STOP Government Marriage!!!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(08-07-2013 12:52 PM)smidgen Wrote:  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.

I don't. He is imposing his own viewpoint on something that is not mandated. Federal marriage does not need to end... your pointless criticism needs to, since the institution of marriage is not necessary. Again, if you don't want to marry, don't.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(08-07-2013 01:13 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 12:52 PM)smidgen Wrote:  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.

I don't. He is imposing his own viewpoint on something that is not mandated. Federal marriage does not need to end... your pointless criticism needs to, since the institution of marriage is not necessary. Again, if you don't want to marry, don't.

Except Marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum and the problem a libertarian has with marriage is that we don't believe the government should be in the business of sanctioning one lifestyle over another. The government has basically stated (through tax policy and other benefits) that married people are given preferred status over single people in the same situation. For a true small government position the government should be neutral about this issue.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(08-07-2013 01:31 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 01:13 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I don't. He is imposing his own viewpoint on something that is not mandated. Federal marriage does not need to end... your pointless criticism needs to, since the institution of marriage is not necessary. Again, if you don't want to marry, don't.

Except Marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum and the problem a libertarian has with marriage is that we don't believe the government should be in the business of sanctioning one lifestyle over another. The government has basically stated (through tax policy and other benefits) that married people are given preferred status over single people in the same situation. For a true small government position the government should be neutral about this issue.

By that token, people who rent a house together should all have to pay the full amount of rent each. Instead of being able to sign a lease together and split the cost.

The point of a marriage partnership is a mutually beneficial relationship where resources are split as though the couple is a single individual so as to not get dinged twice for expenses. It is not about giving special favor to married vs single individuals. We are not given more political power or more votes or anything.

“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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
08-07-2013, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2013 04:15 PM by Nemo.)
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(08-07-2013 09:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

It's funny you say that, because libertarian is based off the philosophy that the world isn't idea for a "grand system".

With a country this large, with this many people, with this many political ideologies, with this many religions, with this many ethnicities, etc, we obviously need to give more power to the few, right? You would think it beneficial to divide power more and more as the population increases, not decreases.

Libertarianism recognizes the threat of giving small groups too much coercive power.

Understand, libertarians believe in a small government - which means a government with limited power. The government is still able to enforce laws, protect the country from foreign invaders, etc.

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

This doesn't stop the issue of discrimination against single people. We're still being raped up the ass by your precious God.

Woops, government. We are being raped up the ass by your precious government.

I support a government in which laws are based off the principle of protecting people from one another, as well as outside forces. The government should not be in charge of dictating morality, i.e. rewarding people who choose to live a particular life style (a married life) and by punishing those who choose to remain single or unmarried.

(08-07-2013 01:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 01:31 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Except Marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum and the problem a libertarian has with marriage is that we don't believe the government should be in the business of sanctioning one lifestyle over another. The government has basically stated (through tax policy and other benefits) that married people are given preferred status over single people in the same situation. For a true small government position the government should be neutral about this issue.

By that token, people who rent a house together should all have to pay the full amount of rent each. Instead of being able to sign a lease together and split the cost.

The point of a marriage partnership is a mutually beneficial relationship where resources are split as though the couple is a single individual so as to not get dinged twice for expenses. It is not about giving special favor to married vs single individuals. We are not given more political power or more votes or anything.

Way to go, an analogy worse than the blind watchmaker.

When two people rent a house together, they would split the costs REGARDLESS as to whether or not they get married! To argue that it's like them both paying rent in full is COMPLETELY asinine! Marriage is like having two couples - the non-married couple splits the rent, the married couple not only splits the rent but gets to pay less than the non-married couple (after taxes).

Marriage isn't a way to avoid getting billed twice. Suppose you go to a restaurant with a friend. You decide to split the bill down the middle 50/50. The bill ends up being 20$. Do you both pay 20$? No. You both pay 10$. I see NO reason why marriage should have ANY effect on how the bill is payed.

Let me explain why your analogy is so incredibly weak. Let's assume rent costs $500 a month.

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Non-Married Couple: 2 people. Pays 200% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.

Wait, where did I get that single person, you didn't mention a single person. Well, we must assume that if non-marriage is like a couple paying full rent twice, then we have to assume single people pay full rent once. If you don't include the single person, then we have no "control" group, for lack of better term. If you argue that a single person has to pay for rent twice, then all you're doing is multiplying everything by two (except for the married couple for some odd reason).

In reality, it goes like this:

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Non-married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.

Now, obviously, this is before taxes!

With taxes, we see this:

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person. Pays 75% in taxes per person.
Non-married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person. Pays 100% in taxes per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person. Pays 100%in taxes per person.

Now, the percentage is just there to show how there is inequality.

Now, marriage CAN be used as a legally binding contract. This could be useful for things such as buying insurance, taking out loans, etc. However, what is inside the contract should NOT be dictated by the government, now should the government have the power to discriminate between married and non-married people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(08-07-2013 03:52 PM)Nemo Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 09:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

It's funny you say that, because libertarian is based off the philosophy that the world isn't idea for a "grand system".

With a country this large, with this many people, with this many political ideologies, with this many religions, with this many ethnicities, etc, we obviously need to give more power to the few, right? You would think it beneficial to divide power more and more as the population increases, not decreases.

Libertarianism recognizes the threat of giving small groups too much coercive power.

Understand, libertarians believe in a small government - which means a government with limited power. The government is still able to enforce laws, protect the country from foreign invaders, etc.

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

This doesn't stop the issue of discrimination against single people. We're still being raped up the ass by your precious God.

Woops, government. We are being raped up the ass by your precious government.

I support a government in which laws are based off the principle of protecting people from one another, as well as outside forces. The government should not be in charge of dictating morality, i.e. rewarding people who choose to live a particular life style (a married life) and by punishing those who choose to remain single or unmarried.

[Image: 22994391.jpg]

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
I'm completely serious. Does this mean I'm getting called stupid by a person who is, ironically, wrong? It's like being called stupid by a creationist when I explain how creationism doesn't disprove evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 04:22 PM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(08-07-2013 04:20 PM)Nemo Wrote:  I'm completely serious. Does this mean I'm getting called stupid by a person who is, ironically, wrong? It's like being called stupid by a creationist when I explain how creationism doesn't disprove evolution.

You have accused me of viewing government like I would view a deity. Jumping to absolute conclusions with a holier-than-thou attitude makes you look stupid.

[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
09-07-2013, 07:15 AM
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.

This is about as good a response as I can muster up. I would like to add though that other legal/tax aspects of marriage promote marriage and it's longevity. I know we have a serious divorce problem but I bet single parent households would be much more common than they are even now if there were no legal strings holding the parents together.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 07:45 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(08-07-2013 03:52 PM)Nemo Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 09:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

It's funny you say that, because libertarian is based off the philosophy that the world isn't idea for a "grand system".

With a country this large, with this many people, with this many political ideologies, with this many religions, with this many ethnicities, etc, we obviously need to give more power to the few, right? You would think it beneficial to divide power more and more as the population increases, not decreases.

Libertarianism recognizes the threat of giving small groups too much coercive power.

Understand, libertarians believe in a small government - which means a government with limited power. The government is still able to enforce laws, protect the country from foreign invaders, etc.

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

This doesn't stop the issue of discrimination against single people. We're still being raped up the ass by your precious God.

Woops, government. We are being raped up the ass by your precious government.

I support a government in which laws are based off the principle of protecting people from one another, as well as outside forces. The government should not be in charge of dictating morality, i.e. rewarding people who choose to live a particular life style (a married life) and by punishing those who choose to remain single or unmarried.

(08-07-2013 01:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  By that token, people who rent a house together should all have to pay the full amount of rent each. Instead of being able to sign a lease together and split the cost.

The point of a marriage partnership is a mutually beneficial relationship where resources are split as though the couple is a single individual so as to not get dinged twice for expenses. It is not about giving special favor to married vs single individuals. We are not given more political power or more votes or anything.

Way to go, an analogy worse than the blind watchmaker.

When two people rent a house together, they would split the costs REGARDLESS as to whether or not they get married! To argue that it's like them both paying rent in full is COMPLETELY asinine! Marriage is like having two couples - the non-married couple splits the rent, the married couple not only splits the rent but gets to pay less than the non-married couple (after taxes).

Marriage isn't a way to avoid getting billed twice. Suppose you go to a restaurant with a friend. You decide to split the bill down the middle 50/50. The bill ends up being 20$. Do you both pay 20$? No. You both pay 10$. I see NO reason why marriage should have ANY effect on how the bill is payed.

