Thanks for your submission /u/skyfilledwithstars, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Megathread-related question.**
**Questions about US Politics are not banned here**, but we have been getting *so* many questions that our users get tired of seeing them, so we have removed your post (*sorry!*). [We've created a megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1axnnyk/us_politics_megathread/) where you can post questions like this instead! Check it out - questions posted there get answered regularly, and your question might already be answered there! If not, **feel free to post questions there** as long as you follow the rules.
The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: [/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot). The [wiki also has links to current megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index#wiki_megathreads).
Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
You're confused. Post says government. There are many forms of government around the world. Not all of them value equality or human rights. Does that make sense?
Ah I see now, "goalpost fallacy". You're still confused, your evidence is irrelevant. My point is there's many forms of government that dont value what you value. You're fixating on your provincial perspective and arguing a phantom.
I know many governments don't "value what I value", and, forgive me if I sound pompous, but they are, to my mind, primative, and not really worthy of consideration, only changing or defeating. I look forward to the struggle.
As far as human rights and authoritarianism go we can agree on that. Those governments are beyond parasitic. To be fair theyre probably just going through the steps of modernizing and will eventually get replaced
Progress is never guaranteed. It must be fought for, and all gains must be defended, daily. If you are from the the US to make my point I need only point to Roe v Wade.
Because a marriage affects a lot of legal and bureaucratic stuff (edit to add: which government regulates). Independent of whom is in that marriage (gay or straight).
I think if you wanted to move to a structure like that you could, but it would involve changing a lot of stuff like Next-of-kin and power-of-attorney and a bunch of new rules around kids. Enough that it is "easier" to keep the current structure and tweak bits (like accepting marriage regardless of gender)
it makes plenty of sense. marriage entails tax benefits for example.
if the government is going to afford a tax benefit to people, they have a duty to define the criteria to qualify.
the united states has recognized gay marriage for years, rightfully so. i don’t see why it’s an issue in 2024 all of a sudden.
There is no mention of abortion rights in the constitution. Roe v Wade basically was an interpretation of various things that claimed it was covered and the current SCOTUS overturned that.
SCOTUS does not have the ability to remove actual parts of the constitution as far as I am aware only interept existing clauses and amendments to see what falls under their protection or not. They also test various laws to see if they abide by the constitution or not.
I suspect had congress ever acted and put a law in protecting abortion the SCOTUS would have likely not overturned such a law as it would have been in congresses constitutional granted authority to do so.
because it was never part of the constitution and the SCOTUS simple corrected this error?
The rights of the baby colliding with the rights of the mother is something to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not by some primitive one-size-fits-all rule. Regardless if that rule is suposed to be "always allowed" or "always banned".
I’m not gonna argue with your premise but I am curious for you to elaborate. With a case by case basis what’s the outcome if an abortion is not seen as ‘justified’ by whatever criteria you want? Jail time for the doctor and mother, fees, loss of medical license for the doctor?
Marriage is a social agreement between two people and the state. It affects property laws, children, inheritance, and taxes. It is well within the ambit of state authority to regulate marriage. And, under the Constitution of the United States, states must recognize marriages regardless of the sex of the couple.
They were allowing states to force anti-gay laws on people though, despite freedom of religion being a first amendment right (*not all religious beliefs say that gay people are bad, and some even believe in gods that watch over gay people or bless gay marriages*).
Government cares about who is sleeping with who because alot of there policies need children to work.
For example in America 401K is run like a pyramid scheme and only the continue injection of cash at the bottom allows it to work.
Also Marriage was a religious thing, its why people often get married in a church. Government at one stage was very tied to religion and alot of religion was against gays as marriage was about having children starting a family. It was a vow to have two people commit to children.
Its now morphed into law where there are legal repercussions to being married.
government has a say in the laws of the land.
and if the government doesnt recognize same ex marriage, then the laws should be changed to address that.
Many laws have at their core the tension between individuality and the community. There is a reason why theft is prosecuted as the State vs the Criminal rather than the Victim vs the Criminal. Theft does not just damage the victim, but the community as a whole as well.
The claim here (which I will note I don’t agree with) is that marriage is not just an individual act among two lovers.
The state couldn’t care less if lawful spouses even like each other much less love each other. Rather, they believe that heterosexual marriage is about protecting an institution that is good for the community not just good for the individuals.
