I'm wondering how many people who support gay marriage would be in favor of removing the government from the role of marriage altogether? While I can understand homosexuals outrage at being excluded from the benefits of government sanctioned marriage, I don't understand why those benefits exist at all. Most societies that have promoted marriage did so in order to boost their populations (married couples have more children) Why give any benefits to married people over those of us who choose not to commit to a single person or have children. Isn't the world crowded enough? Does a government contract really make your love any more valid?

Monetary benefits for married people should definitely be outlawed. It's ridiculously unfair to reward people for getting married / having children when there are people who are perfectly happy being single and childless who may deserve that money more (and I say this as an engaged man who wants children).

That said, other benefits are worth having, such as the right to be your partner's next of kin, the right to handle their affairs if they are ill, etc. There are too many horror stories of married gay people who live in states which do not support gay marriage being denied access to their partners whilst they lie dying or critically injured in hospital.

One thing I find humorously striking about Libertarians is their reductionist ideas.

You don't hear "let's minimize the differences between X and Y so we may consider removing something"

Instead you get grand standing statements like "Remove X" or "Abolish Y"

In the end run, it feels like you have a solution looking for a problem.

And the complex tax code seems a more pressing issue than the legal institution of marriage (which has substantial rules devoted to joining and splitting of shared property and resources).

I'm conflicted. On one hand, single people, in general, have less overall financial stability than a typical married couple and probably do need it more. On the other, in my personal experience, I most often see this idea proposed by homophobes as an expression of their willingness to cut off their noses to spite the gays.

If I was single with no kids I would have a lot more financial stability.

(February 28, 2014 at 10:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Monetary benefits for married people should definitely be outlawed. It's ridiculously unfair to reward people for getting married / having children when there are people who are perfectly happy being single and childless who may deserve that money more (and I say this as an engaged man who wants children).

That said, other benefits are worth having, such as the right to be your partner's next of kin, the right to handle their affairs if they are ill, etc. There are too many horror stories of married gay people who live in states which do not support gay marriage being denied access to their partners whilst they lie dying or critically injured in hospital.

I'm not married and I wouldn't want my next of life decisions being made by my immediate family. I'd much rather have my best friend make those decision. I think you can (or should be able to) give power of attorney to whomever you want.

---

(February 28, 2014 at 10:34 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: One thing I find humorously striking about Libertarians is their reductionist ideas.

You don't hear "let's minimize the differences between X and Y so we may consider removing something"

Instead you get grand standing statements like "Remove X" or "Abolish Y"

In the end run, it feels like you have a solution looking for a problem.

And the complex tax code seems a more pressing issue than the legal institution of marriage (which has substantial rules devoted to joining and splitting of shared property and resources).

I actually agree that libertarians are too idealistic, applying the same idea to everything regardless of the issue. I think there needs to be room for pragmatism and practicality within every ideology. Even though (or perhaps because) it's not the most popular term around here, I like to call myself a conservative.

(February 28, 2014 at 10:34 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: One thing I find humorously striking about Libertarians is their reductionist ideas.

You don't hear "let's minimize the differences between X and Y so we may consider removing something"

Isn't that exactly what I did say though?

Get rid of monetary benefits for people "just because" they are married, whilst keeping benefits like being able to act as a next of kin / make important decisions for them. I don't think at any point I called for the complete abolition of all benefits.

The irony is marriage originated as a pagan concept/ritual in ancient civilizations. Religion came along, and as usual, put its fucking stamp of approval on it. When I hear conservative Christians talk about "preserving the sanctity of heterosexual marriage," I roll my eyes.

Christianity didn't "invent" marriage nor any other religion. But that is where the dividing line comes in. And why married couples are treated superior to single people, from a legal/tax perspective.

Frankly, marriage isn't necessary in life. If you love someone, showing that person through your actions every day, should be enough. A piece of paper doesn't make you anymore legit than if you didn't have it.

(February 28, 2014 at 10:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Monetary benefits for married people should definitely be outlawed. It's ridiculously unfair to reward people for getting married / having children when there are people who are perfectly happy being single and childless who may deserve that money more (and I say this as an engaged man who wants children).

If tax exemptions are null by the time I have a biological child, I'm going to be soooo pissed. You take it back!

Tiberius, raising a child engenders more risk and a significant drain on resources, even when multiple people pool them.

The societal view is that we give subsidies to families (which are more likely to have planned children) to equalize their risk to be competitive with individuals.