Re:Britons: You Have 72 Hours to Stop the Snooper's Charter
by PhasmaFelis on Saturday January 24, 2015 @07:26PM
(#8941601)
"Anti-marriage" is a completely different, basically unrelated position than "anti-gay marriage," just as, say, "anti-gun ownership" is a completely different position than "only white people should be allowed to own guns." You've presented a coherent, non-bigoted argument for the anti-marriage position; it does nothing to legitimize the anti-gay marriage position.
Re:Britons: You Have 72 Hours to Stop the Snooper's Charter
by AnthonyMouse on Saturday January 24, 2015 @11:46PM
(#8942069)
> You've presented a coherent, non-bigoted argument for the anti-marriage position; it does nothing to legitimize the anti-gay marriage position.
That was already covered. The argument is that allowing gay marriage will reduce support for the anti-marriage position. If gay marriage is denied then supporters of gay marriage will prefer to support the anti-marriage position rather than supporting marriage when they can't participate in it, which is preferred if you're anti-marriage.
Ironically the corollary to this argument is that allowing gay marriage preserves the institution of marriage.
Re:Britons: You Have 72 Hours to Stop the Snooper's Charter
by mercer on Monday January 26, 2015 @04:47AM
(#8946219)
That's a fascinating argument that feels a bit too clever. Do many people actually hold this position, or is it more of an interesting train of thought?
Re:Britons: You Have 72 Hours to Stop the Snooper's Charter
by lotsofmangos on Saturday January 24, 2015 @12:28PM
(#8940226)
When you replace all the social functions of the state with a collection of privatised NGOs, those NGOs just become the state and you are back to square one, only with even less representation.
I can give you one.
The state should have no involvement in the institution of marriage, and instead the latter should be privatized and handled by non-governmental organizations. The terms of a marriage contract should be outlined solely by the individuals (or the service/organization providing the contract for individuals), which can then be optionally arbitrated by courts and/or registered with a state entity so as to work out issues like visitation rights.
Only then will marriage equality be achieved.
That said, this is more of an "anti-marriage" (at least in its current conception) argument than a specifically anti-gay marriage one, but it naturally intersects with gay and all other forms of marriage.
The anti-gay marriage part comes into play when you say that legal recognition of same-sex marriages serves as a feel-good quick patch solution that will only slow down or even diminish support for more profound solutions to the problem of marriage equality.