(December 4, 2010 at 10:53 am)Jaysyn Wrote: Are you saying the simple signing of a contract should be able to assign a legal kinship with another human? That would open the door to line & group marriages. While I personally would be cool with that, I don't think it would fly with most people.

Sure, it might not fly with other people, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. Libertarianism is about protecting the rights & liberties of the individual, and that includes the right to marry whoever you want to, provided all parties involved are agreed.

One of the main reasons I like the Libertarian ideology is because it is based on the shared belief that individuals should be able to do what they want, as long as they don't adversely affect other individuals. Once this is accepted, it doesn't matter if one finds polygamy repulsive, or even incest, because the fact that it doesn't affect anyone other than the parties involved is more important.

I found a good quote from the New Zealand Libertarian party on this issue:

"we fully support the concept of a civil union and would also support allowing marriages between same sex couples, and indeed polygamous marriages or marriages between people who are already related—in all cases as long as all parties are adults and consenting"

I'll just let it be known that Arcanus (Ryft, David Smart) didn't write that. Adam did, and he paraphrased it from a Stand to Reason radio show, led by Greg Koukl.

Arcanus actually has a different stance, which I largely agree with, other than his last point.

"Arcanus Wrote:1. There are rights that spouses and families enjoy due to marriage that are not extended to all individuals equally (e.g., family visitation rights in hospitals or prisons, tax-free transfer of property, various pensions and benefits). By denying same-sex unions a marriage license, the state denies them legal recognition as spouses and families; thus, the grievance that the rights of individuals are not given equal protection under the law. One of the reasons same-sex couples fight for a marriage license is to have those state-recognized rights that spouses and families enjoy.

2. The word "accrue" means to gain or receive by accumulation; with respect to the rights of individuals under American law (q.v. your reference to California), the word is inapplicable. American citizens do not receive rights from the government; in fact, that is completely backwards, for it is the government that receives rights from the people via the U.S. Constitution. Recall that the Declaration of Independence was about rejecting the British empire and its "divine right of kings," establishing the New World on the "consent of the governed" whereby the people would enumerate certain powers and rights to the government through the Constitution; i.e., the people are sovereign, not the government. "We the People" did not erect a government to grant or establish the rights of individuals. They recognized and acknowledged as self-evident the truth that all men are created equal, already endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Government was instituted among and by them to secure the rights they already had, a government which itself derives its powers from the consent of the governed.

3. Consequently, whether or not a person has a right to marry someone of the same sex—or their sibling, parent, pet goat, self, etc.—is not an issue the government can answer (in the United States), because the government is not the source of rights. Since marriage is a covenant instituted by God, it is one of the rights we are endowed with; therefore, our Creator is the source to which we must go to find out whether or not marriage includes people of the same sex. The U.S. government protects rights; it neither grants them nor has any authority over them.

I also chimed in a few times on this topic in the comments section. At one point Duane compares gay marriage to a man marrying a dog. Awesome conclusions those guys reach.

(December 3, 2010 at 9:07 pm)lrh9 Wrote: What's wrong with an imbalance? There are imbalances everywhere. There is nothing that can prove an imbalance is wrong. In fact, people naturally chose imbalance. If it is a life and death decision between me and someone else chances are I'm going to try to do something to ensure that I live instead of the other person.

But let's use a hypothetical to discuss this. Say that you are in an accident and left in a coma. You are taken to a private hospital. One of their rules is that only one person may see someone in the hospital at a time, and each person is allowed to have an hour. Say that your wounds are fatal. You are going to die within the next hour. Say that I come to the hospital to visit you, and I arrive before your hypothetical partner whom you love very much. How would your system work to ensure that your partner got to spend your last hour alive with you without giving your partner or your status as a couple any preferential legal treatment over me? Or would you be such a bastard as to not give a damn who was in that room?

