Marriage equality, and the SCotUS

[Ginger_Warrior]

Not necessarily, no.

 

As said, it's the assumption that freedom is always better for society that I was really disputing, especially if you're going to use economic half-truths as a means of justifying said assumption. I can think of several free economies right now that, for next decade at least, really won't be anything to write home about on prosperity and growth.

 

I'm fully in support for equality in the status of homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages. I also think that, furthermore, to weave the idea of children into that equation is a complete denial of 21st century family life. A significant proportion of children in the western world do not live with two parents in blissful wedlock. Additionally, we have state structures in place to accommodate for children, and those structures are well defined from marriage. I don't particularly see the sense in suggesting the inability of homosexual couples to conceive is a factor in determining how equal the two marriages really are.

[Giordano]

In my experience and personal theories, there are three main types of freedoms.

 

Social freedom: as we are experiencing with this gay marriage debate. I do believe the freer the social constructs, the better that society is.

 

Economic mobility: Not so much a freedom rather than government regulations, but if the business elites are forced to play fair for the lower classes, then economic mobility is possible. The better mobility, the better the society.

 

Political freedom: Honestly, the least important of the three. If the government upholds the top two, I would not mind living under a Junta. The large percent of Americans who don't vote kinda already don't care for their political freedom. (mind that, that freedoms of speech and expressions are more of a social freedom than a political one.)

 

Lastly, notice I said society rather than state. A powerful state only means a powerful ruling elite, a powerful society means a liberated people. Unless we're part of the ruling elites, I'd prefer to live in a powerful society. :wink: There's no reason to prefer to live in an powerful military state (such as USA) than a mildly-important political state (such as...Estonia? :wink: Or Argentina, or Bulgaria, or South Africa, or Pakistan) if social and economic freedoms are dutifully exercised by said government.

 

 

 

Please pardon for the off-topicness.

[sees_all1]

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly.

You're missing the point of marriage.

[Omar]

It seems like the argument being presented against prop8 can be essentialized as:

• Marriage is a fundamental human right
  
• Denying same-sex marriage denies the right to marriage to homosexuals
  
• Homosexuals are a suspect class
  
• Denying individual rights based on suspect classification is a violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
  

One issue I see with this argument is that there's an assumption that the right to marriage includes the right to marry a person of the same gender. Homosexuals specifically aren't being denied the right to marry, they're just not allowed to marry members of the same sex; that is true of heterosexuals as well.

 

If the right to free speech doesn't include all forms of speech, and the right to keep and bear arms doesn't include all forms of arms or extend to all people, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that the right to marriage might not include all forms of marriage.

Rights are negative, not positive. Rights end where other rights start, but positive rights imply "overlaps" (for example, you can't have strict rights to education and strict property rights, because you have to take the money from somewhere). So the correct way to do this is not so much that people have a right to marriage; it's that people have a right to be exempted from others' imposition of definitions of marriage.

 

Not necessarily, no.

 

As said, it's the assumption that freedom is always better for society that I was really disputing, especially if you're going to use economic half-truths as a means of justifying said assumption. I can think of several free economies right now that, for next decade at least, really won't be anything to write home about on prosperity and growth.

I challenge that claim, but FWIW if you're a strict natural rights libertarian the consequences of freedom are irrelevant.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly.

You're missing the point of marriage.

How?

[sees_all1]

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly.

You're missing the point of marriage.

How?

Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children.

 

There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage."

[Omar]

So if people get married and don't have children they're not married? :|

[Ember]

However, to your second point, it would be nice if these couples would be recognized as a married couple in law.

Lots of things would be nice, but that doesn't mean laws working against that end are unconstitutional. The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.

 

I know 50% is not a small number, but that number has grown considerably over the past few years. It's becoming clear that more people, or rather a younger generation of voters, are seeing that there is no reason why same sex marriage could be legal.

That's great. Growing support for the cause means that we can soon revert things like prop8 through public acts.

 

To point 3, someone is going to lose out because these government programs that give these cash benefits really should not exist be it for couple of the same sex or not. Things like welfare, public housing, and the like don't help a society. There is really too much government invention in place where it does not belong that brings us to questions like these.

I hardly could agree more, but no one shoots at Santa Claus.

 

Rights are negative, not positive. Rights end where other rights start, but positive rights imply "overlaps" (for example, you can't have strict rights to education and strict property rights, because you have to take the money from somewhere). So the correct way to do this is not so much that people have a right to marriage; it's that people have a right to be exempted from others' imposition of definitions of marriage.

Don't you think that's a flawed example? There's a difference between having a right to be educated and having a right to make other people fund your education.

 

For legal purposes, marriage is defined by legislation.

[Kaphias]

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly.

You're missing the point of marriage.

How?

Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children.

 

There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage."

And here I've gone my whole life thinking that marriage was a pact or agreement between two people who plan to spend the rest of their lives together while supporting, caring for, and loving each other. Guess I was mistaken.

[TTanT]

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly.

You're missing the point of marriage.

How?

Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children.

 

There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage."

 

This just in barren women and impotent men are banned from marriage because they can't bear children. All post-menopausal women are also being forced to file for divorce.

[sees_all1]

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly.

You're missing the point of marriage.

How?

Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children.

 

There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage."

And here I've gone my whole life thinking that marriage was a pact or agreement between two people who plan to spend the rest of their lives together while supporting, caring for, and loving each other. Guess I was mistaken.

