Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A conservative's position on SSM, therefore, is less about rights than about how he feels about promoting particular types of relationships
Which begs the question "How is their relationship any of your business?"
It isn't. Hence why I'm advocating against having a government status that rewards gay couples if their relationships met certain conditions (which is a way of regulating/controlling the relationship).
Seriously. Step back from the issue for a second and consider what we're really talking about. If I told you that I wanted to influence the behavior of a group of people in society, so I'm going to create a legal status that they can qualify for, and which provides them a whole list of benefits, but only if they change their behavior to match what I want them to do (and enter into a legal contract regulating their behavior), would you say what I'm doing is making that group more or less free? Am I fighting for their rights? Or fighting against them? I'm certainly creating a cost to them for *not* doing what I want them to do, right?
What do you think the marriage status does? It's not about
allowing two people to live together as a couple. They can do that already. It's not about
allowing them to love each other. They can do that already. It's not about
allowing them to give each other permission to make medical/legal decisions for each other. They can do that already too. It's not even about
allowing them to enter into a binding marriage contract that requires shared property and responsibility for each other and mandates paternity of one partner if the other becomes pregnant. They could also do that if they chose to (and could even chose to define that contract any way they want to). It is entirely about
requiring them to enter into that one government defined binding marriage contract. Now, if you were going to choose to do so already, then there's no cost, but then there's also no need for the status, is there? The requirements for the status exist because not everyone would choose to enter into that kind of binding and legally enforceable marriage contract if they had the choice. So by creating it, we're trying to influence that choice. Period.
I'll say again. It's not my business. I have no vested interest one way or the other as to the nature of same sex couple's relationship. That's exactly why I oppose applying our current marriage status to them. I guess the big difference is that liberals seem to view the marriage status with its attendant benefits as a "right", while I view it as a means of coercion. Surely you can see how I find it ridiculous when someone argues I'm violating someone's rights in this situation. That's not remotely how I view the marriage status.
Edited, Mar 18th 2015 8:38pm by gbaji