Spine Doner List

[TommyGunn]

Viking-era Iceland comes to mind.

Well, that's one.   You sure they didn't have a "council of elders" or some group to make decisions?

You brought up the question of what happens to property after a marriage terminates and implied that the fact that government courts will get involved at that stage is some sort of defense of government licensing of marriage.  Since courts can be involved in property disputes when non-marital partnerships dissolve, or when children are brought into the equation I don't see it as that much of a stretch at all to apply the same rationale to those situations.

Well, I see it as a stretch.......

You brought up the question of what happens to property after a marriage terminates and implied that the fact that government courts will get involved at that stage is some sort of defense of government licensing of marriage.  Since courts can be involved in property disputes when non-marital partnerships dissolve, or when children are brought into the equation I don't see it as that much of a stretch at all to apply the same rationale to those situations.

Or were you arguing against the (as yet unargued) concept that if a situation in any way involves marriage that the government should never intervene?  If so, I think you're missing the point about what most people mean when they say "get government out of marriage."

No, I don't think I am "missing the point," but I do wonder how much thought some other people give to it when they say government should "get out of marriage."  It's a pretty sweeping statement, and as we see it can involve a lot esp. in the dissolution of a marriage.
I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another.  I don't care if govt. is taken out of marriage to the degree you mean, or Microbalog, or others, but I see very general statements being made without (apparantly) thought being given to how reralistic it is, or what some consequences might be.
If that isn't true, fine. 
Just really trying to provoke a little deeper thought than a meaningless battlecry "get the govt. out of ______."

[Fly320s]

Whatever the nature of the commitment between gay couples is, it is not marriage, by definition.

Says who?

Not trying to be flippant, just asking. I've never heard marriage defined as anything other than two adults entering into a contract of sorts.

[Perd Hapley]

Says who?

Not trying to be flippant, just asking. I've never heard marriage defined as anything other than two adults entering into a contract of sorts.

No one believes for a minute that you are that ignorant. You know what marriage is.

[cordex]

No, I don't think I am "missing the point," but I do wonder how much thought some other people give to it when they say government should "get out of marriage."  It's a pretty sweeping statement, and as we see it can involve a lot esp. in the dissolution of a marriage.

Perhaps I can't speak for everyone who believes in a more limited role for government, but my interpretation is typically "get the government out of defining marriage."

Just really trying to provoke a little deeper thought than a meaningless battlecry "get the govt. out of ______."

Fair enough.  It is a rare battle cry that fully explains an issue inside and out, but that doesn't take away from the issue itself.

[MicroBalrog]

Well, that's one.   You sure they didn't have a "council of elders" or some group to make decisions?

They had an annual assembly called the Ting. They certainly were not a 100% anarchy, but then 100% Communism and 100% anarchism have never existed either, and yet we talk of the Soviet Union  as being "Communist" and of the US as being "Capitalist". Neither you nor I are classroom anarchists, I fail to see the need to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The point is, for many, many years they had no taxes, no state officials, no police, and no marriage licenses.

So they're as close to an anarchy as actually can be done outside science fiction novels. And, observe, they had no tax benefits for married couples. They managed somehow.

[Fly320s]

No one believes for a minute that you are that ignorant. You know what marriage is.

Actually, that is exactly what I believe.

[Scout26]

What about breeding licenses?

As long as there is a test.  With several essay questions.  500 words or more.  Spelling and grammar count.

[Scout26]

Oh, and as an aside, the only time ANYONE has ask for my marriage license was when I reported in at Ft. McClellan for Officer Basic so they could cut orders so the WINO could join me in Germany at .gov expense. 


No other employer ever asked (think health/medical insurance, etc.).

Not one.   Never took it out of the file cabinet at home once.

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, that is exactly what I believe.

Oh, so you've decided to tell yourself that marriage isn't what it plainly is. I see.

[Fly320s]

Oh, so you've decided to tell yourself that marriage isn't what it plainly is. I see.

No, I decided that marriage is between two consenting adults. Government agencies, religous institutions, and internet commandos don't factor in.

You might not like it if it doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas, but that is how freedom works.

[Ron]

No, I decided that marriage is between two consenting adults. Government agencies, religous institutions, and internet commandos don't factor in.

You might not like it if it doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas, but that is how freedom works.

You can believe whatever you want, the problem comes in when you try and use the power of the state to make us accept your delusions.

[CNYCacher]

As a married christian libertarian, I find it difficult to fathom how everyone gets so worked up about this. To me it seems rather simple, I am twice married in the eyes of two different institutions: God and the government.  Almost 9 years ago I stood before God and all the earthly people I hold dear and I pledged my life to the woman who is now my wife, and she reciprocated, and we were then married.

After all that was said and done, we got together and we let the government know through legal documentation that we were now married and the government decided to grant us a specific tax status and various other considerations for whatever reasons it is that the government does the things which it does.

If people want the government to grant the same recognition to gays who pledge their life to each other, then I say more power to them.  It doesn't affect me, and it doesn't affect my marriage, which is before God, not the IRS.

I might just as well get upset about straight couples who get married outside of a church.  If a straight couple goes to a justice of the peace and pledge their life to each other, and receives some government benefit from it, am I as a christian supposed to be upset about that? I don't think so.

I used to be slightly offended by the mis-use of the term "marriage" in "gay marriage", but I don't even care about that anymore.  Have you ever seen a car advertisement talk about "the marriage of beauty and power" or some such nonsense?

[Fly320s]

You can believe whatever you want, the problem comes in when you try and use the power of the state to make us accept your delusions.

On the contrary, I'm trying to remove the power of government. I'm in favor of more freedom, and more individual liberty, not telling people who they can or can not marry.

There is no effect on you if two consenting adults marry, regardless of their genders.

[Perd Hapley]

No, I decided that marriage is between two consenting adults. Government agencies, religous institutions, and internet commandos don't factor in.

You decided. You decided. Exactly. The idea that the theorizing of a random "internet commando" is more relevant to the question of marriage than mere governments or religions perfectly reflects the same-sex marriage position. You think that people can flagrantly outrage tradition, religion and society (through homosexual behavior), and then expect to be embraced by the traditions of the society their behavior mocks. Tradition be spat upon, until the spitters demand that it be applied to them. Sorry, you're not pulling that fast one on me.

If folk want to live a non-traditional lifestyle, I don't stand in their way. But don't out-rightly reject social norms and then claim that you deserve to be recognized by them. You're either in, or you're out. Either you want marriage or you don't. If you want to spend your life with someone of the same sex, go ahead. But that means you reject marriage. Live with it. That is how freedom works.

[sumpnz]

Totally unto itself gay marriage is not THAT huge of a problem.  Gays that wished to, have lived in what is tantamount to marriage for a long time.  I still don't think its a good idea, morally, to legitimize such behavior.

Regardless, the real issue as I see it is the leftists have taken on homosexuality as a pet cause in large part becuase it furthers their deliberate attempts to weaken/destroy the foundation of western civilizations so that they can more easily impose their socialist utopia on the rest of us.

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

[Jim147]

Regardless, the real issue as I see it is the leftists have taken on homosexuality as a pet cause in large part becuase it furthers their deliberate attempts to weaken/destroy the foundation of western civilizations so that they can more easily impose their socialist utopia on the rest of us.

Strange how over half the states have laws against same sex marraige but the same R's want the government out of "The peoples" private lives.

I guess we should just get rid of tax breaks and healthcare breaks for married couples all together. That would put an end to most of this argument. 

Don't base laws on your religion. I believe in doing right because it is right, not because a book told me I would be stoned(And not in a good way.) if I offended God. I believe in myself. You don't want me making laws based on my religion.

jim

[MicroBalrog]

Traditions and social definitions are mutable.

You may imagine this as a massive parallelogram of forces, with every person and influential body pulling in various directions. Every time someone - including a "random Internet commando" starts using a different definition of "marriage", the general-cultural definition of it also changes, because that's just what the "general culture" is, the sum total of everyone else.

