Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have age of consent laws for a reason, Some people do not have the mental capacity or maturity to enter into a contract.
Polygamous marriages do complicate things under our current welfare state much more than gay marriage. There is a much weaker case for stating polygamists are denied equal protection under the law.
The primary beneficiaries of SS survivor benefits are women long past child bearing age.
In a libertarian country, each person is treated as one individual regardless they are married or not. Marriage would have no meaning in any government benefits if any benefit even exists.
I think less egalitarianism would result. Essentially society would revert back to tribal and less tolerant.
Are you desiring more tribality and less tolerance then? And if so, and you think that would result from more libertarian views, then by your own logic shouldn't you be supportive of more libertarian views? Just playing devil's advocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I find no reason gay couples should receive the same equal protection as straight couples.
I find no reason the identity of people entering into a contract that affects me not should be any of my - or your - business.
In a libertarian country, each person is treated as one individual regardless they are married or not. Marriage would have no meaning in any government benefits if any benefit even exists.
I don't mean to be a devil's advocate. I just can't imagine that wouldn't mean no one would get married, everyone would see your partner as fair game and vice versa, cheating has little consequences, who knows who the father is, fatherless children. And if you hear some people tell it that means poverty and violent crime. This is kind of why the church 1,000s of years ago or tribal leadership in most cultures stepped in and created and defined marriage in the first place .
Are you desiring more tribality and less tolerance then? And if so, and you think that would result from more libertarian views, then by your own logic shouldn't you be supportive of more libertarian views? Just playing devil's advocate.
In a word yes.
Quote:
I find no reason the identity of people entering into a contract that affects me not should be any of my - or your - business.
But this contract does effect everyone if they are getting tax-payer supported benefits. And creation of this contract leads to sexual orientation being a further protected class. I had no objection to gays having civil union contracts. It was how the whole gay marriage went down that I object to. The popular vote, states and legislatures being overruled and the constitution being reinterpreted..
I don't mean to be a devil's advocate. I just can't imagine that wouldn't mean no one would get married, everyone would see your partner as fair game and vice versa, cheating has little consequences, who knows who the father is, fatherless children. And if you hear some people tell it that means poverty and violent crime. This is kind of why the church 1,000s of years ago or tribal leadership in most cultures stepped in and created and defined marriage in the first place .
Feel free to marry whoever you want as long as all of you are consenting adults. It's just a civil union through a contract stating you are forming a civil union, aka a family.
But this contract does effect everyone if they are getting tax-payer supported benefits.
But their *identity* is immaterial. Within the framework of whatever benefits, I don't care who they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I had no objection to gays having civil union contracts.
I think this is the *only* piece the government should have any purview over anyway. Enforce a contract between consenting adults if necessary. No distinction based on identity.
Feel free to marry whoever you want as long as all of you are consenting adults. It's just a civil union through a contract stating you are forming a civil union, aka a family.
Then call gay marriage a civil union but don't call it "marriage", give it tax-payer supported benefits, or make sexual orientation a protected class, and I won't care much but still don't see all unions and contracts equal.
I still say it's egalitarianism and co-opting . You never addresses the potential social issues I proposed if marriage didn't provide financial incentives btw.
Then call gay marriage a civil union but don't give it tax-payer supported benefits...
Why? Setting aside the discussion of what "benefits" there should be in the first place, or what it should be "called," why should anything be different based on identity?
Then call gay marriage a civil union but don't call it "marriage", give it tax-payer supported benefits, or make sexual orientation a protected class, and I won't care much but still don't see all unions and contracts equal.
I still say it's egalitarianism and co-opting . You never addresses the potential social issues I proposed if marriage didn't provide financial incentives btw.
Not under a libertarian system because there wouldn't be any taxpayer supported benefits. Both marriage and civil union would mean jack squat as there would be no added benefit one way or another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
. You never addresses the potential social issues I proposed if marriage didn't provide financial incentives btw.