You've missed the point but, sure, I'll play this game.
I love many people, why should my wife get that hour over my mother or children? And since this is a discussion on government given rights to married groups in preferance to single men/women, why the hell does the government even have a say in this? Frack that, they have NO idea who I would want there beside me so with their intervention odds are they would guarentee someone I didn't want was there.

Regardless, on the actual topic, the point was that if we look at three households, one has a single man living in it and the other a married couple and the other an unmarried couple who are just there to save rent. If the houses and other costs are proportionate to the number of people living in them and are essentially treated as equal in every way as far as cost go. Why should the technically married couple have to spend less than a single man or unmarried couple?

Since I am not sure if I explained that right.. With all else being equal, why should a marrage contract make you a higher class of citizen and give you benefits that a single adult or unmarried couple are denied.

Since when did benefits of marriage become rights?

A marriage is a legally binding contract. It can have religious and social roots, but in the eyes of the law, that's all it boils down to. If you engage in such a contract, you are entitled to benefits. If you breach this contract, you can be fined/reprimanded.

This issue was about the right TO marry and to enjoy the benefits associated with such an institution, which homosexuals do not have.

Married people aren't granted extra rights, they are given benefits that single people do not have, because they entered into a lifelong contract with another person. A marriage can be had for a myriad of reasons, not only for love.

(December 3, 2010 at 9:07 pm)lrh9 Wrote: But let's use a hypothetical to discuss this. Say that you are in an accident and left in a coma. You are taken to a private hospital. One of their rules is that only one person may see someone in the hospital at a time, and each person is allowed to have an hour. Say that your wounds are fatal. You are going to die within the next hour. Say that I come to the hospital to visit you, and I arrive before your hypothetical partner whom you love very much. How would your system work to ensure that your partner got to spend your last hour alive with you without giving your partner or your status as a couple any preferential legal treatment over me? Or would you be such a bastard as to not give a damn who was in that room?

If you honestly think this is a good hypothetical, then you obviously aren't thinking straight. Marriage doesn't lose all meaning if the government simply steps aside. The government doesn't decree that a husband has first right to be by his wife on her deathbed, or vice versa. That decision is made by the hospitals. The same decision can be made by the hospitals under my definition of marriage.

As far as I am aware, hospitals do not challenge husbands or wives to prove they are the spouse of the person they are wanting to see. The same applies here.

(December 6, 2010 at 3:28 pm)tavarish Wrote: Since when did benefits of marriage become rights?

A marriage is a legally binding contract. It can have religious and social roots, but in the eyes of the law, that's all it boils down to. If you engage in such a contract, you are entitled to benefits. If you breach this contract, you can be fined/reprimanded.

This issue was about the right TO marry and to enjoy the benefits associated with such an institution, which homosexuals do not have.

Married people aren't granted extra rights, they are given benefits that single people do not have, because they entered into a lifelong contract with another person. A marriage can be had for a myriad of reasons, not only for love.

Actually I was responcing to Lrh9 saying "People in a relationship deserve some legal benefits and privileges that single people don't and shouldn't have."

Related to that and the original topic somewhat is huge lists of privelges given to heterosexual marrages and denied of everyone else. http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarri...nefits.htm
I've met a few people who only care about gay marrage because they are denied these benefits.

Again, I've yet to hear why being a couple means you should be given anything, what makes married people special?

(December 6, 2010 at 6:37 pm)Demonaura Wrote: Again, I've yet to hear why being a couple means you should be given anything, what makes married people special?

Did you not read my first paragraph?

"A marriage is a legally binding contract. It can have religious and social roots, but in the eyes of the law, that's all it boils down to. If you engage in such a contract, you are entitled to benefits. If you breach this contract, you can be fined/reprimanded. "

It's a contract - meaning that you gain some things, and you lose some things. You can have property tax benefits, but you lose the ability of having sex with another person for the rest of your life, as this would be a breach of contract in most cases. This is one example. It's not a lottery, it's a give and take situation.

(December 7, 2010 at 11:55 am)tavarish Wrote:

(December 6, 2010 at 6:37 pm)Demonaura Wrote: Again, I've yet to hear why being a couple means you should be given anything, what makes married people special?

Did you not read my first paragraph?

"A marriage is a legally binding contract. It can have religious and social roots, but in the eyes of the law, that's all it boils down to. If you engage in such a contract, you are entitled to benefits. If you breach this contract, you can be fined/reprimanded. "

It's a contract - meaning that you gain some things, and you lose some things. You can have property tax benefits, but you lose the ability of having sex with another person for the rest of your life, as this would be a breach of contract in most cases. This is one example. It's not a lottery, it's a give and take situation.

Since when is the government supposed to be in the business of setting up trades like: screw less women, pay less taxes?

None of their business.

(December 7, 2010 at 11:55 am)tavarish Wrote: It's a contract - meaning that you gain some things, and you lose some things. You can have property tax benefits, but you lose the ability of having sex with another person for the rest of your life, as this would be a breach of contract in most cases. This is one example. It's not a lottery, it's a give and take situation.

I very much doubt people "lose the ability" to have sex with another person, as a lot of people do go on to have affairs, etc.

In any case, there are such things as open marriages, which are perfectly legal. Nobody has yet presented one valid reason why a couple who decide to get married should gain any rights over a couple who do not get married.

(December 7, 2010 at 3:21 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(December 7, 2010 at 11:55 am)tavarish Wrote: It's a contract - meaning that you gain some things, and you lose some things. You can have property tax benefits, but you lose the ability of having sex with another person for the rest of your life, as this would be a breach of contract in most cases. This is one example. It's not a lottery, it's a give and take situation.

I very much doubt people "lose the ability" to have sex with another person, as a lot of people do go on to have affairs, etc.

Yes, but this would be a breach of contract. I'm not talking about losing physical abilities, I meant losing the ability for you to have sex with others and not incur legal penalties. Also note I said "in most cases". I know about open marriages and accounted for them.

(December 7, 2010 at 3:21 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In any case, there are such things as open marriages, which are perfectly legal. Nobody has yet presented one valid reason why a couple who decide to get married should gain any rights over a couple who do not get married.

I wasn't advocating anyone should gain rights as a result of marriage. I said that since they enter a contract, they have benefits, as well as risks. Much like paying a cell phone under contractual obligation, you have restrictions. Having extra rights is not my argument.

The only right I was advocating at all was the right for gays TO get married.

---

(December 7, 2010 at 1:59 pm)Demonaura Wrote:

(December 7, 2010 at 11:55 am)tavarish Wrote:

(December 6, 2010 at 6:37 pm)Demonaura Wrote: Again, I've yet to hear why being a couple means you should be given anything, what makes married people special?

Did you not read my first paragraph?

"A marriage is a legally binding contract. It can have religious and social roots, but in the eyes of the law, that's all it boils down to. If you engage in such a contract, you are entitled to benefits. If you breach this contract, you can be fined/reprimanded. "

It's a contract - meaning that you gain some things, and you lose some things. You can have property tax benefits, but you lose the ability of having sex with another person for the rest of your life, as this would be a breach of contract in most cases. This is one example. It's not a lottery, it's a give and take situation.

Since when is the government supposed to be in the business of setting up trades like: screw less women, pay less taxes?

None of their business.

It has nothing to do with screwing women.

The contract of marriage is a legally binding one, it's not setting up a trade, it's establishing a household as one legal entity. It's easier to file one tax return than it is to file two, cutting administrative costs. The incentive for doing so can be (not necessarily) reflected on the couple's taxes. The same way a single mother can claim 10 dependents on her taxes and receive government aid and reduced taxes, a dual-earner household where the filing individuals are married and have a disparate income can get tax breaks.

The government doesn't ask you who you have sex with, but it does need to know if you have contractual obligations legally. Understand?