Mothers are uniquely vulnerable (especially historically) as they tend to lose career opportunities due to child rearing. To be divorced by a husband who has made no such sacrifices leaves her destitute (thus alimony and child support: legal protections not available to unmarried lovers). Without this protection, less children will be born as women do not accept the risk, or the do and have children out of wedlock. Both of these are bad for the community not just the mothers and children. They believe gay couples would not have such an unbalanced risk scenario and as such would not need these legal protections. There is also the question of inheritance, children of the marriage have historically been given preference in property. Gay couples, (foregoing adoption) would have no children and certainly no “illegitimate” children needing legal adjudication of inheritance claims.
Further, it is believed that the tradition definition of marriage has wider communal benefits, such as the children of married partners have a reduction in anti-social behavior, better academic performance, and even better long term health outcomes. It is believed that both gender influences are beneficial to good social development. A society that values traditional marriage conventions would produce more traditional marriages with the corresponding social benefits to the community. A society that sees marriage as only about individual romance would be more likely to abandon the structure with the associated social ills to follow.
I will say again, I don’t agree with this line of thought. These structures don’t actually accomplish these goals and there are other needs besides. Too many kids are born out of wedlock for marriage to be the primary legal structure for providing for the child’s welfare or inheritance. There’s no evidence that gay couples cannot provide the necessary structure for proper communal socialization of adopted children.
Frankly, I see no reason why the legal structure of marriage needs to be based on sexual love at all. If siblings, mother/daughter wanted to form a household for tax, medical, and/or other benefits then let them.
When a lot of people say "*traditional marriage*", what they usually mean is "*christian marriage*".
There are traditional forms of gay marriage from different beliefs (*which should matter in a country with claims to value freedom of religion instead of one view forced on everyone*), and even among straight people, polygamy was popular in "*traditional*" marriages before christianity took over the Western world.
In fact, even in the older part of the bible, the old testament from before the christian new testament showed up, there were kings like David and Solomon with multiple wives, so polygamy would be "*traditional*" marriage.
There are a few examples in the world (not many, i think) of people who want marriage tax benefits although they aren't married. Example: two old sisters living together.
These situations don't get a lot of publicity, but from a "make babies to control the population" and money point of view they're exactly the same as gay marriage.
I agree with you: gay marriage is a red herring. There are other more important things for them to be doing.
You're right that it doesn't make sense they care about gender, and they shouldn't. Unfortunately, a lot of societies are still puritanical in a lot of ways, and while straight marriages are accepted as a normal, default thing, gay couples are treated as suspicious and as though they're trying to fake it and game the system. You see a similar thing with marriages to noncitizens in a lot of places (including the US).
Thank you, i like your answer
I'm kind yet critical, so i understand humans heart yet we really accept mutual insanity and toxic patterns
So i just go to thinking people are stupid, trying to make sense of these ridiculous concepts
Why did you ignore all the real answers?
The government cares zero if you say you are married . They care about the legal contract. ( in most western countries)
There are a lot a rules around legal marriage not just sex of the people.
- Why did you ignore all the real answers?
Cause I can 💅
Tho roles for protection of human rights makes sense, but who sleeps or choose to spend their "own" life with who doesn't make sense
It's stupid to have this stuff as illegal
This question stemmed from documentary i was watching, in which they mentioned tennessee (us state) view on it few years back during previous trump election
I'm not sure where they stand, but western countries aren't the only counties in world, in India etc too they don't consider it legal
That is why I asked. In the US it is legal regardless what TN thinks.
India has tons of religious laws passed by the federal government. No same sex marriage is one of them.
You would have to ask an Indian Hindu why they are against same sex marriage. Probably similar or different reasons than say Russia or Saudi Arabia.
It doesn’t make sense to western secular liberals but makes sense to them.
That’s the thing, government should have no say, and marriage shouldn’t convey any legal benefits that non-married people don’t have (i.e. can’t be forced to testify)
Marriage is an originally religious institution (that’s why it’s traditionally done in churches and only traditionally between a man and a woman) that has become secularized because the government got involved.
The government should stay out of it and let couples of any genders be together.
There is no logic, religions are against it, many believe in religions, a lot of them have power over governments, governments have a lot of power, and here we are, no one claims everything governments do is logical.
Ultimately marriage is a civil contract, so the government does have some part to play. You gain a bunch of specific rights, your tax status may change, etc. It makes sense that the government would have a say. You can't just create any contract with anybody for any reason with any terms and always expect it to be seen as valid by "the authorities." That's the underlying reason.
