No, I wouldnt support women being given voting rights. And I wouldnt support anyone being forced into public schooling; black or white.
Awww how cute. You can adhom just like Baawa.
See, to me you and Baawa have made the fatal error to except that its OK to expand government in certain cases. Call it ‘second best’ or whatever you want, but I still see it as hypocritical.
That’s not an ad hom.
Removing the prohibitions isn’t growing the bureaucracy. And you don’t know what an ad hom is. Please stop trying to sound like you know what you’re talking about. And please don’t think that your silly prejudices won’t be critiqued, either. That you are ashamed of your prejudice by saying that I ad hom’d you when I clearly did not shows that you need to eliminate your prejudice.
Drug laws. Minimum wage laws. Antitrust laws. Insider trading laws. Tariffs. Prohibitions on who can marry whom with consent.
Just wondering something: do you believe that anyone who stands up for gay marriage must be gay? Because that’s like saying someone who supports blacks not being lynched must be black.
Hows thats? Right now there is nothing stopping gays from having their own marriage ceremonies. Why does the state need to sanctify it?
this:
Who says I am offended? Thats right, its because you want to attack me instead of attacking my point; namely, that you’ve allowed your egalitarianism creep into advocacy of growing the state.
When did you lose the plot bro?
The State has always said what it would and would not recognize as marriage, so far as I know, just as the State’s registry of property titles is considered the only enforceable one.
The US has never legislated what its constituent states must recognize as a legal marriage, which stands as an example of one of the very few areas where the federal government has actually stayed within its constitutional bounds.
You can marry whomever you want and structure your affairs by contract however the two or twenty of you wish. You just can’t get a license from the State that says other people have to recognize it as a ‘marriage’ as well.
It doesn’t need to, but it does anyway–and has set up the legal system in such a way as to require some sort of state-blessing so that insurance benefits and all that can happen. Removing a violation of rights is a positive step. Would I like to see the state out of it, period? Yes.
You did. With your response. And I didn’t attack you, nor attack you in place of an argument (which is what an ad hom is).
Look: hate gays all you like. But don’t try to justify your hatred by saying that it wouldn’t “roll back the bureaucracy” to have gay marriage. That’s just dishonest. Just say you hate gays and be done with it.
Not legally. Nor can you legally solicit sex for payment. Nor can you legally ingest certain drugs. Nor can you legally pay someone a wage below that which is set by some government.
Tell me: what would you think of someone who refused to acknowledge a mixed-race marriage as a real marriage? I’m not asking as to whether or not the person has the right to think that way (which the person does). But what would you think of the person?
Actually you can not use contracts to get all the priveleges given to government recognized marriages. Income tax, inheritence tax, survivors benifits, insurance, hospital visitation, the list is ridiculously long.
I don’t think the government should have anything to do with marriage but since they have set themselves up in the marriage business and give tons of benefits to married people then they need to allow whoever wants to get to be able to.
Share a meal, a fireside, and a bed. Simply proclaim it to your friends and family. Married. So simple. Why do the churches and state feel the need to meddle?
It’s so much easier to deal with hatred when people put it out in the open. Trouble is, people are (subconsciously?) ashamed of hatred, so they invent all sorts of “arguments” to hide behind.
Today, I was told elsewhere by one such patriarchal bigot that,
Marriage is based in the opposition and complementarity of the two sexes. It is rooted in the biology of human being…
Marriage has a real meaning involving real fundamental facts of biological complementarity, and it is at the foundation of society.
I was having a lark responding to the guy, but then Neverfox ruined all my fun by smashing him with some good ol’ fashioned Roderick Long (this entry of his on gay marriage, from 2003, is particularly relevant).
Indeed. Marriage is really a bundle of privileges (masquerading as rights) and to some extent obligations. It’s impossible to replicate with contracts, and even in cases where parties have attempted to do so, most bureaucracies have a hard time interpreting them. I remember reading about a gay couple, one of whom was dying of some terrible disease. Well, they had tried their damndest to replicate certain aspects of a marriage “contract” just in case such a misfortune ever befell one of them. And wouldn’t you know it? The hospital refused to recognize the contract as valid, basically denying visitation rights to the healthy one. If you search around on http://kipesquire.net (a lawyer, and self-described “world’s foremost gay libertarian blogger”) you could probably dig up his legal analysis of the practical problems posed by the “contract” argument.
I dont favor giving more power to the state for their (supposed) benefit. But seriously, pulling the ‘you hate ___’ card though? Pretty lame. If I dont favor civil rights laws for blacks, does that mean I hate them too?
I dont mind private contract type unions, call them marriage if that pleases you. I just dont see why we want to give the state another dominion to rule over.
Nor do I. But I also dislike having the government play favorites and/or violate the rights of others. Perhaps you just like seeing Jim Crow-esque laws.
The shoe fits you perfectly.
I would say they are reacting viscerally rather than logically. The social cost from racial outmarriage is not great enough to warrant such a reaction. On the whole, people consistently choose breeding partners within five IQ points of themselves.
Monogamous heterosexual copulation stacks up favorably against homosexual unions or polyandrous unions for a variety of biological, psychological and social reasons. So regardless of your views on the State, there is a logical basis for favoring such unions over other types of unions.
Your comment on the Church is just ludicrous. You can copulate with whomever and whatever you want and the Church will not ‘meddle.’ But the Church is entitled to set its criteria for communion.
These are all subjective valuations. Gay sex doesn’t produce babies, nor does a heterosexual couple who have undergone tube-tying/vasectomy. If churches have corollary rights of free association, so do “dem gays”.
Quite. Now if only some people could apply that same idea to gay marriage.
True. Some people actually prefer shorter life-spans and evolutionary dead ends.
They do, but they don’t have the right to force others to recognize their union as a marriage.