Let me explain why your analogy is so incredibly weak. Let's assume rent costs $500 a month.

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Non-Married Couple: 2 people. Pays 200% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.

Wait, where did I get that single person, you didn't mention a single person. Well, we must assume that if non-marriage is like a couple paying full rent twice, then we have to assume single people pay full rent once. If you don't include the single person, then we have no "control" group, for lack of better term. If you argue that a single person has to pay for rent twice, then all you're doing is multiplying everything by two (except for the married couple for some odd reason).

In reality, it goes like this:

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Non-married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.

Now, obviously, this is before taxes!

With taxes, we see this:

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person. Pays 75% in taxes per person.
Non-married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person. Pays 100% in taxes per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person. Pays 100%in taxes per person.

Now, the percentage is just there to show how there is inequality.

Now, marriage CAN be used as a legally binding contract. This could be useful for things such as buying insurance, taking out loans, etc. However, what is inside the contract should NOT be dictated by the government, now should the government have the power to discriminate between married and non-married people.

You don't understand the point of analogies, do you?

“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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
09-07-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 07:45 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 03:52 PM)Nemo Wrote:  It's funny you say that, because libertarian is based off the philosophy that the world isn't idea for a "grand system".

With a country this large, with this many people, with this many political ideologies, with this many religions, with this many ethnicities, etc, we obviously need to give more power to the few, right? You would think it beneficial to divide power more and more as the population increases, not decreases.

Libertarianism recognizes the threat of giving small groups too much coercive power.

Understand, libertarians believe in a small government - which means a government with limited power. The government is still able to enforce laws, protect the country from foreign invaders, etc.


This doesn't stop the issue of discrimination against single people. We're still being raped up the ass by your precious God.

Woops, government. We are being raped up the ass by your precious government.

I support a government in which laws are based off the principle of protecting people from one another, as well as outside forces. The government should not be in charge of dictating morality, i.e. rewarding people who choose to live a particular life style (a married life) and by punishing those who choose to remain single or unmarried.


Way to go, an analogy worse than the blind watchmaker.

When two people rent a house together, they would split the costs REGARDLESS as to whether or not they get married! To argue that it's like them both paying rent in full is COMPLETELY asinine! Marriage is like having two couples - the non-married couple splits the rent, the married couple not only splits the rent but gets to pay less than the non-married couple (after taxes).

Marriage isn't a way to avoid getting billed twice. Suppose you go to a restaurant with a friend. You decide to split the bill down the middle 50/50. The bill ends up being 20$. Do you both pay 20$? No. You both pay 10$. I see NO reason why marriage should have ANY effect on how the bill is payed.

Let me explain why your analogy is so incredibly weak. Let's assume rent costs $500 a month.

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Non-Married Couple: 2 people. Pays 200% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.

Wait, where did I get that single person, you didn't mention a single person. Well, we must assume that if non-marriage is like a couple paying full rent twice, then we have to assume single people pay full rent once. If you don't include the single person, then we have no "control" group, for lack of better term. If you argue that a single person has to pay for rent twice, then all you're doing is multiplying everything by two (except for the married couple for some odd reason).

In reality, it goes like this:

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Non-married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person.

Now, obviously, this is before taxes!

With taxes, we see this:

Married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person. Pays 75% in taxes per person.
Non-married Couple: 2 people. Pays for 100% rent. 50% per person. 250 per person. Pays 100% in taxes per person.
Single Person: 1 person, pays 100% rent. 100% per person. 500 dollars per person. Pays 100%in taxes per person.

Now, the percentage is just there to show how there is inequality.

Now, marriage CAN be used as a legally binding contract. This could be useful for things such as buying insurance, taking out loans, etc. However, what is inside the contract should NOT be dictated by the government, now should the government have the power to discriminate between married and non-married people.

You don't understand the point of analogies, do you?

It was a very clunky explanation but he is right, albeit totally lacking in tact. My reasoning behind this is the same as why I don't think churches should get tax exemptions, I don't believe it is the governments place to decide what is morally acceptable for it's citizens it should always be the reverse. The US government gives preferential treatment to people who are Married, have children, and donate to their church, through tax deductions and subsidies thereby showing favor to those actions. The Libertarian position is simply that the Government should not do so.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: