>>25
I'd like to start off by noting a misconception about my opinion of culture. Other cultures are not inferior, one culture may be absolutely evil, but cook well, this doesn't mean their food must also be inferior which would be absurd, thus no culture is inferior.
I believe that cultures are a collection of ideas and customs and that some of these ideas are more important than whether you enjoy sticking your penis in another guy's rectum or not and that such ideas cannot be accepted. I agree that tolerance is good for diplomatic purposes, because it is outside the culture you have enterred. However if important ideas conflict with your important ideas you should not have to tolerate them. For instance, the belief that husbands should be able to beat their wives is an important belief shared by some and if it conflicts with my important belief that violence is unnacceptable I will not be tolerant of it if it occurs in my country, but I will tolerate it if it occurs in the country which practices that culture. However if the same people of that culture believe that they should wear bright clothes and I find some of those clothes slightly annoying, I will be tolerant, since it is an unimportant part of their culture and doesn't matter wherever it is practised.
As a result of this rational understanding of culture, I would say that only the libertarians have the correct view of how laws should proceed. For instance they register marriage as a legal contract and that in theory anyone should be able to simply make a contract and call it a marriage contract if they want and that there should be no special laws concerning it.
Marriage, gay marriage or not, is an unimportant part of culture, it lives within the realm of liberty, thus treating itt as though it is in the realm of justice is an infringement of liberty and as a result an infringement of justice.
Legal contracts however live within the realm of justice, we live every day with contracts which state that property and legal tender belongs to us, thus infringements of legal contracts abuse both liberty and justice.
As a result any laws concerning marriage are null, but people should be free to make legal contracts and call it a marriage contract. Legally it has nothing to do with marriage and is merely a representation of marriage in legal terminology. A robot would scan it and say, these 2 people want to make an unusual contract, fair enough, no problem there *stamp*.
Democrats and republicans are too scared to question things in such detail as their reasonning skills are affected by emotional considerations and various action groups with something up their jaxies.