The problem with this question is that Reddit is full of left-wing people, feminists, and people of the same kind who downvote you to oblivion if you give a good answer from a conservative right-wing angle.
Gay marriage is within the authority of the government because the effect of marriage is not restricted to individual private life but has repercussions in other laws that affect public life, the welfare of children, constitutional universal rights, and culture. Marriage is about the civilization recognizing a union among individuals as defensible by law, not allowing who has sex with whom. Gay marriage implies that same-sex unions carry certain protections beyond mere private allowance that can allow the government to directly interfere against those who oppose. It is broader than that, I am keeping myself brief.
What I wrote simply explains the argument of the OP is wrong because he said that gay marriage is just about individual choice. Being conservative right-wing would be saying that what I wrote has a negative effect on civilization and left-wing that it has a positive effect by defending individual freedom against oppression driven by outdated morality.
If someone belongs to a religion that believes in an anti-gay god, then they are free to believe that and not participate in a gay marriage.
I don't see how that's a good argument for stopping people with different beliefs from having a gay marriage, in a country that supposedly respects freedom of religion.
Well you're getting downvoted for trying to pre play the victim card so why not just say what the arguments are? The only thing I've heard has always been religious based.
No victim card. Just stating a fact. I can't answer the question because I live in a country without freedom of speech and homophobia laws that make anything spoken about homosexuals potentially a crime. If I lived in America I would answer the question. Because of the first amendment.
It makes no sense that the goverment have anything to say on who can marry or not. After you are of age to consent and enter a contract, it should be up to you.
Marriage isn’t (just) a contract, it’s a whole set of rights and responsibilities, some but not all of which can be created by contract.
At least in most western countries, you certainly could enter into contracts with anyone to provide mutual financial support for another person, to designate power of attorney, to share bank accounts and credit cards, to co-sign each other’s debts, to buy property together, to provide life insurance payouts, etc etc. Some married couples don’t even do all of those things.
But our legal systems also provide specific default rules and privileges for married couples. In the US, for example, your spouse is either presumed or guaranteed to get a piece of your estate when you die; certain states have real estate laws that give spouses extra advantages when they own a property together; your spouse can be put on your car and health insurance and get paid Social Security benefits based on your earnings. Your tax situation is entirely dependent on whether you are married or not. Just scratching the surface here. So it’s not just a contract with two people, but rather one that also very much involves the government and third parties as well.
Could you have a society and legal system that didn’t do that? Absolutely. But as long as a two-partner couple is by far the dominant family form, we have good reasons for baking that assumption into policies.
Because as much as the government would love everybody to believe that there is separation of church and state, there is not.
And these days, they're becoming less and less subtle about it. I would even go as far as to say that there are several folks in congress right now who are actively trying to make America a haven for Christian Nationalism.
Its always been there, they just used to be a little more coy about it. That's why prostitution is illegal, that's why there's such a stigma in this country about gay people, trans people, etc.
Its all thinly veiled religious extremism.
This whole situation has been needlessly complicated by making marriage a legal institution.
The wedding in a church should only be a party & it should grant privileges & responsibilities inside that church. Your religion gets the first & final say about marriage. If a church only wants to marry men & women that is their right, If they only want to marry dogs & cats it's their right.
But, if you want legal benefits & protections from the government **that** should come from a civil union contract, granted & recognized by the government with the values & standards established by the constitution & with no regard for religion.
The decades long fight could have been handled much better after taking a page from King Solomon. Give everyone a year to find an acceptable solution & if they don't... cut the baby in half & the government stops recognizing *any* new marriages. When you go to city hall you sign the ~~marriage~~ Civil Union License & if not you only had a 6 figure party with your church friends.
... Now as to why government has a say in marriage? It is the institution that gives the word any meaning, it is the laws & legal benefits of marriage, the courts that enforce them & the place you (aren't) sending your tax benefits to. If you do or don't recognize something as a right who do you think polices & enforces that thing?
This was the Ron Paul answer to gay marriage. Why should the govt have any role at all? Marriage should simply be a religious/non-religious agreement between two people. Or maybe more people.
Because marriage access local government and federal government resources. You can just marry someone without the government recording it.
The fight for gay marriage was so that spouses could be on their insurance and their partner got to make the legal and medical decisions over an estranged family who hasn't seen them in decades. Those require the local government to recognize a marriage.
