STOP Government Marriage!!!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2013, 03:22 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
There are, unfortunately, too many things tied to marriage sanctioned by the state. Including, if your spouse dies the future of your children could be decided by someone other than the surviving spouse.

I know more than a few attorneys that would make a fortune. At the same time it could cause far more congestion in an already overburdened judicial system.

While I do agree the state shouldn't be involved in marriage, since it is -- I see no way to effectively separate it.

Personally I feel the fed will eventually need to deal with gay marriage. I don't see how they can avoid it, anymore than they could avoid the slavery issue.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 03:33 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 03:39 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
What I think is that as long as marriage is a legally recognized social convention between two people, those two individuals should have the right to engage life long partnership with the same benefits as straight people before the law.

The history and origins of marriage does make me question the legal codification in the first place.

EDIT:

Upon further reflection I did realize that many human interactions such as creating a company have a common legal framework in place to protect individuals as well as the new company.

The same may be said of those who wish to sacrifice some individuality for a life long partnership. Which is common enough that a legal framework needs to be put in place to sort out disputes, and benefits.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 05:06 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
Marriage is a cheap and convenient way to enter into a contract with predefined conditions and benefits recognized by the State. No lawyers involved (unless you worried 'bout bullshit like prenups and shit, in which case why you even gettin' married in the first place?). It is a good thing. ... Until you want outta the contract. Evil_monster

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 05:33 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(02-07-2013 02:50 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  GOVernment marriage?

Consider N. Korea and Vietnam should tie the not Big Grin Who could we find for France?

France doesn't need marriage. It's already got a harem of devoted little Francophone places...

Besides, France and Vietnam did have a thing once, but the Vietnam was raped Japan and things were never the same after that. France tried to win Vietnam back, but Vi' didn't want it, I say we let Vi' be happy on it's own, still recovering and let France get on to tending to it's little harem. Besides, North Korea has a history of being a spousal abuser. It couldn't even separate with South amicably... Too many of Vi's old wounds would be ripped open if it went through that kinda stuff again with N.K.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 03:38 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(02-07-2013 06:40 AM)Dom Wrote:  Reality is reality. You have to live in it.

When your mate of 30 years' standing lies in the hospital fighting for his/her life, and you are not allowed to see them, nor will the docs give you current information, you'll wish you had gotten married.

When s/he then dies and the government takes all the money and leaves you pennyless in the streets, you'll wish you would have been married.

Fighting against these rules is good and fine and right, but it isn't going to help you when you face the reality of things.

Always fight for the ideal, but cover your ass because, damn, life can hurt bad if you don't.

Why should the government decide whom does and does not inherit money? Shouldn't it be up to us to decide whether we wish for our possessions to go to family, friend, or even stranger?

Who should dictate those who are and are not allowed to visit the sick in hospitals? I, for one, see no reason why marriage can't be a private matter - one in which hospitals can recognize despite the government's lack of role with such matter.

Quote:So you seem to be arguing against public recognition of private relationships on principle. I can understand that viewpoint. But it's not going to accomplish anything...

I don't think that's what he's arguing at all! He's not against public recognition of private relationships, he's against government recognition.

I'm tired of people saying, "Without God, there would be no marriage". Woops, sorry, wrong convo.

I'm tired of people saying, "Without government, there would be no marriage". Marriage is merely a contract between a man and a woman - and it's the contract that should be recognized by the government in the same way all legal documents are recognized by the government.

Quote:There would, perforce, be rules in place regarding things like inheritance, custody, and visitation regardless. Absent some public recognition of those relationships, how would these be decided?

1. Inheritance - A person should be allowed to pass their possessions to whomever they want, family, friend, or even stranger. The government shouldn't tax inheritance any differently just because they passed their possessions onto their "wife". (In fact, inheritance shouldn't be taxed at all).

2. Custody is a battle between a child's father and mother, regardless as to whether they are married or not.

3. Visitation - If a hospital insists that the only person allowed to visit a dying family member is their spouse, then there's absolutely no reason why that person's spouse couldn't visit them. Understand, we CAN have marriage without the government getting involved.

Marriage is merely a contract between two people. When the government gets involved, marriage is extra rights and tax breaks not granted to other couples and singles. If two people get married, and they create a contract, then that contract should be legally binding in the same way all contracts can be legally binding. Two people can get married in a private sector, then in a contract they write "Inheritance shall go to the spouse". They don't need the government to write the will for them!

Quote:T.H. I understand and for the most part support your position, but we must deal with the realities of existent laws and marriage is one of them.

Said the man about slavery. Woops, I already stated that revolution doesn't start until action is taken.

Quote:If the collective (or whatever you want to call it) understood and honored our responsibilities and our concerns for long term mates than the need for legal marriage would be mute. In the current legal system marriage becomes a necessity for some.

Then why don't we change this system? Why can't we AT LEAST recognize the system as flawed and discuss better alternatives?! To say "this is how things work, live with it without challenging it" is lazy.

Quote:I think they are thinking they are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together and lets face it there are legal advanatages to being married - its not a bad deal all around.

