State marriage contracts are quite clearly between two people. So, no laws are being expanded, only access to such laws. Plural marriages aren’t being denied anything - nor or people who want to marry their dog - since all existing marriage contracts are only between two people.
thats what we have been doing, thanks.
gays have access to state-sponsored marriage. Its a value judgment that they make in wishing to marry someone who isnt legally marriable. I dont condone expanding state privileges. We want to roll back the state, not make it promote stability and instability because “who are we to judge?” exactly, who are we to judge? End all special privileges.
ok, please explain to me how you can coherently say “get the state out of our lives” and “get the state to sanction my social life as a ‘marriage’”? You can replace those statements with anything you feel accurately represents our two positions, and that can be held simultaneously, without contradiction.
straight men cant marry other men either, so youre wrong, people are not being discriminated against.
If two staright men want to get married, they should have access to existing laws allowing two people of the opposite sex to do the same - same goes for siblings. It is certainly discriminatory for them not to have the same access to state largesse based on sex alone.
Again, we aren’t talkling about expansion of law or power. We are talking about access. One can be for access and against expansion.
Until you can provide some reasons as to why any two people shouldn’t have access to certain priviliges only provided to a certain combination of sexes, i.e. man/woman, then you are promoting segregation. It’s really that simple.
I think this is your goal. State marriage contracts are quite clearly between a male and a female, otherwise we wouldnt even be having this discussion.
this isnt a meaningful distinction. You want to expand the scope of people who obtain special privileges, but not to everyone. Only to include a specific group of people. You have thus far alluded to interventionist, value-laden motives. I have no reason even to believe that we share the same values, rather I have a contraindication, as you are advocating special privileges for a group of people.
you will note that the same argument could be used against yourself. Homosexuals in fact are not being denied anything that is permitted to anyone else, including heterosexuals. Likewise, all existing marriage contracts are between a man and a woman. Except, there are gay marriages, and there are plural marriages, however I am (quite happily) unaware of any zoological “marriages.” but other people choose not to recognize these plural and homosexual unions. At which point I say, remove the coercive arm of the state and let the chips fall where they may! But you think the coercive arm of the state should do things, just do them differently. Just differently enough to benefit a group of people. Hmmmmmmmm
Voting yes to marriage equality solidifies the power of government over the family.
we already have state marrage, it already solidifies the power of government over family.
the government already does regulate marriage, already does have departments for family.
if people want to vote against government power, then voting to abolish state marriage makes more sense i think, as a closer step to abolishing government in the first place if power over the family is bad.
cubfan296,
While there are certain privileges that are legitimately extended, such as tax exemption or reduction, not all of the privileges are of this type. There are a number of benefits where people recieve government money. While I am always for people taking what they can get from the government under existing laws, I do not advocate expanding the laws to increase the amount of people who can recieve money from the government.
Since there are millions of lower class families that recieve welfare, maybe we should just extend welfare to all families, rich or poor. Then it would be fair. Amirite?
they do have access to existing laws, that forbid it. You do not want the existing laws, you want to change the laws.
it most certainly is not discriminatory for two people to have the same access and lack of access to the same benefits. These people want different things. The choices they are making is the discrimination, not the govt laws.
as I said before, you are not drawing a meaningful distinction. Youre advocating expansion of the govt program to favor certain family types. I prefer to do away with the system. If we were legislators we would vote opposite on every bill pertaining to this, its just the way it is. You favor expansion of privileges.
well, thats a good attempt to reframe the discussion but it doesnt work. The burden of proof is on you for two reasons. First, youre the one advocating a change. Secondly, you want the govt to do something, as opposed to stopping doing something. So those are two very good reasons not to do what you want irrespective of any specific considerations. Thirdly, I dont agree that the interventionist arguments made for special privileges conferred upon hetero marriages would apply to homosexual unions. Those arguments would have to be made anew. Imagine if I said that the burden of proof was on you to explain why access to nuclear weapons was not made available to every taxpayer?
I don’t think you are reading what I’m writing.
I’m not advocating that the state do things. I’m simply making an argument; if the state already has established a law or privilige, that acces to that privilige be attainable by all citizens no matter of sex, religion, race, or creed. This is a simple concept of equality under the law, and is in no way advocating for the expansion of government power. Equality under the law is more in line with the NAP principle. Denying individuals rights under state law is not in line with NAP.