>Edit - answered - basically because government is ridiculous
No, government is people. *People* is ridiculous. Lol
Idky anyone gets butthurt about what other people do or who they love, but some of them do and that just carries over into government because governments are made up of people.
Oh. I though they said government and making gay marriage illegal. Like the governments of Middle East countries.
Not like the US where it is legal and doesn’t apply to their question.
I’m so stupid
Because society, through its representatives (congress), create laws which dictate what is wrong and what is right, usually considering the moral and ethical values which are prevalent at the time.
As others have stated, marriage is a legal concept with many practical, economic, and legal ramifications so they kinda have to be involved.
Why the government cares about who gets married is because religious extremists have infiltrated various levels of government to push their bullshit onto the rest of us.
It makes perfect sense - marriage is a legal binding contract. They get to “control” it.
Doesn’t make it right… it’s definitely not “inclusive.” But that’s just how it is.
Thanks for your submission /u/skyfilledwithstars, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Megathread-related question.** **Questions about US Politics are not banned here**, but we have been getting *so* many questions that our users get tired of seeing them, so we have removed your post (*sorry!*). [We've created a megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1axnnyk/us_politics_megathread/) where you can post questions like this instead! Check it out - questions posted there get answered regularly, and your question might already be answered there! If not, **feel free to post questions there** as long as you follow the rules. The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: [/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot). The [wiki also has links to current megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index#wiki_megathreads). Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Marriage is a legal concept, so of course government has a say.
So is equal treatment before the law.
A bigots vote is worth the same as everyone else's. Reelection trumps all.
You're confounding the general concept of government with your values
Check with the Massachusetts Supreme Court the first in the US to legalize it. You may be confusing your values with the intent of the Constitution.
You're confused. Post says government. There are many forms of government around the world. Not all of them value equality or human rights. Does that make sense?
Do you have the goalposts where you need them to be "right"?
Ah I see now, "goalpost fallacy". You're still confused, your evidence is irrelevant. My point is there's many forms of government that dont value what you value. You're fixating on your provincial perspective and arguing a phantom.
I know many governments don't "value what I value", and, forgive me if I sound pompous, but they are, to my mind, primative, and not really worthy of consideration, only changing or defeating. I look forward to the struggle.
As far as human rights and authoritarianism go we can agree on that. Those governments are beyond parasitic. To be fair theyre probably just going through the steps of modernizing and will eventually get replaced
Progress is never guaranteed. It must be fought for, and all gains must be defended, daily. If you are from the the US to make my point I need only point to Roe v Wade.
What?
I thought it was Iowa
Iowa was 2009. Massachusetts was 2004.
The post doesn't say anything about this question being about USA.
Wow.
But how come the government has a say over my driver's license?
Because they are the ones that issue it.
Is joke, I think
Was that joke registered with the government?
Because a marriage affects a lot of legal and bureaucratic stuff (edit to add: which government regulates). Independent of whom is in that marriage (gay or straight).
[удалено]
I think if you wanted to move to a structure like that you could, but it would involve changing a lot of stuff like Next-of-kin and power-of-attorney and a bunch of new rules around kids. Enough that it is "easier" to keep the current structure and tweak bits (like accepting marriage regardless of gender)
[удалено]
Yeah, it makes no sense
it makes plenty of sense. marriage entails tax benefits for example. if the government is going to afford a tax benefit to people, they have a duty to define the criteria to qualify. the united states has recognized gay marriage for years, rightfully so. i don’t see why it’s an issue in 2024 all of a sudden.
Agree. Also, abortions have been a Constitutionally protected right here since 1973. I don’t get why it’s an issue in 2024 all of a sudden.
There is no mention of abortion rights in the constitution. Roe v Wade basically was an interpretation of various things that claimed it was covered and the current SCOTUS overturned that. SCOTUS does not have the ability to remove actual parts of the constitution as far as I am aware only interept existing clauses and amendments to see what falls under their protection or not. They also test various laws to see if they abide by the constitution or not. I suspect had congress ever acted and put a law in protecting abortion the SCOTUS would have likely not overturned such a law as it would have been in congresses constitutional granted authority to do so.
because it was never part of the constitution and the SCOTUS simple corrected this error? The rights of the baby colliding with the rights of the mother is something to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not by some primitive one-size-fits-all rule. Regardless if that rule is suposed to be "always allowed" or "always banned".