In this sense, the state agreeing to recognize something may contribute to this cultural shift (let's not be naive - every major institution contributes to the national culture by its action, including the military and the tax authorities), but so does every individual and this is a process you can neither stop nor fully control because controlling it is fully impossible.

[Perd Hapley]

Don't base laws on your religion.

That is a very bigoted thing to say. In a free country, religion is just as valid a source of law as anything else.

Besides, the marriage debate is not about religion. Our laws can deal with marriage as a social and legal institution, without bringing religion into it.

[Perd Hapley]

Traditions and social definitions are mutable.

This proves nothing about the current marriage debate, of course. The characteristics of marriage may be different from place to place, but that does not make it desirable to gut the very essence of marriage, as Fly320s wishes to do.

And of course, an appeal to infinitely mutable social definitions and traditions is no ground upon which to declare that marriage is "two adults entering into a contract," and therefore not sex-selective. If the institution can be twisted into anything we desire, then one view of marriage is as good as another. Appeals to justice, rights, equality or fairness are similarly invalid, being but traditions themselves. 

[RoadKingLarry]

You can believe whatever you want, the problem comes in when you try and use the power of the state to make us accept your delusions.

I'll be a little more polite.

Are you not trying to use the power of government to make us accept your delusions religious principles?
I get allergic when folks try to force religious precepts on people using the power of the government.

[De Selby]

This proves nothing about the current marriage debate, of course. The characteristics of marriage may be different from place to place, but that does not make it desirable to gut the very essence of marriage, as Fly320s wishes to do.

And of course, an appeal to infinitely mutable social definitions and traditions is no ground upon which to declare that marriage is "two adults entering into a contract," and therefore not sex-selective. If the institution can be twisted into anything we desire, then one view of marriage is as good as another. Appeals to justice, rights, equality or fairness are similarly invalid, being but traditions themselves. 

How did we decide what the "essence of marriage" is?  What authority should we defer to in answering that question?

[MicroBalrog]

And of course, an appeal to infinitely mutable social definitions and traditions is no ground upon which to declare that marriage is "two adults entering into a contract," and therefore not sex-selective. If the institution can be twisted into anything we desire, then one view of marriage is as good as another. Appeals to justice, rights, equality or fairness are similarly invalid, being but traditions themselves. 

So, why can we not have a culture war, and whoever wins, wins? :D

[Ron]

On the contrary, I'm trying to remove the power of government. I'm in favor of more freedom, and more individual liberty, not telling people who they can or can not marry.

There is no effect on you if two consenting adults marry, regardless of their genders.

If that were true I would let society take its course without saying anything. As the other thread on this subject pointed out, the normalization and equalization of homosexual relationships with marriage legally is the foot in the door to start attacking religious institutions using the court system.

[Ron]

I'll be a little more polite.

Are you not trying to use the power of government to make us accept your delusions religious principles?
I get allergic when folks try to force religious precepts on people using the power of the government.

You may want to study the whole history of human rights (you know the inalienable ones endowed to us from our creator) before you go trying to sever religious thought from influencing public policy.

Our civic ethic here in the USA has mirrored Christian morality to a greater or lessor extent from the beginning. To deny Christianity's effect on the common law and then our legal system is to deny reality.

All law is the imposing of someones morality.

[Ron]

Strange how over half the states have laws against same sex marraige but the same R's want the government out of "The peoples" private lives.

I guess we should just get rid of tax breaks and healthcare breaks for married couples all together. That would put an end to most of this argument. 

Don't base laws on your religion. I believe in doing right because it is right, not because a book told me I would be stoned(And not in a good way.) if I offended God. I believe in myself. You don't want me making laws based on my religion.

jim

I believe in doing right because it is right, not because a book told me
That statement is nonsense Jim.

Don't base laws on your religion
Another basically nonsensical statement. The whole history of western philosophy is intertwined with Christian thought. You might as well advocate removing one lung and half your intestines as an improvement on the human body. It makes about as much sense. 

"What is right", "believing in oneself" are philosophical and religious subjects, please do not introduce them into political arguments, heh heh.