Ever hear the phrase, "consummate the marriage?" Means try to make a baby.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Let's say a homosexual couple get married and decide to adopt. Hasn't that mutual dedication resulted in the full-time care of a child?

[TTanT]

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly.

You're missing the point of marriage.

How?

Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children.

 

There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage."

And here I've gone my whole life thinking that marriage was a pact or agreement between two people who plan to spend the rest of their lives together while supporting, caring for, and loving each other. Guess I was mistaken.

Ever hear the phrase, "consummate the marriage?" Means try to make a baby.

Except it's legal to get married heterosexually even if you don't intend to have a child.

 

If we're going to make it illegal for gays to marry by your definition then the joke from my previous post should be made law for fairness's sake.

[nine naked men]

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly.

You're missing the point of marriage.

How?

Marriage is the only relationship where the mutual dedication between two people is meant to result in children.

 

There are many relationships people have with one another, lots of them can be important even to the point of total dedication, but we don't call each important relationship "marriage."

And here I've gone my whole life thinking that marriage was a pact or agreement between two people who plan to spend the rest of their lives together while supporting, caring for, and loving each other. Guess I was mistaken.

Ever hear the phrase, "consummate the marriage?" Means try to make a baby.

This is the pickup line I use in bars just fyi.

[Omar]

Don't you think that's a flawed example? There's a difference between having a right to be educated and having a right to make other people fund your education.

Well, if you deserve (i.e. you have a positive right to) an education, the books aren't going to grow on trees; someone will have to pay for their production, which means that their negative property right will be sacrificed. If you have a right not to have others stop you from getting an education (i.e. a negative right to education), that doesn't necessarily mean other people owe you one. So no, it's as good an example of positive rights being incoherent as any.

[Omar]

Societies with greater economic freedoms benefit from greater growth and prosperity, for example, from new ideas and productivity

The most productive economies throughout history have been War Economies which typically tend to be anything but "free".

Slap me right in the face on the day when I cease to be amazed that people think destruction makes people better off. You've been involved in a broken window fallacy.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Schools only teach Keynesian economics its no wonder people have strange beliefs.

I wasn't formally taught any economic theory at school (I did this weird thing called "reading books") but feel free to continue in your incorrect assumptions.

[PolarBearBlue]

Societies with greater economic freedoms benefit from greater growth and prosperity, for example, from new ideas and productivity

The most productive economies throughout history have been War Economies which typically tend to be anything but "free".

Slap me right in the face on the day when I cease to be amazed that people think destruction makes people better off. You've been involved in a broken window fallacy.

 

I would have said it a little differently but that is more or less my response to Gingy. War is a broken window fallacy. All war does is shift resource to something less desirable. The resources spent on tanks and rebuilding destroyed building could have been better spent, not to mention the loss of human capital. Not to mention the Soviet Union was highly productive during the time after WWII and we discovered they were hiding under a disguise.

 

I also like to make the distinction between "free" and other types of society. No society in world is a free market society. The US is an interventionist society where the government intervenes in market affairs. Also, Ring_World, no offense but most school, or at least the one I attend, teach classical economics while touching on other type such as that, neo-classical economics, and Austrian economics.

 

Nonetheless, this specific topic should be taken elsewhere. We should probably stay on same sex marriage.

[PolarBearBlue]

I specifically meant our conversation about war and if a free market society is better. That was starting to get off track from the original post =\

 

Also, sorry your experience with schools were Keynesian economics. But I agree on your point about Mises Institute.

[Estonian dude]

As an atheist, I have no idea what all this fuzz is about. I personally do not like gay people, but I can tolerate them and I don't frankly care what they do. I'd say let them marry, it is just one legal contract anyways nowadays, who gives a damn.

[Blake]

That's a nice thing to say. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say I think Estonians suck, because all of them are exactly the same.

 

 

[/sarcasm]

[Giordano]

As un-politically correct as Saq's comment was, its better than the majority of anti-gays. I find it acceptable.

[Plugpoint]

I'm not sure why people even have an issue with homosexuality any more. I don't understand how you can be in favour of denying a couple the right to commit to one another simply because they have matching genitalia. Hopefully society will look back on this in a decade or two with a massive sense of embarrassment.

[sees_all1]

As un-politically correct as Saq's comment was, its better than the majority of anti-gays. I find it acceptable.

Cause they're all BIGOTED!

 

<_<

 

I'm not sure why people even have an issue with homosexuality any more. I don't understand how you can be in favour of denying a couple the right to commit to one another simply because they have matching genitalia. Hopefully society will look back on this in a decade or two with a massive sense of embarrassment.

By all means, commit to one another. Their motive isn't marriage, it's equality, which means tax incentives.

[Ember]

Well, if you deserve (i.e. you have a positive right to) an education, the books aren't going to grow on trees; someone will have to pay for their production, which means that their negative property right will be sacrificed. If you have a right not to have others stop you from getting an education (i.e. a negative right to education), that doesn't necessarily mean other people owe you one. So no, it's as good an example of positive rights being incoherent as any.

Sorry, the concept of positive or negative rights is not something I was familiar with. I think I see what you mean with that example. I don't believe a person is naturally entitled to the materials and resources used to educate them; that entitlement is something which, if it exists, has been created artificially.

 

I'm not sure where you were going with it, though.