I think you are having a problem replying to my posts. I see that you go out of your way to respond to your own posts so as to avoid giving points. Interesting to say the least. Regardless, you have not addressed the vast majority of the content of my posts. So it is quite clear that you do not have any interest in discussing the issue. You just want to sound off your own opinion.
However, I will be generous and provide some sort of response anyway. If a law were drafted that allowed for homosexual marriage and included things such as tax reductions but not government benefits, then I could support such a law without hesitation. But as it stands, I do not support expanding government benefits to anyone, as it invariably increases state power and aggression. I do support people taking advantage of existing rules, but I do not support expanding those rules.
If you continue to interpret this as discrimination, that is your choice. I can assure you that the matter of someone’s sexual preference does not enter the equation for me at all. What I’m concerned with is not increasing government benefits. I would also like to see them reduced. This is my opinion whether it’s marijuana or gay marriage. I support the legalization of pot. I do not support the increased government control over the substance. So I abstained from voting on the matter in MA.
Discrimination and segregation are tools used by those who control the state. And, by supporting such tools, you are, in fact, supporting state aggression against minority positions within a democracy. You are supporting a religious right wing position, that only holds such power because of the size of its electorate. This is why the rule of law is so important in a state, and especially within a democratic state.
You are not substantiating it because you need to link the idea of “not expanding government benefits” with “aggression”. You just keep restating that they are the same thing. This is not clear. In fact, expanding government benefits is aggression. Note that I am not equating “tax reduction” with “government benefits”. I am equating “receiving public assistance benefits” with “government benefits”.
If you were to demonstrate that “general benefits” such as “tax reductions” outweighed the “government benefits” such as “receiving public assistance benefits”, then I might be willing to reconsider my position. I asked you to do this many posts ago and you chose not to do this. Perhaps you will reconsider.
You are under the belief that “expanding marriage privileges to homosexuals” does not include “expanding marriage privileges”. That is what you are missing.
I agree that extending government largesse is aggression. My point is, once the government extends benefits - of any kind, be it tax cuts or assistance - that those benefits be accessible to all individuals within that state. That is not an expansion of aggression, it is simply an expansion of a the nominal amount of benefits, but it is not an expansion of actual power over the rule of law.
That is what is important, Sweden isn’t less statist because they spend, in toto, less that the US in welfare payments. They are more statist because of the amount laws designed to expand the welfare state, and how those laws control society.
It seems to me that the libertarian position is one that is rationally defensible because it remains consistent with a single axiom, the NAP. It is not defensible by its utilitarian qualities or any other thing at all. Unfortunately, that places us in a position of having to violate our own values if we choose a utilitarian position in instances like state-authorized homosexual marriage.
Whether that violation of principles is worth it to you, personally, is of course your own decision. But it’s not defensible logically as a libertarian position.
Nowhere in that do I see anyone preventing any new or existing health-insurance company from “rebelling” against that arrangement and start accepting marriage certificates from non-church organizations. So how much influence is there again?
See above. With all due respect, I think you overestimate the amount of “control” and “influence” in such arrangements.
As I understand it, a divorce suit involves one spouse seeking compensation from the other spouse for breaking the marriage contract. Unfortunately IMO, compensation is also typically awarded these days in so-called “no-fault divorces”, i.e. where both spouses seek to break the marriage contract. The excuse given for this is that one of the spouses is going to be in a worse financial position as a result. However, I see no reason why this process couldn’t be applied to homosexual couples.
I understand that state-approved marriage is about that right now, and that it’s been about that historically. I think the ultimate point behind “marriage equality” is to get away from that. Furthermore, I don’t think bigamy should be illegal (that is, I think the legal system should uphold marriage contracts made by three or more individuals).
I was asking you to substantiate this: “The state certifies procreative unions as permanent, requiring the state’s procedures and final approval for dissolution.” And this: “They dont decide if youre going steady or not, they affirm that youre stuck raising kids together until further notice.” What I mean is, do you have any evidence that the state necessarily sees marriages as just about having and raising kids together? That certainly hasn’t been my experience, but that could just be me.
In any case, do you not see how legalizing marriage between homosexuals would lead to a rather fundamental change there? At the very least, I think it would necessarily change what the state sees as constituting a family.
Yes, I agree that our current government has values and aggressively coerces money and other things from people. But I see enforcement of contracts as being fundamental to any legal system. Whether it’s monopolized or not is a separate issue. I don’t see how enforcing contracts increases the amount of things that government (as a legal system) is involved in.
What do you mean when you say that you don’t think value-free government sounds like something you would enjoy? What does “value-free government” mean to you?
I think removing all benefits to marriage is a secondary concern to them. I think the way they see it is that, if they’re in the same kind of relationship as a man and a woman are in, and that relationship confers certain rights and responsibilities, then they should have those rights and responsibilities as well, whatever they may be.
How is everyone who’s not legally married encumbered by the benefits afforded to those who are legally married? Not getting those benefits is an encumberance?
Ideally speaking, I’m referring to settlement of assets, custody arrangements, and compensation (alimony, child support) in the event of divorce. I’m also referring to the terms of the contract, although it’s probably inevitable that certain types of contract will be referred to by certain special words, such as “marriage”. I think third parties have an unqualified right to associate and not associate with whoever they wish on whatever basis. So I think it’s legitimate (however I might dislike it personally) if businesses don’t want to cater to homosexuals, or even only to homosexuals who’ve entered into marriage contracts with one another. However, I think a legal system that doesn’t enforce all contracts that I think are legitimate is an unjust legal system.
It is not about equality it is about additional rights. Everyone has the same rights regarding marriage, they are free to marry the opposite sex like everyone else. What homosexuals want is additional rights. It would be no different than requesting the right to legally marry an animal or an inanimate object in my opinion.
Marriage is traditionally a deeply religious act between a man and a woman. Anything contrary to that invalidates the religious side of marriage immediately, as it is not compatible with the popular religions. If it is just about the legal contract side of things and not about the traditional marriage aspect then starting a business together and changing surnames should suffice.
But as I have already said it is not about the religious aspect and it is not about the legal contract side of it. It is about the social acceptability of homosexuality in society and Ill even go as far as saying that some might have an interest in getting married to get some tax benefits or other kind of benefits that are granted due to the marriage contract. Which i may add in my opinion is not a good reason to allow for same sex marriage.
Instead of requesting additional rights in terms of homosexual marriage, I think it would be more effective for everyone if they advocated removing the additional and unfair benefits that one is granted as a result of being married. If anything is discriminatory, it is the benefits that are offered to married couples.
As Doug Stanhope says on marriage, Did you ever love some one so much that you said to your partner, “Lets get the lawyers in on this shit!”
You have your history screwed up. Anti-miscegenation laws were created precisely to prohibit not only interraction marriage, but also interracial cohabitation. Many states created the marriage license for the sole purpose of preventing interracial marriage:
I don’t have the time to look for a better source on that, but I’ve read it before and elsewhere that one of the main origins of the marriage license in the US was to prevent interracial marriages. Anyway, your argument is silly because of the laws prohibiting cohabitation. It’s one thing for the state to not recognize marriage, but it’s another to prevent the relationship entirely.
Also of note is the system placage. It was an extralegal system meant to deal with the absurd practice of state prohibition of interracial marriage. It was not a perfect system, but it was a response to a ban. I don’t see that sort of thing happening today. It’s interesting that in the past, people would have just gone ahead and created their own “law” in order to deal with the shortcomings of statutory law. Today, however, people just don’t feel like actually solving the problems.
It’s amazing how voting has placated the population. Truly amazing.
an insurance company’s decision to accept marriage certificates from non-church organizations would constitute rejection of the antecedent:
So the rejection of the consequent does not trouble me. I think its logical that if one must obtain X in order to achieve Z, and someone controls X, then insofar as one wishes to achieve Z, one is subject to the influence of he who controls X. If X is not necessary to obtain Z, then the above would not be the case. Thats all I am saying.
Awarding compensation for opportunity cost, time spent at home, dissolution of shared assets, and gross breach of contract is one part of a divorce. My point is that government is required to dissolve the marriage regardless of any disputes, even a dissolution or anullment must be filed with the state, and performed by an authorized agent of the state. This isnt a necessary part of all contracts. I dont think its a good idea to expand this government involvement. I would rather see it diminish. I see no good reason to apply this process to homosexual couples, especially when the mainstream trend is generally towards easier, less onerous divorces.
do you think our shared end of “getting away from having the state decide on interpersonal relations” is better achieved through means of expanding the state’s influence in deciding questions of interpersonal relation or diminishing aforesaid influence? Would you rather legalize bigamy by having government deign to recognize plural marriages, or having government cease passing writs of recognizance on marriahes of any type?
My substantiation for my claims is twofold. Firstly, its descriptive. The state does provide benefits for heterosexual marriage. They provide benefits for these couples to have kids. As far as I know, it ranges from somewhat to extremely difficult for gay couples to adopt. So, in purely descriptive terms, the government encourages procreative marriage to the detriment of other couples (who do not enjoy the same benefits). The second part is, I will admit, mostly assumption. I’ve watched enough c-span in my life to make me willing to assume that when laws were modified to favor man-woman marriages and their children the arguments that were put forward to justify the legislation were based around having strong healthy american families. If you are not satisfied, please let me know and I will (attempt to) find you statements from agents of the state to that effect.
yes, I do, however I am thus far disinclined towards large-scale social engineering. I would much rather extralegalize marriage altogether.
I am inclined to believe that if two men wrote up a contract where they lived together, one worked and the other kept house, and if it ever didnt work out they would split household assets 50/50, they could even put in big bold letters “Certificate of Marriage” right at the top, then I think that a court would treat it like another contract. I do not believe that a lawsuit to enforce the contract would be dismissed on the basis of there being two men involved, or sexual orientation, or whatever. Now it might be dismissed if one party was seeking a settlement like some of the more ridiculous divorces, alimony with a life insurance policy on the payer is one of the worst ones, these kinds of settlements are actually becoming fewer and fewer because an entire generation of men has been reduced to indentured servitude and little to no good came of it. So I actually have several reasons to oppose the expansion of this corner of government. I dont feel that the divorce proceedings we currently have are good, and the trend is actually away from that.
we can agree that humans have values. So I interpreted “value-free government” as a power structure with no explicit purpose, a warlordship. The actual thought that came to mind was Seleucus I, one of Alexander the Great’s successors. He established himself in mesopotamia by nothing more than military might, and he gave his wife to his son (from a prior marriage) in marriage in front of his assembled troops as demonstration that he did not care for the laws of gods or men, and that he would do as he pleased. To draw a tangent to an earlier discussion of ours, I find it hard to conceive of a value-free “state” using a van creveldian definition.
I dont agree that the two relationships are of the same kind. As far as I know, most governments do not, which is kind of why we are having this discussion. I dont think government should have an opinion on these kinds of relationships, whereas you think government should modify its opinions. We can agree that those rights and responsibilities are upsetting to social order. What I dont understand is why we would seek an expansion rather than retraction.
its manifestly an encumbrance, I refer you to homosexual couples who wish to relieve themselves of that same encumbrance.
if you will refer to our earlier twofold taxonomy of marriage contracts, I will agree with you as regards the latter type of marriage contract, and disagree about the former. I do not agree with the requirement that a marriage must be performed by an agent of the state. I oppose efforts to expand the role of these agents by expanding the scope of ceremony that they are permitted to officiate over.