Why should married couples gain financial benefits from the government? Why discriminate against non-married couples and single people? Why is everyone else, for some reason, less deserving of a tax-break?

Quote:Marriage did not work out for me because I chose my partner poorly but I still believe the custom of marriage has merit in todays society. If I fell in love with someone of the same sex then I would expect to have the same opportunity that I did in my first go at it.

And, as I said before (but I'll just repeat this anyway), marriage can exist without government.

If there is one lesson to be learned, let it be this:

Government marriage is rooted so deeply into our system that getting rid of it would complicate issues that should be simple to begin with. This should be a lesson in why we should be very careful when we choose what the government can and can not do. When you give the government power to dictate something, that something becomes nearly permanent. Social Security, for example, is nothing more than a pyramid scheme we are all forced to pay. We would be better off without it. However, since so many people have already payed into S.S., and so many of those people now rely on it, it's nearly impossible to do away with.

If it's too hard to remove the current tainted systems that are engrained in our society, we can at least prevent new systems from getting engrained that would also taint our world. When the government tries something that doesn't work, we get stuck with it without a chance of fixing their stupid mistakes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 09:22 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(02-07-2013 05:12 AM)T.H. Wrote:  So, I would consider myself a Libertarian, if there ever was one.

I have never understood peoples stance on Gay marriage.
From the side of straight people. Government uses marriage as a stick and sometimes a carrot to push or lead you in certain directions you might not freely want to be. It gives government control and worse, congressional control over you finances through taxes(stick/carrot) based on your status. Sometimes being married is better, sometimes single. This is "Discrimination".

The bigger question is why on earth would Gay people be fighting to spread this government discrimination through their group. I will tell you(and they are wrong), so that they to can have the carrot..

Both sides of gay marriage are fighting for the wrong thing. They should be together, fighting to stop all government sanctioned marriage, along with all federal laws applying to federal marriage.

So It goes like this. Uncle Sam, I know you have been hitting me with that stick, can we give you another stick for your other hand, that way we can all be beaten equally?

What is everyone else thinking?

T.H.

I'm with you and Penn Jillette on this one. The government needs to stay out of our bedrooms. I just doubt it will ever happen in my lifetime.

[Image: i-Jn5RHZ7-S.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes smidgen's post
08-07-2013, 09:33 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
The Libertarian mindset of small government is one that captivated me a while back (I bought Penn Jillette's book God No! ) and then came to the realization (partly because of that book) that I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of working. Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world it would, but that ideal world doesn't exist. For a smaller community or a smaller country, it would probably work just fine too. But we don't live in a world of ever-decreasing country populations (and I don't think US states are at a size for it to work either, population or geographic size for most).

The point is, the primary purpose is to protect its people from threats that are foreign and domestic. And in a country that is this large, with this many people, with this many political ideologies, with this many religions, with this many ethnicities, etc, the domestic issues far outweigh the foreign ones.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
How about you stop calling yourselves Libertarians and take the extra fucking step?

I enjoy government. I enjoy marriage. If you don't want federally-recognized marriage, don't get a federally-recognized marriage.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
08-07-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
I don't plan on ever getting married again. It's just a piece of paper and I don't need a piece of paper to prove that I love anybody. I'm not Libertarian I'm a Conservative Republican. Wink (Yeah I know, that's even worse. But I can joke about it) But I do agree with Penn's views about marriage.

[Image: i-Jn5RHZ7-S.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(05-07-2013 03:38 PM)Nemo Wrote:  
Quote:There would, perforce, be rules in place regarding things like inheritance, custody, and visitation regardless. Absent some public recognition of those relationships, how would these be decided?

1. Inheritance - A person should be allowed to pass their possessions to whomever they want, family, friend, or even stranger. The government shouldn't tax inheritance any differently just because they passed their possessions onto their "wife". (In fact, inheritance shouldn't be taxed at all).

2. Custody is a battle between a child's father and mother, regardless as to whether they are married or not.

3. Visitation - If a hospital insists that the only person allowed to visit a dying family member is their spouse, then there's absolutely no reason why that person's spouse couldn't visit them. Understand, we CAN have marriage without the government getting involved.

Marriage is merely a contract between two people. When the government gets involved, marriage is extra rights and tax breaks not granted to other couples and singles. If two people get married, and they create a contract, then that contract should be legally binding in the same way all contracts can be legally binding. Two people can get married in a private sector, then in a contract they write "Inheritance shall go to the spouse". They don't need the government to write the will for them!

My question was rather more rhetorical. There are cases in which one's preference will not be known; being dead or otherwise non-communicative, say. It's more a matter of recognizing a default option - and a publicly recognized partnership seems, to me, a reasonable default option. But perhaps every disputed case would need to proceed to a court or tribunal regardless.

There would necessarily be an apparatus to witness, record, and enforce any decision made; this is, quite simply, a government by definition.

When I say government in a general sense I mean the means by which a community takes and carries out decisions. This is contingent in any functioning community. It isn't particularly apt or useful to say 'government' when you mean the (very specific) state apparatus as it exists today in your (or a similar) country. It is perhaps semantic pedantry of the highest order to make the distinction. BUT STILL.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: