[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Push, as it sits, the states require a license to marry and this effects property rights. Denying the license based on same-sex gender denies these property rights and DOMA really fucks people where states actually legally allow them to marry. I agree that states should get out of the marriage business altogether, but once states are in it, and once property rights are bundled together with a system called marriage, the Libertarian platform calls for the government to grant a license to two consenting adults regardless of gender. [/quote]
“Once states are in it?” States have always been in it.[/quote]
Yup, which is why they should allow gays to marry or get out of it. [/quote]
But gays can marry, they always have been able to.
People of the same sex can’t marry, in the eyes of the federal government.
It isn’t like they will have a “homosexuality test” you have to pass in order to marry another man.
A few things :
-miscegenation bans were not “social institutions”.
the social institution here is marriage.
Miscegenation bans were added to it. Then they ultimately got abolisehd.
The institution itself, its basic definition, didn’t change at any point of this process.
-abolition of anti-miscegenation laws allowed people of every race to marry people of every race. That’s a lot a people.
It’s a benefit for the vast majority of people. Not for a minority.
[/quote]
No. Interracial marriage was officially illegal in every colony by the middle of the 18th century–and that’s only because some of them simply hadn’t gotten around to it. And the argument that this was merely an “addition” is nonsense–the institution of marriage was exactly what the laws of the government in question said it was. We’re not arguing over some kind of Platonic quintessence of marriage here; marriage in American history was exactly what it was, and that was determined by statutes and Constitutions.
So, what exactly was marriage? The law said explicitly that it was not between whites and blacks. Nine states never had anti-miscegenation laws–enough to cast doubt on the argument that anti-miscegenation was an element of the social institution of marriage, you say? Well, then, I trust that the fact that exactly the same number of states currently allow gay marriage–nine–will have exactly as much ability to persuade you that gender heterogeneity is not a fundamental element of the definition of marriage.
In other words, the historical understanding of marriage as between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman–and that only–was as culturally and legally entrenched as the present understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman and not two men (in fact, it was far more so: when married gays start getting beaten and killed for their transgressions, let me know and I’ll admit that gay marriage is as radical a rebellion against established norms in 2013 as interracial marriage was in 1950).
And as for your other point, proponents of interracial marriage (to say nothing of people who actually would have gone through with intermarrying) were in the minority throughout the entire first century and a half of this nation’s history, so the “privilege to a minority group” criteria is met.
And more generally: why in God’s name would it be ipso facto inappropriate for a social institution to be changed in consideration of a group that’s not in the republic’s majority?
I don’t think I have a good enough grasp of this whole argument…
Benefits of marriage(for society) are procreation, and the taking up of less space and resources, that’s about it, right?
It seems like polygamists, if living together and raising kids, accomplish both of these goals.
As do homosexual monogamous couples, while simultaneously helping with the adopting of orphaned children.
So, where’s the problem?
It’s not like heterosexual marriages have proven to be a stable institution…
I feel like I’m missing something…
Why should I give a fuck what people do if they’re churning out productive citizens, and consuming less themselves?
Do people receive benefits just for being married?
As in, they don’t have to live together, or have children?
If so, isn’t that a problem?
i never said the contrary.
That’s not the problem here
Anti-miscegenation laws, regardless of when they were enacted, are logically “addendum” to the law the legally define marriage. By definition.
if you want to forbid some people to do something under some circumstances, you need to define this something first.
the point here is that anti-miscegenation law doesn’t “follow” from the legal definition of marriage.
it was never defined as “the smallest unit required to perpetuate the race”.
In this case, it would have been an integral part of the institution. And the institution would not have been marriage, but racial endogamy.
[quote]
And as for your other point, proponents of interracial marriage (to say nothing of people who actually would have gone through with intermarrying) were in the minority throughout the entire first century and a half of this nation’s history, so the “privilege to a minority group” criteria is met. [/quote]
No. Opinions are irrelevant here.
The day interracial marriage was allowed, the vast majority gained more rights out of it. Objectively.
the proponents of interracial marriage didn’t obtained any explicit legal privilege.
now, i guess one could argue that the same thing with gay marriage. The day it’s allowed, heterosexual people will be allowed to marry people of the same sex. So, even if they don’t use this right, they still gain it.
But to do that one would need :
-a good dose of cynicism and bad faith
-to consider ideological racism as something analogous to sexual orientation.
Thanks, but no thanks.
the fact remains that the underlying intent behind the abolition of anti-miscegenation law was obviously a republican one, in the etymological meaning of this word.
The proposition of gay marriage clearly is not.
[quote]
And more generally: why in God’s name would it be ipso facto inappropriate for a social institution to be changed in consideration of a group that’s not in the republic’s majority?[/quote]
Because, in a republic the government should have no business beside serving the res publica.
res privata should remain privata.
A few things :
-miscegenation bans were not “social institutions”.
the social institution here is marriage.
Miscegenation bans were added to it. Then they ultimately got abolisehd.
The institution itself, its basic definition, didn’t change at any point of this process.
-abolition of anti-miscegenation laws allowed people of every race to marry people of every race. That’s a lot a people.
It’s a benefit for the vast majority of people. Not for a minority.
[/quote]
No. Interracial marriage was officially illegal in every colony by the middle of the 18th century–and that’s only because some of them simply hadn’t gotten around to it. And the argument that this was merely an “addition” is nonsense–the institution of marriage was exactly what the laws of the government in question said it was. We’re not arguing over some kind of Platonic quintessence of marriage here; marriage in American history was exactly what it was, and that was determined by statutes and Constitutions.
So, what exactly was marriage? The law said explicitly that it was not between whites and blacks. Nine states never had anti-miscegenation laws–enough to cast doubt on the argument that anti-miscegenation was an element of the social institution of marriage, you say? Well, then, I trust that the fact that exactly the same number of states currently allow gay marriage–nine–will have exactly as much ability to persuade you that gender heterogeneity is not a fundamental element of the definition of marriage.
In other words, the historical understanding of marriage as between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman–and that only–was as culturally and legally entrenched as the present understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman and not two men (in fact, it was far more so: when married gays start getting beaten and killed for their transgressions, let me know and I’ll admit that gay marriage is as radical a rebellion against established norms in 2013 as interracial marriage was in 1950).
And as for your other point, proponents of interracial marriage (to say nothing of people who actually would have gone through with intermarrying) were in the minority throughout the entire first century and a half of this nation’s history, so the “privilege to a minority group” criteria is met.
And more generally: why in God’s name would it be ipso facto inappropriate for a social institution to be changed in consideration of a group that’s not in the republic’s majority?[/quote]
Ho hum.
First, despite your rather weak objections, you compared slavery to gay marriage.
Now you’re doing it with race.
It’s intellectually dishonest to do it with either.
[/quote]
What is wrong comparing it to interracial marriage? One of the biggest arguments against that was the outcome it would have on the children (which you use for gay marriage too).
If marriage is defined as a white man and white women and we allow it to get changed to just a man and a woman, what’s to stop some guy from marrying both a white and black woman at the same time?
Do people receive benefits just for being married? As in, they don’t have to live together, or have children?
If so, isn’t that a problem? [/quote]
Yep. 1100ish legal benefits to being married that have nothing to do with co-habitation or reproduction.
The current SCOTUS issue is that, if you die, your estate is transferred, tax free, to your spouse (mostly regardless of where the spouse lives).
You can confess a murder to your spouse and the confession is inadmissible due to spousal privilege.
If you are a US citizen, anyone you marry is granted citizenship.
In my, and others, opinions, these are things that should be addressed rather than just perpetuated by the redefinition of marriage.
First, despite your rather weak objections, you compared slavery to gay marriage.
Now you’re doing it with race.
It’s intellectually dishonest to do it with either.
[/quote]
Except that that’s not what I’m doing, at all, and I trust that you’re smart enough to understand that. I’m criticizing the bizarre maxim that “a social institution should not be changed for the benefit of a minority in a republic.” And that is the only thing I’m doing in that conversation with Kamui. There is not so much as a whisper of moral or ethical equivalency in a single word of what I’ve written.
What is wrong comparing it to interracial marriage?[/quote]
Because a law preventing interracial marriage infringed on the liberty of an individual, or set of individuals based on skin color, an uncontrolable situation of that individual’s life.
Preventing same sex marriage, prevents it for everyone, all women and all men are prevented from marriage to another of the same sex.
So the first law is like saying “Black people can’t smoke weed”
The second is like saying “No people can smoke weed”
Even if they didn’t want to–which most people didn’t. Because, as you say, “opinions are irrelevant here.”
And so, by this logic, if gay marriage were legalized in all 50 states, every American would suddenly have gained a right. The right to marry somebody of their same sex.
Doesn’t matter if they don’t want to, right? Because public opinion doesn’t matter.
What is wrong comparing it to interracial marriage?[/quote]
Because a law preventing interracial marriage infringed on the liberty of an individual, or set of individuals based on skin color, an uncontrolable situation of that individual’s life.
Preventing same sex marriage, prevents it for everyone, all women and all men are prevented from marriage to another of the same sex.
So the first law is like saying “Black people can’t smoke weed”
The second is like saying “No people can smoke weed”
[/quote]
Your argument is in shambles before the conclusion of its first premise: anti-miscegenation laws don’t fundamentally affect one or another skin color, they affect every single citizen. A ban on black-white marriage has exactly as much legal effect on a white person as it does on a black person. And so the law is exactly as all-encompassing as is a ban on gay marriage.
And the line about “an uncontrollable situation in a person’s life,” which referenced race, carried the implication that homosexuality is “controllable.” Is that what you believe?
Do people receive benefits just for being married? As in, they don’t have to live together, or have children?
If so, isn’t that a problem? [/quote]
Yep. 1100ish legal benefits to being married that have nothing to do with co-habitation or reproduction.
The current SCOTUS issue is that, if you die, your estate is transferred, tax free, to your spouse (mostly regardless of where the spouse lives).
You can confess a murder to your spouse and the confession is inadmissible due to spousal privilege.
If you are a US citizen, anyone you marry is granted citizenship.
In my, and others, opinions, these are things that should be addressed rather than just perpetuated by the redefinition of marriage.[/quote]
I see.
So, this argument is pretty pointless.
Arguing for an arbitrary point in a flawed institution.
Those arguing against are thinking short-term, realistic outcome, they may not dislike homosexuals at all, but they see it as pouring gas on the fire.
Those arguing for are thinking big picture, philosophically, and don’t comprehend the real-world consequences.
So, what this comes down to, in the short term, is life satisfaction for a minority group vs. another perceived nail in our societies economic coffin.
Tough call.
Definitely sounds like marriage needs an overhaul, regardless.
That’s the takeaway I’m getting from this.
i never said the contrary.
That’s not the problem here
Anti-miscegenation laws, regardless of when they were enacted, are logically “addendum” to the law the legally define marriage. By definition.
if you want to forbid some people to do something under some circumstances, you need to define this something first.
the point here is that anti-miscegenation law doesn’t “follow” from the legal definition of marriage.
it was never defined as “the smallest unit required to perpetuate the race”.
In this case, it would have been an integral part of the institution. And the institution would not have been marriage, but racial endogamy.
[/quote]
Where exactly can I find this simple, universal definition of marriage in the early United States?
Think about it, Andy. What is the difference between an ethnicity and a behavior? Or are you saying there is none?
[/quote]
So my heterosexuality is a behavior? Like being a smoker or eating too many donuts?
No. It’s a fundamental element of my being.
If I thought otherwise, I would wonder if I might actually be gay.[/quote]
Is Heterosexuality a fundamental element of being, is Being Homosexual a choice, or a learned behavior? I actually agree with my question I just would like some others thoughts on it.
What is wrong comparing it to interracial marriage?[/quote]
Because a law preventing interracial marriage infringed on the liberty of an individual, or set of individuals based on skin color, an uncontrolable situation of that individual’s life.
Preventing same sex marriage, prevents it for everyone, all women and all men are prevented from marriage to another of the same sex.
So the first law is like saying “Black people can’t smoke weed”
The second is like saying “No people can smoke weed”
[/quote]
This makes no sense, I was talking about interracial marriage so your first law is only true if smoke weed = marry white people.
“Black people can’t marry white people”
The second would be “No people can marry white people” which makes no sense… switch that to black people and you just said its okay to make a law saying nobody can marry a black person, but its OK because it applies to everyone and is not discrimination.
Even if they didn’t want to–which most people didn’t. Because, as you say, “opinions are irrelevant here.”
And so, by this logic, if gay marriage were legalized in all 50 states, every American would suddenly have gained a right. The right to marry somebody of their same sex.
Doesn’t matter if they don’t want to, right? Because public opinion doesn’t matter.[/quote]