So i was have a hard time falling asleep last night and what better way to get bored and doze off than to watch CSPAN. I found myself listening to the supreme court arguments on same sex marriage when justice Kennedy had a question for the proponents of gay marriage, it was something like "would a ruling in your favor open the door for other types of unconventional marriage like two men and two women getting married". The lady responded with no because it could lead to complicated legal issue when end of life decisions or divorces are questioned.
The answer to that question as a libertarian would be "yes they can get married as long as all parties are consenting".
My question is, doesn't this seem like the same shallow argument used to oppress gay marriage up until this point? Doesn't it just create a situation where the minority becomes part of the majority and actively participates oppressing the new minority class? In this way is the LGBT community not attempting to end oppression but rather perpetuating future oppression? Doesn't this way of thinking create a situation where the progressives are always able to pit Americans against one another?
The answer to that question as a libertarian would be "yes they can get married as long as all parties are consenting".
My question is, doesn't this seem like the same shallow argument used to oppress gay marriage up until this point? Doesn't it just create a situation where the minority becomes part of the majority and actively participates oppressing the new minority class? In this way is the LGBT community not attempting to end oppression but rather perpetuating future oppression? Doesn't this way of thinking create a situation where the progressives are always able to pit Americans against one another?
