ya?

 

Most divorces I know of are bored wives who are divorcing good but boring men, nothing to do with abuse.

 

So you believe the standard of law should be to "benefit the state."

 

What end?

Are you trying to figure out how to ask how Licensing of Marriage serves a valid and otherwise essential public interest?

Go ahead... copy that, paste it as a question and ask me.

I'll be here for ya.

 

Sure - unless the state's forcing people to get married or have children no rights are being violated. I'm a polyamorous bachelor and I'm not asking it to be recognized as an "orientation" or for any special privileges; I have a girlfriend who's okay with me having other girlfriends and I've been looking around for a second woman, but I don't my "rights" are violated if the state doesn't think my relationships deserve incentivization.

But the state' should not obligated to incentivize non-economically beneficial relations at taxpayer's expense.

On the flip side there's a better case for recognizing polygamy than there is for gay marriage, since polygamy naturally leads to lots of procreation.

[/quote]
When it comes to incentives (which is what state marriage benefits are) then yeah, I think states should decide it.

States decide who they give college grants out to based on merit (good students are likely to get good jobs which benefit the economy, so we award them grants). We don't award the grant money to "everyone equally" even if they aren't going to college just to avoid "discrimination".

 

You may have your own reasons. But I still stand by my assessment of the majority. For most of them, it was just a quick and easy issue to manipulate the public with.

 

Where are you coming up with this fallacy that "procreation benefits the economy?"

 

Sometimes people change dramatically. My ex-wife's personality changed drastically after 10 years of marriage. She just said one day, "I'm tired of being nice. I'm naturally a b----".

 

You believe the purpose of law is to "benefit the state." In a nation of free men, no idea could be more wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Amen, brother!

 

Wrong on several levels. First, procreation has nothing to do with it. Get over that misconception. Second, the state is not required to benefit. It just has to suffer no harm.

 

Huzzah! Once again noted you did not (and will not) answer my question.

 

The article is talking about monogamy, so the thread title is not even accurate.

 

What do you mean what end? I was precisely clear as to what end. You big government nanny-statists can suckle at the public teat to your heart's content. Us free men will reject that notion and all that comes with it. But don't complain when President Obama tells you what kind of lightbulbs you can screw into your lamps at home - it's a matter of public policy. And don't complain when Mayor Bloomberg tells you how much soda you can buy in New York - another matter of public policy. And don't complain when Mayor Garcetti tells you how many bullets you can put in your gun. You're too fat and you use too much energy and the government nanny has to do what's best for you - it's in the interest of society. Now run along and be a good little subject and maybe, just maybe, I'll let you keep driving that gas-guzzling SUV of yours...

 

I think I just read something similar to what you're saying here: The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Well done, comrade!

- - - Updated - - -

Well, half the battle is won. Next stop - get rid of state marriage.

 

LOL! Good one... .

 

If it quacks like a duck...