Gay marriage gets complicated

[Rithrandil]

No, a taste of my own medicine would be questioning my sources, since that's what I did to that random video about 'the law' you linked - which is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

If you want me to bring anarcho-capitalist right-wing fundamentalist christian claptrap into it, then feel free, I'm just going to snicker when you try to attack Magerette and fall flat on your face.

 

[magerette]

I spare myself the misery of mudsling's youtube clips most times, so thanks for letting me know I don't need to look there, Rith.

mudsling, I have to say most of the time I can't figure out your point because of your lack of communications skills, but if there was a question in your mind you want me to confront, I'll be happy to try.

Here's a clarification on my statement:

Marriage historically was a contract to ensure legitimacy of children, property rights and inheritance. When the Church was the major political player, this was done as a sanctified religious contract that held secular authority. When the Reformation elevated the State, it became both a religious *and* secular contract, and in modern times while it may or may not indicate two people's romantic preference for each other, it's also a legal state that's entered into and dissolved by means of the government for the sole purpose of property protection, taxation, inheritance, legal access to health and other benefits, child custody and so forth.

What it isn't is *only* some hand-holding pledge between two individuals indicating a romantic and personal involvement that is nobody else's business. That's called 'living together' and involves no legal right by either party to much of anything except whatever is Common Law practice.

 

[mudsling3]

Calling you a nose picker is a lesser evil comparing to the nutjob name calling strategy that you employ against those who hold a diametrically oppsiting philosophical viewpoint.

Just count how many times Mag use the word law, legal, legit…. How is it not relevant to the Law By Frédéric Bastiat, who gave a fresh view from the prevalent understanding of what legal system is? Just substitue the word government wherever god, church…was, there is your religion.

Yes, long live the individual.

 

[Rithrandil]

Calling you a nose picker is a lesser evil comparing to the nutjob name calling strategy that you employ against those who hold a diametrically oppsiting philosophical viewpoint.

Which is why I quite frequently call Magerette and every European here names. No, I call the guy a nutjob because he is one.

Just count how many times Mag use the word law, legal, legit…. How is it not relevant to the Law By Frédéric Bastiat, who gave a fresh view from the prevalent understanding of what legal system is? Just substitue the word government wherever god, church…was, there is your religion.

Yes, long live the individual.

Because it's irrelevant to what she said, as is virtually everything you ever say in a conversation.

 

[JemyM]

Anarcho-capitalism as far as I concern, is both religious and dogmatic. It's one of the antidemocratic movements I keep on my watchlist together with nationalism, communism and some religions.

It's pretty much all rhetoric, presenting a human archetype that simply doesn't match anything you might find in psychology. It uses it's own alternative language and completely disregard social sciences, pretty much like a creationist deny biology. It's like you keep all the misconceptions there was in early enlightenment philosophy and froze it in stone. Their understanding of "government" is pretty much the supreme sovereign of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, disregarding 3-400 years of progress as if nothing at all have happened since.

It's idea of government is based on American history and disregard European history post 1700. It disregard psychology and social sciences like a creationist disregards biology. It ignores that any population of a certain age and size spawn structure and with that a ruling body, thanks to human behavior. It ignores the fact that "government" is an abstract concept that is used as label on bodies very different in different areas and eras. The capitalist part is pointless, it shares the same core flaw as communists, an idealist perspective of human beings that believe all humans are born with their learned morality.

Most funny, they consider "collectivism" to be wrong, even if their entire ideology depends on collectivism to function. Almost every argument they make is rooted in social norms, laws and regulations in how their utopia must be. They are both collectivist in their thought and their dogma.

It's of no surprise that one of their great prophets have been blamed to start a cult.

 

[Tragos]

Sorry, you sound like another bureaucrat…this an individual decision, the *&@% with "societies"/opinion of appearance of a majority.

I am against the rule of the majority too but the thing is that you don't need a paper to confirm that you are with someone.

Why should they be banned? If two people want to get together because they love each other/want to establish property rights/survivor's benefits/etc then fine. Makes no difference to me.

Because IMHO it is wrong the state validating a religious/legal union (because this is what we are talking about) in exchange for some benefits . It should be far easier to get in and out of relations without the courts getting involved .
Also survivor's benefits and property is totally against my ideology


*I partly agree with JemyM on Anarcho-Capitalism , all those "open market" left movements require very high degree of social evolution to be applied , i lean more to collectivism too.

 

[JemyM]

If a secular government should recocnize and uphold a contract, the purpose of the contract need a secular reason. If childbirth is the point, shouldn't sterile humans be denied but lesbians double-allowed? What about adoptation?
If the contract is about protecting a couples property, then what about polygamy?
"Marriage is between a man and a woman" is not a law, but a statement or definition. Does that mean a religion cannot define marriage differently? If marriage is a religious concept, defining it in secular law goes against religious freedom. What about writing a law that defines "God" according to bhagavad-gita, or "soul" based on Descartes?

 

[mudsling3]

Which is why I quite frequently call Magerette and every European here names. No, I call the guy a nutjob because he is one.



Because it's irrelevant to what she said, as is virtually everything you ever say in a conversation.

Your logic is that someone is nutjob because you said so. Instead of examining Bastiat's the logic and argument, you quickly slapped him a cheap shoot hoping that others would just take the easy way out.

By the way, Mag can defend herself quite well... and never occur to you that You and that PJ fellow have much faith in Government and the FED? Note, I am not the one that think there is a fundamental difference in GW and Obama's foreign policy.

 

[Rithrandil]

I never said she couldn't

I'm not watching a 9 part video on anarcho capitalism that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

Here is how you 'participate' in every discussion:


*insert poorly worded completely bizarre 'sentence' here* (example: Obama government cow like train?! vaccines are the death leprrechaunsr!)

*insert link to youtube video either from an Alex Jones-ish conspiracy thing, or some 15 part documentary with nothing to do on the topic at hand* (example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whHHpeqgnDI&feature=PlayList&p=A22D64DEE846FC3D&index=0



My point: You tried to get snippy and attack Mags without even understanding what she wrote. The wikipedia link you posted to try and discredit her claim matched perfectly with what she said. Then you posted a link to a random reading of a book that has nothing to do with the conversation whatsoever.

 

[mudsling3]

I never said she couldn't

I'm not watching a 9 part video on anarcho capitalism that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

Here is how you 'participate' in every discussion:


*insert poorly worded completely bizarre 'sentence' here* (example: Obama government cow like train?! vaccines are the death leprrechaunsr!)

*insert link to youtube video either from an Alex Jones-ish conspiracy thing, or some 15 part documentary with nothing to do on the topic at hand* (example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whHHpeqgnDI&feature=PlayList&p=A22D64DEE846FC3D&index=0



My point: You tried to get snippy and attack Mags without even understanding what she wrote. The wikipedia link you posted to try and discredit her claim matched perfectly with what she said. Then you posted a link to a random reading of a book that has nothing to do with the conversation whatsoever.

My point is that you hate and afraid of the ideas in these links and try to discredit them cheapest way possible.

Those who think the laws are carved by the hands of gods are no different that those who don't understand the nature and formation of law. In Mag's own words "marriage is a legal institution, not a romantic personal freedom, for insuring inheritance and property rights. Always has been" May I ask what the difference between this and something supposely carved in stone. Just like the cheerleaders for Obama who got stuck with superficial differences without recognizing the his foreign intervention policy is the same as GW. The difference between you and those Euros are just superficial, got it

Inheritance, property, legal institution…all ultimately originate from individuals…it is the #%@ing tree.

 

[Rithrandil]

And your point is wrong, like most everything else you've said. Your anarcho capitalist utopia is just as stupid as the communist workers paradise.

The difference, which you are apparently too clueless to understand, is that marriage as an institution was always designed to pass down property to the family's (husband's) children (sons). Marriage has not existed for all eternity and is a mutable property. Laws handed down from the gods are not mutable or subject to change.

Don't pretend like you are some great philosopher. Once again, you keep bringing red herrings into this discussion. If your argument is that weak and you're realizing you can't win after trying to bash Mags.

And yes, I'm sure to you GW and Obama look exactly the same, primarily because most of the people you get your "information" from are lunatic NWO conspiracy theorists.

 

[JemyM]

The difference, which you are apparently too clueless to understand, is that marriage as an institution was always designed to pass down property to the family's (husband's) children (sons). Marriage has not existed for all eternity and is a mutable property. Laws handed down from the gods are not mutable or subject to change.

False. Marriage-style traditions have been discovered in many cultures and societies, including those that lack biological family structures, the idea of "property" and/or belief in gods. Calling ones own opinion "Gods law" have no bearing in secular juridical systems, which is why most traditions people took for granted 100 years ago is now forgotten by all but historians.

 

[Rithrandil]

Great. I'm speaking of the West. And when did I say my opinion was god's law or that it has bearing in a secular system?

 

[JemyM]

Great. I'm speaking of the West. And when did I say my opinion was god's law or that it has bearing in a secular system?

"Laws handed down from the gods are not mutable or subject to change."

That said, there are traditions within the west, in which even those who believe their laws come from gods, believe that they have been equipped to change them through continued experience (revelation). Only protestant fundies and some muslims believe they know Gods law.

 

[Rithrandil]

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote before commenting on it. This is why I don't bother talking to you.

 

[Zaleukos]

The practical reasons for government to bother with marriage today are mostly related to taxation, inheritance, and possibly encouraging having kids. Neither really requires marriage. You could deal with the first two with contracts, or by having a standard civil union contract that deals with all these things (and could be amended). Childbirth can be encouraged by tying benefits to the kids rather than the parents.

Being a fan of separation of church and state I would prefer to formally get the government out of the marriage business and only recognise civil unions, which you register at city hall or wherever. Marriage would be something for churches or whatnot to deal with (as long as everyone is a consenting adult), but not have any legal meaning in itself. It would be a matter between the partners and deity (if they have one) and there would be no pressure for the church of spaghetti monsters to recognise marriages by the church of potato octopii. So bigots of whatever creed or colour can stick with their definition of marriage, but not impose it on others.

"Laws handed down from the gods are not mutable or subject to change."

That said, there are traditions within the west, in which even those who believe their laws come from gods, believe that they have been equipped to change them through continued experience (revelation). Only protestant fundies and some muslims believe they know Gods law.

Dude, he is saying that marriage isnt law handed down from the gods (and it would be strange if Rith did, as I believe he is an atheist)…

 

[magerette]

I'm with you completely, Zaluekos. And Rith. My point was simply that the argument about government 'interfering' in people's personal freedoms by having legal standards regarding unions is the silly part here. If you don't want legal conditions in your relationship, there's already an alternative--don't get married.

 

[Thrasher]

I agree, too. It would be better to be able to get "married" by whatever faith you prefer without legal entanglements, and vice versa. Call them two separate things and treat them differently.

 

[magerette]

Apparently it's not just gay marriage that upsets some people:

Interracial couple denied marriage license in LA

What year is this again?

 

[pibbur]

…
What year is this again?

Current date is according to my calendar and dateformat: 16.10.09.