It's a right, and therefore an obligation of the State to not interfere with. They can't make a law forcing any religious service to marry anyone, nor can they deny marriage to anyone.

Equal rights. Not a difficult concept.

That's sort of what I was driving at. But fwiw, I do agree with you. I was just trying to put it in a way that made the whole social engineering red herring look as ridiculous as it actually is.

The problem with the modern institution of marriage is that is more than a symbol. There are consequences for the state attached to it (such as tax breaks) and if a same-sex marriage is deemed less financial-worthy than a regular one then this is legitimate in my opinion. Note that I am not saying it is less financial-worthy since I have no data that supports or contests that. This is supposed to point out that if this were to be the case then the state would be allowed to consider it.

I wish government could stay out of marriage almost entirely. As long as no one is being hurt, why interfere. Shoot, I don't even care about polygamy. I draw the line at bestiality and pedophilia because of human/animal rights. Aliens and whatever the Witcher can come up with is ok.

Yeah. That last sentence was a general statement.

But it kills me how the hell we live in a country that prides itself on equality and freedom and is founded on those very principles and still does everything it can to undermine those rights. It blows my mind that live and let live is really that difficult of a concept to live with.

That's the exact reason I think such discrimination is inappropriate.

Your take on incestuous marriage?

“Welcome to the real world, jackass.”

Pretty much. But since they decided to give tax benefits, and all kinds of legal benefits, military benefits, all kinds of benefits to married people, they're obligated to stick their hand in. However, that starts and stops with 1) not forcing anyone to marry a couple or group, because if you want to marry 30 people, why not, and 2) not denying anyone the right to marriage, which means allowing people to be married outside of a religious service.

But no. Of course, the simplest, easiest way is just too good for too many people, and so we have to play games of whose will to crush the rights of others is greatest.

Actually, according to German culture (by way of Christianity), marriage is a social contract which is borne witness to by German society. Said contract comes with both rights and obligations, and these are protected by the German government at the behest of the German people. If the German government chooses to provide certain benefits to the aforementioned couple, due to their being married, that is by choice and is not required.

For gays, gaining the privileges of marriage is not enough, however. It is precisely because gay couples wish to force society's acceptance of homosexuality that they insist upon changing the definition of marriage rather than striving for the bestowal of privileges on "domestic partners" (or whatever other label you choose).


-Khalaq

This is my point. If they were to remove these benefits I would not argue against it.

You understand me, brother :>

Again with the strawmen arguments and sidestepping? What does incest and marraige have to do with gays being allowed to marry?

As a famous comedian once said(para)..."I think they should be allowed to marry and be just as miserable as the rest of us."
Any marriage should get the benefits or none of them should, plain and simple.

I'll jump on that.
Incest creates problems for society, homosexuality doesn't (when properly integrated).

No straw man argument or sidestepping here, just an alternative approach. See below.

Exactly! None, because that’s easier.

@nondeplumage: When you feel the need to employ such arguments than it’s obvious that you are at your wits’ end.

How? Marriage does not equal having your own children. Just ask homosexuals :>

As you said, adoption and surrogate mothers.