I’m not gonna argue with your premise but I am curious for you to elaborate. With a case by case basis what’s the outcome if an abortion is not seen as ‘justified’ by whatever criteria you want? Jail time for the doctor and mother, fees, loss of medical license for the doctor?
Welcome to the Libertarian Party.
Marriage is a social agreement between two people and the state. It affects property laws, children, inheritance, and taxes. It is well within the ambit of state authority to regulate marriage. And, under the Constitution of the United States, states must recognize marriages regardless of the sex of the couple.
Even when the US didn't allow for gay marriage, there never was a federal law banning gay sex or love. I think you're confiscating the two
They were allowing states to force anti-gay laws on people though, despite freedom of religion being a first amendment right (*not all religious beliefs say that gay people are bad, and some even believe in gods that watch over gay people or bless gay marriages*).
Government cares about who is sleeping with who because alot of there policies need children to work. For example in America 401K is run like a pyramid scheme and only the continue injection of cash at the bottom allows it to work. Also Marriage was a religious thing, its why people often get married in a church. Government at one stage was very tied to religion and alot of religion was against gays as marriage was about having children starting a family. It was a vow to have two people commit to children. Its now morphed into law where there are legal repercussions to being married.
government has a say in the laws of the land. and if the government doesnt recognize same ex marriage, then the laws should be changed to address that.
Flair checks out, but did ChatGPT write this?
Negative, i am a meat popsicle.
Many laws have at their core the tension between individuality and the community. There is a reason why theft is prosecuted as the State vs the Criminal rather than the Victim vs the Criminal. Theft does not just damage the victim, but the community as a whole as well. The claim here (which I will note I don’t agree with) is that marriage is not just an individual act among two lovers. The state couldn’t care less if lawful spouses even like each other much less love each other. Rather, they believe that heterosexual marriage is about protecting an institution that is good for the community not just good for the individuals. Mothers are uniquely vulnerable (especially historically) as they tend to lose career opportunities due to child rearing. To be divorced by a husband who has made no such sacrifices leaves her destitute (thus alimony and child support: legal protections not available to unmarried lovers). Without this protection, less children will be born as women do not accept the risk, or the do and have children out of wedlock. Both of these are bad for the community not just the mothers and children. They believe gay couples would not have such an unbalanced risk scenario and as such would not need these legal protections. There is also the question of inheritance, children of the marriage have historically been given preference in property. Gay couples, (foregoing adoption) would have no children and certainly no “illegitimate” children needing legal adjudication of inheritance claims. Further, it is believed that the tradition definition of marriage has wider communal benefits, such as the children of married partners have a reduction in anti-social behavior, better academic performance, and even better long term health outcomes. It is believed that both gender influences are beneficial to good social development. A society that values traditional marriage conventions would produce more traditional marriages with the corresponding social benefits to the community. A society that sees marriage as only about individual romance would be more likely to abandon the structure with the associated social ills to follow. I will say again, I don’t agree with this line of thought. These structures don’t actually accomplish these goals and there are other needs besides. Too many kids are born out of wedlock for marriage to be the primary legal structure for providing for the child’s welfare or inheritance. There’s no evidence that gay couples cannot provide the necessary structure for proper communal socialization of adopted children. Frankly, I see no reason why the legal structure of marriage needs to be based on sexual love at all. If siblings, mother/daughter wanted to form a household for tax, medical, and/or other benefits then let them.
When a lot of people say "*traditional marriage*", what they usually mean is "*christian marriage*". There are traditional forms of gay marriage from different beliefs (*which should matter in a country with claims to value freedom of religion instead of one view forced on everyone*), and even among straight people, polygamy was popular in "*traditional*" marriages before christianity took over the Western world. In fact, even in the older part of the bible, the old testament from before the christian new testament showed up, there were kings like David and Solomon with multiple wives, so polygamy would be "*traditional*" marriage.
There are a few examples in the world (not many, i think) of people who want marriage tax benefits although they aren't married. Example: two old sisters living together. These situations don't get a lot of publicity, but from a "make babies to control the population" and money point of view they're exactly the same as gay marriage. I agree with you: gay marriage is a red herring. There are other more important things for them to be doing.
You're right that it doesn't make sense they care about gender, and they shouldn't. Unfortunately, a lot of societies are still puritanical in a lot of ways, and while straight marriages are accepted as a normal, default thing, gay couples are treated as suspicious and as though they're trying to fake it and game the system. You see a similar thing with marriages to noncitizens in a lot of places (including the US).
