Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Ben Kenobi]

And yes, there are morally legitimate forms of coercion, else the legal system would be pretty worthless -- you'd have to politely ask criminals to stop breaking the law if you weren't able to impose fines, community service, imprisonment, etc. on them (all of which are forms of coercion). However, a majority arbitrarily restricting the liberties of a minority is a morally illegitimate form of coercion, which is why your "coercion through popular vote" proposal is unsatisfactory. Whether or not a majority like or dislike gay marriage (or anything else, for that matter) is morally irrelevant.

You still are left with the task of showing how the state by refusing to intervene, constitutes 'coercion'. Normally, coercion only occurs when the state intervenes.

In this, you would need to argue that marriage, as it stands, is an arbitrary coercion. This I think I have already shown is not arbitrary, that the state has good motives for promoting marriage.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


A.
So what rights are denied to them? They are permitted to marry in same manner as anyone else.


B.
And these institutions exclude homosexuals? I have already agreed with you that if people can let their dogs inherit their money, then they ought to also let gay people do so.

C.
As for pension rights, the state has no obligation to provide benefits or to distribute them on the basis of equality. They are not required to pay Vets as much as other people, neither should private organisations be required to pay pensions, if they do not wish to do so.


D.
On the grounds that this is what is best for children. The rights that one person enjoys do not supercede the rights of others.


E.
Is a person prevented from naming a gay person as his proxy in these matters?


F.
Is insurance required to cover people who are a higher risk at the same cost as everyone else? No.

G.
Divorce provisions are provided to marriage only, to encourage people to marry. Homosexuals are not excluded from obtaining these provisions, except by their own desires.


H.
State has no obligation to admit any immigration.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

It's difficult to know if you're being deliberately disingenuous, or just ignorant, but I take issue with anyone who equates in legal terms, someone's lifelong partner with a dog.

I suppose it suits your purpose, for when you concentrate on sexual acts to describe the loving human relationships between lesbians and gay men you downgrade all that those relationships are, to purely physical acts. So it comes as no surprise then, that you consider pets and gay men and lesbians to be on an equal legal footing.

Your first objection has been answered ad nauseam, because with the regularity of a dog returning to its vomit, you bring it up again and again. A legally binding marriage as exists for consenting heterosexuals, is denied for consenting gay men and lesbians, for no other reason than outdated custom. Customs change as societies change.

With regard to pension entitlements, not all states or societies agree with you, fortunately for women and part time workers:

'Women in particular get a raw deal from discrimination, finding it hard to build up the same pension entitlement as men. Most notable is the exclusion of part-time workers for the right to claim admission to occupational pension schemes. Union challenges to this blatant discrimination led to landmark decision of the House of Lords in the Preston case which established the right of part-time workers to seek admission to the pension scheme to as far back as 1976.

There are many other ways in which pension schemes discriminate and the T&G seeks at all times to eradicate such discrimination.

Occupational schemes have discriminated against young workers by not letting them join; they have discriminated against low-paid workers by the use of 'clawback' or 'integration', a form of scheme design that gives them less pension.

Most of all they have discriminated against same sex partners and co-habitees because they do not meet the definition of 'spouse'. This blatant discrimination exists in both public and private sector pension schemes and the union has had much success in persuading schemes to change their rules in this respect.'

http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Int...deID=90045&L1=-1&L2=90045

and:

"The reform of pension systems must ensure greater gender equality in the European Union

Issues of gender inequality and gender discrimination run throughout the debate on pension systems in the European Union. Pension systems have a considerable impact on gender equality, not only among older people, but also in the way that the systems influence the choices made by women and men during their lifetime. Most gender discrimination in pension systems is indirect, although direct discrimination also occurs.
The objectives of any pension reform should therefore be two-fold:

- Individualisation of pension rights (and social security- and taxation systems overall) in order to encourage both women and men to engage in paid work, and thus earn individual economic security;

- Pension systems must develop mechanisms that accommodate employment patterns linked to the societal need for care of children and other dependant persons (career-breaks, part-time work etc).

Any reform of pensions systems must also ensure older women of today a higher level of individual security.


