Gays must be getting married. Oh, the drama. Look at the millions of dollars spent to address this “crisis”. Good grief. Just think what good that money could do at a time when we’re on the verge of a recession or even a depression.
October 24th, 2008
that’s a really funny one
This particular comic could have come from any ‘ol left-wing blog. I’m here to uphold a higher standard!
(1) I guess my previous comment about REAL anarchists not eating their lunch in a public park fell on deaf ears…
(2) I think we should boycott the M word, though “gays must be signing family contracts” is a mouth-full.
(3) Polygamy is a far more interesting issue to support, including exclusively-gay polyandry or whatnot. I’d bet there are far more would-be polygamists in the world (of any gender combination imaginable). From what I gather, most gay guys aren’t big on commitment. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I agree with Alex on this one. But while we are at it, let’s not forget polyamory.
I’m not sure what “we” you’re talking about, but many of us freestaters do support polygamy, polyamory, &c.. There’s a Yahoo! group that was started by a couple freestaters, for example:—
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NHPoly/
i think this is anarchy relevant only because the state is trying to intervene to prevent it and play social favouritism, but yeah, “Marriage” is a state institution. still marriage laws are some laws, and then laws on who or who can’t get married are *more* laws on top of that.
i get what Alex is saying, and also what Dale is saying.
and yeah, i think poly is a perfectly valid contractual option. i’ve seen BDSM “families” where everyone was contracted to the Master and/or Mistress and everyone got along great. some quite successful households actually, with all the different incomes and everyone committed to it. hey it’s a hedge against the economy, and never a dull moment!
Heheh, Alex? You almost can’t make a private park anymore! Besides, if you drive you’re using public roads. If you run the tap, you’re using public water. If you turn on the light you’re using public electricity. If you take a dump, you’re using public sewers. They boxed us in. Might as well grab a seat on an available bench and chow on lunch, since there isn’t much alternative given, heh.
One of the most horrid things the state ever got involved with was good old fuckin’ and child-rearin’. The most invasive position it can be in, is in our orifices. Yet the nosier of the religious types seem to demand it. It’s one of those unintended consequences things. First, there’s immigration. Since it would be cruel to leave one married person stranded in the homeland while the other is stranded here, it gets into the definition of marriage. Then it demands taxation, and since it would be insane to tax an income supporting two as much as an income supporting one (but apparently not as insane as taxing it at all…), the tax agency gets involved in the definition. Then there’s insurance regulation, custody… All this shit government shouldn’t even be in. Children aren’t property, dammit! They’re not property, slaves, chattel, bonded servants, or anything else. Gov has no business deciding that person A must be fucking person B, or living in the house of person B, or financially tied to person B.
Hell, let’s face it, government doesn’t belong doing anything. An archon! No more kings!
Erm, weird, my post should’ve been made right after Ethan’s.
Anyway, yeah. The annoyance with this effort against permitting the secular institution of marriage (ie, those legal statuses and such) to those who don’t conform to the *religious* ideal for marriage is that the state is involved. The religious types mostly get up in arms because the same word as their religious institution is used, but legislative marriage doesn’t even generally require the church ceremony. Like any of the other topics where the fanatics try to force themselves into the state because they see the secular way as being forced on them by the state (or if I’m not in the mood to give them the benefit of the doubt, see it as a way to get their way without that pesky process of trying to convince others to believe as they do), and those of us not subscribing to the fanatic vision try to keep them the hell out of the state so they can’t force their way on us, the problem could be most readily solved by the state not having any connection to the topic. Then the religious could fail to recognize non-religiously-sanctioned unions, the rest of us could continue to associate how we please, and we’d all be the better for it.
And the best way to avoid the state not having any connection to such topics is *drumroll* not to have a state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/business/21plan.html <– latest example of a fucked up state doing fucked up things. You shouldn’t have to log in, I didn’t. But it’s about how the fed gov is trying to “encourage” mergers among banks. It seems they don’t want to prop the “unworthy” banks. So they’re trying to make the “worthy” ones buy up the “unworthy”.
Oh good grief, Alex.
(1) How do you know it’s a public park, and more importantly, who the fuck cares? Is this a “hill to die on” as Ridley likes to say? So yeah, deaf ears, pretty much.
(2) Whatever.
(3) I’m not supporting anything. I’m making fun of people who are making a BFD out of gay marriage, i.e. all those fundies and Mormons throwing fits and spending lots of money to try to prevent a harmless activity.
You really get hung up on some weird stuph.
Before you continue with this gay thing too long can i just voice some thoughts:
1) To me homosexuality is like transexuality; both unhealthy and mentally absurd. Do you know the amounts of happily married homosexuals? Not many. This in a way proves they are sex-crazed and lack self control, which is a stereotype, which is another word for profile.
2) They say homosexuality is genetic, that means either of two things:
a) they will die out because they will never produce offspring.
b) there isn’t any real gay-gene, for the same reason there isn’t a gene Twix gene and a snickers gene. If it is not a gene then it is environmental, which explains why there have been gays around since the middle ages.
In conclusion; if you mix environmental pressure, with unhealthy behaviour then you have homosexuality. Besides how could any sane man turn down all these beautiful females!
Truth-er:
I will take your opinion for what it’s worth. Market price. Which I paid.
The problem I have with this whole stupid non-issue is not whether or not “gays” think the benefits of marriage outweigh the idiocy. The problem is why the stupid CHURCHES still insist on whoring themselves to the state by requiring marriage licenses for their alleged ordained sacrament.
IIRC the sordid history of this infantile cataloging process was purely racist to begin with. Can’t have respectable white girls getting seduced & hitched up with black men -OR- can let people of loose morals spread their “clap” to rest of the virginal society at large.
Geezzzzusss H. F. Christ… If marriage is supposed to be so damn holy and you are opposed to how the state chooses to define participation then OPT-OUT of the process! Plain & simple, marry within the belief structure of your faith and do not bow the knee for state-santioned permission.
W.W.J.D. indeed…