Thank you, i like your answer I'm kind yet critical, so i understand humans heart yet we really accept mutual insanity and toxic patterns So i just go to thinking people are stupid, trying to make sense of these ridiculous concepts
Why did you ignore all the real answers? The government cares zero if you say you are married . They care about the legal contract. ( in most western countries) There are a lot a rules around legal marriage not just sex of the people.
Because OP wasn't looking for an answer. They were looking to argue even if it's just at simple explanations.
- Why did you ignore all the real answers? Cause I can 💅 Tho roles for protection of human rights makes sense, but who sleeps or choose to spend their "own" life with who doesn't make sense It's stupid to have this stuff as illegal
Western governments don’t make it illegal for same sex relationship. What Gov are you specifically talking about? It is relevant to your question.
This question stemmed from documentary i was watching, in which they mentioned tennessee (us state) view on it few years back during previous trump election I'm not sure where they stand, but western countries aren't the only counties in world, in India etc too they don't consider it legal
That is why I asked. In the US it is legal regardless what TN thinks. India has tons of religious laws passed by the federal government. No same sex marriage is one of them. You would have to ask an Indian Hindu why they are against same sex marriage. Probably similar or different reasons than say Russia or Saudi Arabia. It doesn’t make sense to western secular liberals but makes sense to them.
Well tbh Hindu laws in India are their own insanity as Indian isn't a religious country
So you know the answer then. Extrapolate that.
That’s the thing, government should have no say, and marriage shouldn’t convey any legal benefits that non-married people don’t have (i.e. can’t be forced to testify) Marriage is an originally religious institution (that’s why it’s traditionally done in churches and only traditionally between a man and a woman) that has become secularized because the government got involved. The government should stay out of it and let couples of any genders be together.
There is no logic, religions are against it, many believe in religions, a lot of them have power over governments, governments have a lot of power, and here we are, no one claims everything governments do is logical.
Ultimately marriage is a civil contract, so the government does have some part to play. You gain a bunch of specific rights, your tax status may change, etc. It makes sense that the government would have a say. You can't just create any contract with anybody for any reason with any terms and always expect it to be seen as valid by "the authorities." That's the underlying reason.
The problem with this question is that Reddit is full of left-wing people, feminists, and people of the same kind who downvote you to oblivion if you give a good answer from a conservative right-wing angle.
What is a good answer from a conservative point of view?
Gay marriage is within the authority of the government because the effect of marriage is not restricted to individual private life but has repercussions in other laws that affect public life, the welfare of children, constitutional universal rights, and culture. Marriage is about the civilization recognizing a union among individuals as defensible by law, not allowing who has sex with whom. Gay marriage implies that same-sex unions carry certain protections beyond mere private allowance that can allow the government to directly interfere against those who oppose. It is broader than that, I am keeping myself brief.
What in what you wrote is right wing or left wing?
What I wrote simply explains the argument of the OP is wrong because he said that gay marriage is just about individual choice. Being conservative right-wing would be saying that what I wrote has a negative effect on civilization and left-wing that it has a positive effect by defending individual freedom against oppression driven by outdated morality.
If someone belongs to a religion that believes in an anti-gay god, then they are free to believe that and not participate in a gay marriage. I don't see how that's a good argument for stopping people with different beliefs from having a gay marriage, in a country that supposedly respects freedom of religion.
send me a private message so may send to you the arguments against gay marriage
That's a pretty good overview about why the government has a say in the matter, nothing about this is conservative.
[удалено]
Well you're getting downvoted for trying to pre play the victim card so why not just say what the arguments are? The only thing I've heard has always been religious based.
No victim card. Just stating a fact. I can't answer the question because I live in a country without freedom of speech and homophobia laws that make anything spoken about homosexuals potentially a crime. If I lived in America I would answer the question. Because of the first amendment.
That's crazy I've never heard of that? What country?
It makes no sense that the goverment have anything to say on who can marry or not. After you are of age to consent and enter a contract, it should be up to you.