Women’s work and life patterns differ considerably from those of men and existing pension systems do not accommodate the life patterns of many women. Many pension schemes in the EU Member States are still based upon a traditional nuclear family-model of a male “breadwinner” and a non-employed wife. This leaves many women with “derived rights” based on their husband’s employment record and without individual pension rights."

http://www.seniorweb.nl/eu-pensions/docs/EWL%20contribution%20to%20AGE%20position

How interesting that you would choose to ignore or condone discrimination based on gender, age, and salary.

With regard to parental rights and privileges, I'm not talking about superior rights for one partner or set of partners, I'm talking about equality of rights before the law- and I don't think you're best placed to judge what's right for children.

In many cases where a gay man or lesbian is suddenly taken ill or dies, their partner HAS NO LEGAL STATUS.

This is not the same with heterosexuals, as is abundantly obvious.

"UNISON says it helped draw up the guidelines after hearing case studies of lesbian and gay couples who, as well as often struggling with being ill or caring for an ill partner, also had to regularly come out to health workers who questioned their relationships.

One such person was Sam, whose partner was diagnosed with a serious illness.

"When my partner was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, it was a devastating blow," he says.

"What made matters even worse was having staff in the home and other health professionals continually querying who I was.

"I had power of attorney and we took the decision to tell staff about our relationship, but that didn't stop them questioning whether I was the most appropriate person to make decisions about my partner's affairs."

http://uk.gay.com/article/2761

I'll ignore your petty remarks about 'higher risk' insurance- I know it stems from your bigotry and ignorance, and charitably I'll put it down to you not being able to help it, rather than ascribe it to personal animus on your part.

" With the government’s civil partnership proposals far from passing into law, gay people still face fiscal discrimination on a range of everyday financial issues, writes David Self

When Nigel Hawthorne, the actor famous for playing Humphrey in Yes Minister, died 15 months ago, his partner, the playwright Trevor Bentham, was faced with the problem of inheritance tax (IHT). Currently 40 per cent, it is payable on that part of an estate above the value of £250,000. Bentham was reported as having ‘to scrape together a huge amount of liquid cash to pay for this tax at a time when I was suffering all kinds of traumas’.

In 1973, two clients of Chris Morgan at Compass Financial Advice bought a simple London terrace house at a modest price. Robert and Bill (not their real names) have lived there together, as a loyal husband and wife might do, for 30 years. But Robert is older than Bill and currently is facing up to the fact that he has probably just entered his final illness.

Their house is now worth just over £500,000 and when Robert dies, Bill must find around £75,000 to pay IHT. In this case, the couple are not ‘cash-rich’ and Bill’s grief will be compounded by the need to sell the family home. Yet if Robert and Bill (or Hawthorne and Bentham) had been heterosexual married couples, there would not have been a penny of IHT to pay.

Take pension rights, for example.

Such couples should not have too much trouble as far as personal pension plans are concerned. It is not hard to find a scheme which allows the beneficiary to nominate any partner as recipient of benefits on the death of the holder. Occupational pension schemes are another matter.

A year ago, it was possible to state that none of the major public pension schemes in local government, health or teaching provided survivor benefits for same-sex couples. Many of these schemes still do not recognise such couples – a gay person’s pension dies with its holder. Unlike a spouse, the partner is left with no entitlement benefits either pre or post retirement. For the fact is that while workplace discrimination on racial grounds is illegal, it is not currently illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

Even though pending employment equality legislation will outlaw some workplace discrimination by December, spousal benefits will not be legally affected. Despite this, Jane Mudge, pensions specialist at Isis Financial Planners (which offers advice to the gay community), notes that some schemes are starting to change: ‘And most private schemes will also have to come into line. They are beginning to recognise that the law will eventually alter.’

More immediately, pensions remain an issue on which both employed and self-employed gay and lesbian people often need help. For example, in circumstances where there is a disparity in wealth between two partners, it might be beneficial for one partner to employ the other on a part-time basis and to set up a stakeholder pension scheme.

Those in occupational schemes might also take the advice of Fiona Sharp, an adviser with Finance 4 Women. ‘If you can nominate a beneficiary, write down “financially dependent” by their name if it’s an obviously gay relationship. It may make a difference with the trustees.’

Mudge believes it is also worth writing to the trustees of any such scheme, to see if they will accept a same-sex partner in their definition of ‘spouse’. Nevertheless, even if you do manage to complete such an expression of wishes form (sometimes called nomination of beneficiary form),

THE TRUSTEES OF THE SCHEME MAY STILL IGNORE YOUR WISHES.

Another fraught area is life assurance.

Gay men, however, can face seemingly impossible hurdles when seeking cover, maybe in connection with even the most simple mortgage. This seems to stem from insurers’ fear of an A.I.D.S. epidemic, a fear that is

CURRENTLY ACTUARIAL NONSENSE

since the total number of people in the UK dying from HIV-related illnesses (including drug abusers) is only around 500 a year.

In order to get life insurance or income protection (for health insurance) the gay man is likely to be asked to complete a lifestyle questionnaire (LSQ) and take an HIV test. His answers may result not only in his getting a quote that loads his premium fourfold but also in the addition of his answers to a database. Not surprisingly, gay and gay-friendly IFAs stress the importance of not applying through a bank. Several can obtain cover without an LSQ.

The good news is that last December the British Medical Association and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) came to an agreement that insurers should no longer be allowed to ask GPs questions about applicants’ sexuality. Compass’s Morgan has spotted the companion bad news: some assurance providers immediately toughened up the already prurient but still legally binding questions they put to applicants.

Morgan, however, is involved in negotiations involving the ABI and the Terence Higgins Trust and is encouraged by a readiness of some insurers to learn from statements of best practice.

Among other legal protections, the scheme would provide pension rights, next-of-kin status and IHT rights for same-sex couples. Some have argued the proposals should be extended to all unmarried couples. Government spokespeople have indicated such a step might be ‘too difficult’ (for which read ‘too expensive’). Others have justified its limited extent on the grounds that marriage is not an option for gay couples.

Somewhat surprisingly, given its recent stance, the Conservative party has not reacted adversely. Indeed, Oliver Letwyn, the shadow home secretary, welcomed the initiative. But opposition is still likely to surface in the Lords, where the vocal Christian Institute has many allies. In a recent press release it attacked the plans on the grounds that they devalued marriage because ‘the special benefits of marriage [would be] given to those in homosexual relationships’.

Interestingly, that other group so often anxious about such reforms, the bishops, might not prove so inflexible on this occasion. One bishop who sits in the House of Lords said anonymously they were

'SYMPATHETIC TO ISSUES RELATING TO NATURAL JUSTICE

where they affect partnerships of different kinds from marriage’.

http://www.gayfinance.info/gay-discrimination/gay-financial-discrimination.htm

The protections afforded by divorce provisions in some states in the United States and Europe apply also to UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES- and not to gay or lesbian couples.

Discrimination exists in immigration, based in many cases it seems solely on the genitals of your partner:

'Until recently, same-sex partners were not recognized as members of the family class, and could only be admitted to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Section 12(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (”IRPA”) provides that a “common-law partner” may now qualify as a member of the family class. No definition of “common-law partner” is provided in the Act, although accompanying documentation makes clear that it is intended to include same-sex partners.

Regulation 1(1) defines “common-law partner” as “an individual who is cohabiting with the person in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year” -

Regulation 1(2) provides an exemption from the one-year cohabitation requirement for couples unable to cohabit “due to persecution or any form of penal control”.

Regulation 3 excludes from the definition of “spouse” and “common-law partner” bad faith relationships entered into for the purposes of immigrating to Canada.

Regulation 109(2) provides that a fiancé(e) or intended common-law partner may be admitted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, provided they demonstrate withi~ 15 months that they meet the definition of common-law partner (i.e. cohabitation).

Section 38(2) of the Act provides an exemption from the medical “excessive demand” prohibition for common-law partners under the family class, but this exemption does not necessarily apply to those admitted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Nothing in the Act or regulations specifies that same-sex partners are included in the definition of “common-law partner”, which therefore lacks transparency. In many countries, the term “common law” refers only to opposite-sex common law partners.

Cohabitation is a wholly unrealistic criterion in the immigration context, since couples of different nationalities often can’t cohabit - precisely because immigration regulations do not yet permit them to live together in the same country

The proposed definition of “common-law partner” would almost certainly be unconstitutional. Gay and lesbian couples in a bona fide relationship are subject to an unrealistic and often unattainable cohabitation requirement.

HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES IN A BONA FIDE RELATIONSHIP CAN SIMPLY MARRY AND HAVE AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT OF ENTRY INTO CANADA

with no requirement of cohabitation.'

How entirely unsuprising to discover that you wish to maintain a second class status for gay men and lesbians.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is some thread...

Whaleboy:

Then you're problem is on public displays of homosexual relationships? That's a woefully tired and flawed position, since you're making a "should" or "ought" statement from your own highly subjective, bigoted opinions that fortunately are heading into the minority anyway, so you can't even use democracy as your defense!!

1. Even if I had a problem with public displays of homosexual relationships, I have not said that they should be banned, and the participants tossed into jail.

2. It's a form of expression, and I'm rather libertarian on expression, so long as it doesn't violate the laws on indecent exposure, which apply across the board.

[Ben Kenobi]

Odin:

BK, There is no enviromental influence on homosexuality, that is religious righ bullsh*t.

Homosexual desires, or homosexual actions? I would agree with the former, but not with the latter.

Some of my right would be most happy to disagree with me on the first point.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the meantime, I will stick with my opinion that is backed up by the American Psychological Assocation and the American Medical Assocation.

Which, by the way is a very recent change.

I'm going to have some fun with the APA right now. Here's from their FAQ at:

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#conversiontherapies

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.

.................................................. ...........................

Now, since this is to be considered an extremely hostile piece to my argument I get some liberties in my commentary. There are two places that I have noted some very key words.

First of all :

1. Why should it matter if the source comes from an organisation opposed to homosexuality? If their claims can be proven, then ideology should not matter. It is no surprise, that although the APA claims to be a neutral organisation, that this is their first attack.

It would seem logical, that a neutral commentary would focus on the lack of documentation, rather than the ideology of the participants, since it shouldn't matter whether a cat is black or white, or in this case Christian, provided their claims can be shown.

2. APA does not provide an extensive refutation of the claims, but rather asserts that they are undocumented by the standards established by the APA. Thus, it becomes rather easy for the APA to sift out research that it does not approve.

3. Thirdly they affirm the clients right to 'unbiased' treatment, rather than what one might expect, that they have a right to treatment, provided that the treatment is based upon sound medical principles, intended to do no harm to the patient. Bias should not creep into medicine.

The very fact that APA excludes treatment based on bias moves them from the realm of medicine to politics and philosophy.

4. Finally, the APA affirms the right that the therapy would take place, rather than in an accredited medical clinic, that ensures the health and safety of the patient, that the first concerns are 'neutral' and 'absent of any social bias'.

One is left with the question of what precisely constitutes a 'neutral' environment, and what constitutes 'social bias', rather than the more pertinent question of certifications and safety.

[Ben Kenobi]

Molly:

In some matters I am ignorant, and I have generally asked for futher clarification in these matters.

I am not after anything more than to understand the whys and hows of these specific laws. I want to hear from them why the laws have been put into place the way that they have, before I can really assess why they ought to be changed.

Any reasonable reformer ought to carefully examine the laws that he would like to change in order to get a better understanding of why they were established.

is denied for consenting gay men and lesbians, for no other reason than outdated custom. Customs change as societies change.

I don't believe pensions are an entitlement to be provided to everyone. I certainly don't believe that this was the intent of those who established the pensions.

Is this not discrimination, molly? Yet, it is an important question, because it renders irrelevant your critique as to why the laws are the way they are. They are not just based on social custom, since the older custom was that families, and not the state ought to support themselves. Thus, pensions would be unnecessary in the face of adequate familial support.

So, if you argue that customs change, that does not support your argument that pensions ought to be distributed on the basis of equality.

'Women in particular get a raw deal from discrimination, finding it hard to build up the same pension entitlement as men.

That's quite a shift in thinking. From pensions allocated to those truly in need, to an 'entitlement' that ought to be provided to everyone.

Union challenges to this blatant discrimination led to landmark decision of the House of Lords in the Preston case which established the right of part-time workers to seek admission to the pension scheme to as far back as 1976.

