I wrote this in relation to the UK, but seeing as it's an issue in the US too you can all still comment and give your opinions.
Give your opinions on the issue and on the document itself. Please make all criticism constructive. Regardless of your stance in this debate, be respectful to others. Feel free to challenge their viewpoints but in a gentlemanly way AND BE KIND.
I know there'll be a few mistakes here and there so I'll do my best to fix 'em.
While that is true that marriage in America (and the UK) was originally strictly between a man and woman, that really should have no effect on its current state other than its place as a current law which may be changed. Slavery was legal at our beginning. That was changed. Change is one of the most defining characteristics of our history, arguably more than what we began with. I shan't enter the debate as to whether it is libertarian or not, as my knowledge of that is exactly nothing, but the founding fathers were not gods among men, and were not flawless. Just men with power.
The founding fathers didn't invent marriage, and, as far as I know, didn't even write any laws about it. Who cares that they weren't flawless? Nobody's basing an objection to gay marriage on the founders' definition of marriage. I'm not even sure they wrote a definition of marriage.
Good point, if the founding fathers did not have any involvement in the creation of the laws regarding marriage, then they certainly are not to be pointed at. I shall then amend my statement to the lawmakers who did in fact make marriage something have to do with laws. You stated that the legalization of gay marriage would be some form of meddling with an apolitical subject, but that is simply not true. The advocates of gay marriage don't expect to change everyone's opinions about it, merely what privileges are associated with it. I am talking purely about the legal side of this, as for the religious connotation and terminology, I personally don't care what its called as long as the same privileges are endowed upon all marriages between consenting adults...you could call it a mutual domestic legally binding contract for all I'd care. However, that is stated from the point of view of a heterosexual who will never have to worry about baseless negative judgement if I marry.
Marriage isn't a set of privileges. Advocates of gay marriage do care about the terminology. If I recall, civil unions have been offered and rejected on several occasions as "separate and unequal".
Ultimately, this is about moral equivalence, not tax breaks and visitation rights. Its about the "baseless negative judgments" you mentioned. Laws can't change judgment. Nor should they try to.
Hoping not to get burned here, as I'm an Australian and know very little about the libertarian side of anything - but - wouldn't the libertarian side be that the people should be allowed to decide what their definition of marriage is on their own rather than deciding that they will 'not interfere' by leaving it the same?
No. Asking the government to intervene to fix the definition of marriage is not libertarian.
Marriage is not libertarian at all.
Care to elaborate?
Hmm, I may have jumped the gun on that one, now that I think about it. I have some strong libertarian leanings, to the point that I may have mistakenly labeled myself as one, something I try to avoid in all cases. My ego, rather than my rationale may have said marriage is not libertarian... but since I said it, I at least owe an explanation of my reaction.
I was going to say something along the lines of:
"If what you say is true, then ANY marriage is asking the gov't to fix the definition of marriage, gay, straight or otherwise",
but as you said before, marriage is not defined by gov't, but rather merely recognized by gov't, (which by the way is an idea with which I'm not so sure I agree fully), but in any case, that isn't necessarily incompatible with libertarian ideals, aside from perhaps gov't simply meddling in something it ought not to in the first place (which I do agree with), but I do believe that argument stands on it's own as it relates to the gay marriage argument, libertarian or not.
Another of my initial reactions was about how marriage recognizes a group (2) of people rather than an individual for the purposes of granting special rights and privileges, which definitely seems incompatible with libertarianism, but I'm not so sure if that holds water either when you open it up. Other legal entities exist which consists of 2 or more people. Companies, corporations, non-profit organizations, etc, within which individual rights are still recognized.
I might have to revisit this one.
Outside of preference what is the justification for gay marriage? because we want to is not an answer......
The 'justification' you're going to get is that gay people should be guaranteed the right to marry whomever they want under the equal protection clause of the 5th and 14th amendments (or alternatively the right of free religious expression), and that the government should not be allowed to discriminate between gay couples and straight couples in the determination of who is allowed the benefits of marriage.
Gay people don't just 'want to'. They believe they have the right to, and therefore that the denial is unconstitutionally discriminatory.
alot of arguement i hear about this issue is that it is an infringement of civil rights and i disagree to that. Homosexuals can vote, own propterty, own a business, recieve an education where every they can afford and qualify for, hold political office, practice medicine or law, teach etc.... African Americans, Japanese Americans, Mexican Americans, Irish Americans, Native Americans, ETC have at different points in our nations history been denied all of these rights... civil rights to include legal representation. The Jewish were denied these rights in Nazi Germany. To say it is a civl rights issue is incorrect to me, but i do not know how to catagorize it.