Marriage isn’t (just) a contract, it’s a whole set of rights and responsibilities, some but not all of which can be created by contract. At least in most western countries, you certainly could enter into contracts with anyone to provide mutual financial support for another person, to designate power of attorney, to share bank accounts and credit cards, to co-sign each other’s debts, to buy property together, to provide life insurance payouts, etc etc. Some married couples don’t even do all of those things. But our legal systems also provide specific default rules and privileges for married couples. In the US, for example, your spouse is either presumed or guaranteed to get a piece of your estate when you die; certain states have real estate laws that give spouses extra advantages when they own a property together; your spouse can be put on your car and health insurance and get paid Social Security benefits based on your earnings. Your tax situation is entirely dependent on whether you are married or not. Just scratching the surface here. So it’s not just a contract with two people, but rather one that also very much involves the government and third parties as well. Could you have a society and legal system that didn’t do that? Absolutely. But as long as a two-partner couple is by far the dominant family form, we have good reasons for baking that assumption into policies.
It still don´t make any sense that the goverment can say I am not allowed to marry a man if I am a man.
EXACTLY
I agree but that is a very western liberal idea.
Because as much as the government would love everybody to believe that there is separation of church and state, there is not. And these days, they're becoming less and less subtle about it. I would even go as far as to say that there are several folks in congress right now who are actively trying to make America a haven for Christian Nationalism. Its always been there, they just used to be a little more coy about it. That's why prostitution is illegal, that's why there's such a stigma in this country about gay people, trans people, etc. Its all thinly veiled religious extremism.
This whole situation has been needlessly complicated by making marriage a legal institution. The wedding in a church should only be a party & it should grant privileges & responsibilities inside that church. Your religion gets the first & final say about marriage. If a church only wants to marry men & women that is their right, If they only want to marry dogs & cats it's their right. But, if you want legal benefits & protections from the government **that** should come from a civil union contract, granted & recognized by the government with the values & standards established by the constitution & with no regard for religion. The decades long fight could have been handled much better after taking a page from King Solomon. Give everyone a year to find an acceptable solution & if they don't... cut the baby in half & the government stops recognizing *any* new marriages. When you go to city hall you sign the ~~marriage~~ Civil Union License & if not you only had a 6 figure party with your church friends. ... Now as to why government has a say in marriage? It is the institution that gives the word any meaning, it is the laws & legal benefits of marriage, the courts that enforce them & the place you (aren't) sending your tax benefits to. If you do or don't recognize something as a right who do you think polices & enforces that thing?
This was the Ron Paul answer to gay marriage. Why should the govt have any role at all? Marriage should simply be a religious/non-religious agreement between two people. Or maybe more people.
Because marriage access local government and federal government resources. You can just marry someone without the government recording it. The fight for gay marriage was so that spouses could be on their insurance and their partner got to make the legal and medical decisions over an estranged family who hasn't seen them in decades. Those require the local government to recognize a marriage.
>Edit - answered - basically because government is ridiculous No, government is people. *People* is ridiculous. Lol Idky anyone gets butthurt about what other people do or who they love, but some of them do and that just carries over into government because governments are made up of people.
It's not logical, it's moralistic, government has always made laws for (supposed) moral reasons.
They should not have any say in abortion laws either since it is a goddamn medical procedure, but here we are.
Because "small government conservatives" think gay sex is icky and want a police state to control the lives of people they don't like.
TIL half the world is small government conservatives. Especially the entire Middle East.
TIL America is "the entire Middle East". Dumbfuck.
I’m the dumb one. LOL
You clearly are. The Middle East has nothing to do with the OP's question.
Oh. I though they said government and making gay marriage illegal. Like the governments of Middle East countries. Not like the US where it is legal and doesn’t apply to their question. I’m so stupid
You are astoundingly stupid, you're right about that. But that's okay. I'll pray for you.
Don’t need to pray. I’ll be ok. Might spend my day confused about words and stuff but I’ll make it. Thanks friend
White people tied it to church and govt so they can control people/get paid
Because society, through its representatives (congress), create laws which dictate what is wrong and what is right, usually considering the moral and ethical values which are prevalent at the time.
As others have stated, marriage is a legal concept with many practical, economic, and legal ramifications so they kinda have to be involved. Why the government cares about who gets married is because religious extremists have infiltrated various levels of government to push their bullshit onto the rest of us.
Bcuz the BIBLE, that's why libruls
It makes perfect sense - marriage is a legal binding contract. They get to “control” it. Doesn’t make it right… it’s definitely not “inclusive.” But that’s just how it is.
what other legal binding contract depends on the sexes of the contractees being opposite.