And what was the counter-argument? That I would be interested to see. It is one thing to cite the exponents and their declaration of 'discrimination', and quite another to hear the counterargument.

have discriminated against young workers by not letting them join; they have discriminated against low-paid workers by the use of 'clawback' or 'integration', a form of scheme design that gives them less pension.

Well, I would rather be excluded than see the pension system collapse. It is the lot of all the young people in this great country that we have been screwed into maintaining a system of pensions, such that we will pay money that we will never see.

How is this beneficial to anyone? Yet, those who want to park up to the trough neglect to take this into account. Someone has to pay for pensions, and I'd rather see those who are in need get them.

One of the reasons for this are the demographics. In order to support pensions, you need young people to pay into them. Supporting and encouraging families, is how the pension system survives so it makes sense to favour those who will bear a greater share of the burden from pensions, to recieve more of the benefits.

Now, onto the second point:

and could only be admitted to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

As well as it should be. I argue that we ought to let everyone in, but as so long as the government chooses to restrict immigration, they are under no requirement to do so on the basis of equality. It would be nice if they did so, but the current system discriminates on the basis of wealth, in excluding poor people. I would argue that we are doing this all wrong. We should let in the poor people, and lower our welfare payments, rather than increasing our welfare, and excluding the poor immigrants.

People are the source of how a country grows, and Canada is very protective of who they allow to immigrate into Canada. It is a fallacy to point out the discrimination in one case, while neglecting the obvious authority of a country to discriminate in the basis of immigration.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

How would you establish that married people are more devoted than common law folks? That's a pretty hard determination to make.

Like this:

"In 1998, Statistics Canada released statistics indicating that 63% of couples living common law, with children, break up within 10 years. This is compared to only 14% of legally married couples with children, who break up within ten years."



Of course, you like to read those statistics as saying "recieving a marriage certificate strengthens the bond between two people and stops them from falling out of love", but whatever.

[Jarouik]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Gay marriage is something else entirely. You are now saying that because one is gay, one ought to receive protection from the government. This crosses the line, from equality, to favouritism, or discrimination.

Excuse me? I thought straight people *already* receive protection, in the form of marriage. As long as gay people don't receive the same protection, it is discrimination. I am not demanding *separate* rights for gay people, I am demanding the rights *already* afforded to straight people.

[Straybow]

mb, I find the diversion as to whether the Greeks defined vocabulary equivalent to modern terminology to be both pedantic and assinine.

The fact is that Greeks had only heterosexual marriages despite the very wide array of sexual arrangements that included types we today would classify as "homosexual."

Xenophon's observation that "man and boy live together like married people" in some states notwithstanding, as no legally binding relationship existed. Hence the difference between marriage and other social conventions. Even within those alternate social conventions the "adult catamite" was considered an abberation (look it up, its in the materials you cited), and either tolerated or not as such.

Note that while other Greek states grew in population and power Sparta continually declined. Xenophon's ingenious formula for marriage did not foster reproduction as he expected and Sparta was barely able to field a full legion in the end.

As for changes in the social status of marriage, they are direct results of changes in the social status of women, not the other way around. Change in the social status of interracial marriage is a direct result of changes in the social status of formerly pejorated races, not the other way around. A change in the social status of "gay marriage" will not create a change in the social status of gays.

(And thus the lawyer's arguments you cited about marriage are correct in the abstract but incorrectly applied to race as a distinction; whereas the distinction between sexes is fundamental to the definition of marriage.)

Tampering with marriage is not something to be done lightly, and that is precisely what the argument from "gay rights" advocates becomes. Marriage as a social convention is debased as failure, and therefore extending the diminished priviledge to gays is no big deal.

[Giancarlo]

Just seeing how this works:

Straight marriage is something else entirely. You are now saying that because one is straight, one ought to receive protection from the government. This crosses the line, from equality, to favouritism, or discrimination.
------------

I must call B.S. Either way. Marriage has been afforded to heterosexuals and they have received benefits that gay couples haven't. Who is supporting favoritism and discrimination now? If you don't support gay marriage you are supporting discrimination. That simple. This is where I break with George Bush on issues. According to one site, gay couples are being kept out of 1049 federal entitlements married heterosexual couples have. Does that sound fair? You are one of the biggest discriminators here, Ben.