This could not be more false. The NAP only states that individuals shall not aggress against other individuals. It says nothing about a third party having the right to aggress against said individuals equally.
the privilege we are talking about is to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you want to expand this privilege to include marrying someone the same sex?
Are you in favor of public schooling segregation in the deep south? Should blacks not have been allowed equal access to public schooling? Are you in favor of apartheid? Should woman not have had the right to vote?
Under your definition of expansion of the state, it’s quite clear that you would support these types of arrangements. As they would pull more individuals into the sphere of state influence, therefore expanding the state.
At some point you have to join reality…
Malachi, don’t forget the government benefits that are extended. It is true that there are some tax reductions, but at the same time there are government benefits as well. I don’t think there is a clear cut answer as to what is right or wrong in this case. I do think that it is very dangerous to expand government control and power, and extending government benefits does just that. That does not mean that they necessarily outweigh the tax reductions, but I’ve never the run numbers, and apparently cubfan296 doesn’t care to either. All I know is it is dangerous to expand government power.
You guys are truly ridiculous.
Allowing the state, nay advocating, that the state agress against people under the law is not lofty nor is it principled.
State marriage contracts exist, they are contracts designed for two people. Denying any two people the rights conferred by that contract is discriminatory and segregationist. The language of a man and woman are irrelevant, just as the language to deny women the right to vote or blacks access to schooling. The state cannot and should not be able to confer special rights to any person or persons based sex, race, religion, or creed. And, to advocate for such policy based on some principled defense of an-cap is asinine.
I’m not in favor of public schooling in any region, its inherently segregationalist, even today.
fat lot of good it did them, heh. No, they shouldnt have been forced to go to the same labor camps as other people.
if its state-sponsored I’m not in favor of it. Are you in favor of slightly amending apartheid so your favorites are on the upside of it?
I dont see what good it did anybody except the government. It certainly mollified half the population that beforehand knew govt was a coercive institution. Is that what you want, you would rather pacify militant gays than explain the nature of the state to them?
now its my turn to tell you that youre not reading my posts.
yup, I dont support compulsory education for anybody.
reality is, you prefer to expand state privilege rather than do away with it.
they exist, they are designed for a male and a female. Your arguments would have more force if you didnt tend to gloss over this little fact as if you didnt want us to notice it, when its actually central to your argument, indeed it is the point. This means you are begging the question.
its got to be relevant to something if you want to do away with it. You cant have it both ways
youre losing the plot. The state is basically defined as a social fiction that confers special privileges on people. And if it shouldnt do that, you cant at the same time advocate that it should do more of the same.
Autolykos feel free to pick it up whenever.
LOL. That’s a good one. We are against aggression, so when we say that we are not in favor of expanding state aggression, you claim this is advocating the expansion of state aggression.
Cute.
Anyway, I just realized that you have been ignoring my posts, so I can see that you are not arguing in good faith.
I’m not in favor of expanding state privilege, I’m in favor of the state not aggressing against people based on sex, race, religion, or creed.
If the state, especially democratic states are to be the reality, then it stands to reason that the rule of law be used to limit the state’s ability to aggress. You can fight the state all you want, but there’s no absolutely no reason to condone or promote the wielding of such an apparatus by those with access and ultimately power to be used against minority positions.
This has to be about the rule of law and defense of equality under that law, not lofty idealism of an anarchy that doesn’t exist.
“Blah blah blah, I don’t support the NAP, blah blah blah.”
Whatever.
I think you are having a problem with understanding what discrimination is, and it’s relevance when discussing the rule of law.
If a state wants to design a contract for two people, then any two people need to have access to that contract, lest it be discrimantory and segregationist. The same applies for any state privilige or function, the wording of the original document is not important in that respect. And, if you want to advocate for the discrimation of state contracts based on sex, then you are, in fact, advocating for the influence of state power - and those who wield it - in favor of the rule of law.
I am almost a pure pacifist, I just understand what reality is.
Again, the state exists, it is a powerful apparatus, and those who wield its power are, in general, shit-heads. Advocacy for the rule of law within that state, to minimize the aggression against those with less power is much more in line with the NAP. Supporting discrimination within the state is supporting the aggression of the state.