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/03356536.asp

"The first refuses federal recognition to same-sex marriages, denying those involved in such marriages 1049 federal entitlements, such as Social Security survivor benefits, coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the right to file joint tax returns."

Who is being denied rights now? And who is being favored? You have one distorted view, Ben.

This was a speech I wrote on the subject:

http://www.glomar.net/corner/gaymarriage.htm

[Straybow]

Excuse me? I thought straight people *already* receive protection, in the form of marriage. As long as gay people don't receive the same protection, it is discrimination. I am not demanding *separate* rights for gay people, I am demanding the rights *already* afforded to straight people.

Nobody denies you the option of marriage. Nobody says you have to love the woman you marry, or feel sexual attraction for her, or even be faithful to her as long as she's understanding. Heck, look at the Clintons.

If you want to marry a man, you are in fact demanding a separate right: the right to redefine marriage contrary to current and historical social convention. Why cannot the Mormons redefine marriage for polygamy, contrary to current convention, where they can at least point to hoary traditions however long dispossessed in the West?

If you want the right to name a common-law beneficiary, medical power of attorney, co-ownership of assets, etc that is a matter that can be handled independent of marriage.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Straybow

Excuse me? I thought straight people *already* receive protection, in the form of marriage. As long as gay people don't receive the same protection, it is discrimination. I am not demanding *separate* rights for gay people, I am demanding the rights *already* afforded to straight people.

Nobody denies you the option of marriage. Nobody says you have to love the woman you marry, or feel sexual attraction for her, or even be faithful to her as long as she's understanding. Heck, look at the Clintons.

Here we go with the nonsense argument. First off yes you are denying us rights by not allowing us marriage. It is not a seperate right. To say it is, shows severe distortions in your argument. You are again wrong.

If you want to marry a man, you are in fact demanding a separate right: the right to redefine marriage contrary to current and historical social convention. Why cannot the Mormons redefine marriage for polygamy, contrary to current convention, where they can at least point to hoary traditions however long dispossessed in the West?

Here we go with the stupid cause and effect argument that makes no sense what so ever. Gay marriage is just like heterosexual marriage. It shows that a couple is ready to go to the next level. Don't even try to bring up polygamy or any of that crap into this since it has nothing to do with it.

If you want the right to name a common-law beneficiary, medical power of attorney, co-ownership of assets, etc that is a matter that can be handled independent of marriage.

Marriage must be given to gay couples in order to ensure equal rights. You are calling for segegration, and we have seen in the past where that seperate but "equal" (actually very unequal) nonsense got us. Rights will still be denied to 5-10% of the population because they happen to love somebody of the same gender.

[Provost Harrison]

Same should apply to straight people too...I consider marriage to be an outmoded concept. But either way, there should be complete parity...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
PH:



I agree with you in the case of sodomy regulations, even while those on my right do not.

Again, reductionism...sodomy or marriage, it is none of your business. Just because you think gays should have the right to have penetrative sex does not qualify your position any further.

Then why do we have laws against incestuous marriage, and polygamy? Surely that is the state interfering in the lives of private individuals.

I agree, they are an infringement of civil liberties. If consenting adults want to get married in higher multiples, so be it. If incestuous couples want to get married, so be it.

I argue that the state does have a responsibility to intervene, and in the issuing of marriage licenses, requires the intervention of the state. Therefore, it is not wrong for the state to be involved in marriage.

Basically, no state, no marriage licenses.

It is not the role of the state to stand in moral judgement. Why should it openly condone heterosexuality? Are you advocating the state restricting individual freedom?

Parliament is hardly a lynch mob. We are not talking about legalising the beating of gays. Marriage involves everyone, and therefore, should come to a free vote in Parliament.

No, marriage involves the couple involve. It is a contract between those two, a bond between those two. It is the role of the state to provide the necessary legislation and framework, not to stand in moral judgement. You still do not grasp the difference between democracy and tyranny of the masses. People have rights as long as they do not infringe the rights of others. The mass does not have the right to impose it's will when the issue is a private matter. Lynchmob or parliament in this instance, the concept is the same - one forcing it's will on the other by sheer force of numbers.

[Solly]

"The mass does not have the right to impose it's will when the issue is a private matter."

But marriage is necessarily a public issue, as it requires state intervention, so you're being hypocritical and your argument does not follow at all.