@ Sorrow- I guess you haven’t been to Mardi Gras? Or Carnival?
@ About the indecency of homosexual kissing or public displays of affection in general- Get over it. The freedom of speech and that of association sometimes means that people get offended or insulted. Under the US legal system, individuals are not shielded from being insulted or seeing public displays of affection. They are shielded from some indecency- but if heterosexuals can kiss in public than so should homosexuals (unless you want them to be second class citizens). If you want to stop seeing public displays, go join a monastery and have gay sex with a monk.
Honestly, in terms of the list of things “to do” shielding your innocent eyes from strangers is probably way down there.
(Seriously, why are conservatives so hypocritical? The loudest condemn ‘deviant sex’ and later get caught doing it.)
xdarkyrex said:
welsh said:
Ah, and here is were you goof. "Handled through other legal means" = state intervention.Why, because the state passes laws to formalize social relations and social institutions.
No, as it is now, marriage is redundant for the purpose of protecting civil liberties, and that argument simply doesn't hold water. While we are at it, why don't we have the law register who my best friend is?
Dude, one of the fundamental civil liberties is the right to have a family and to raise a family. Hey you don’t have to get married if you don’t want to. But if you are married you get to have that marriage protected. And if you do elect to get marriage you get certain rights that non-married folks don’t get. Why? It protects marriage as a social unit, a fundamental organizational unit of human society going back thousands of years.
You have yet to prove how marriage is redundant.
We don’t have laws regulating who your best friend is because, generally speaking, your best friend changes. Marriage is suppose to structure social interactions, vesting the members with rights and also responsibilities. Why the fuck would you want to register a best friend? Last I heard friendship is not a contract. Marriage, both as a civil institution and a religious one, is.
As for the social order- the creation of formal institutions by the state is normally driven by the ruling class and the social groups that it supports in coalition. Thus, your social order is driving your state intervention. See, you're talking in circles, justifying the state's intervention and support of marriage even while you say that marriage is not necessary. Yet, amazingly, it is necessary enough for the prevailing social order to uphold through institution of law. So you are denying the very thing you are arguing supports the institution of marriage.
A seriously failed tenet of democracy. This is why we don't have gay marriages already. Thats worked out wonderfully. The social order also wanted us to go to war with Iraq, and elected Bush into the presidency, incase you forgot. All things can be improved upon, and maintaining the status quo is rarely ever worthwhile. Democracy is not the ideal way to accomplish this, people get comfortable with what they already know.
= Dodge.
Family regulations and rules defining marriage have been some of the first rules established by institutions of social order (which include organized religions). Now you say those rules are unnecessary because they are supported by the same people who support state intervention.
The longevity of a system does not define its merit. This is a logical flaw. The people who support it do so out of an irrational need for "official" recognition, as if the state recognizing their marriage on paper gives it more meaning. I have bad news for you and everyone else. It doesn't. They're just words on paper. The relationship is not more or less real because of some paper on a file in a government office.
No institution is perfect, least of all what you suggest replacing it. But the thing is that to argue a policy position that your position is better than the prevailing one, you have to prove that your’s incurs less costs and is overall better than what exists. So far, you’re peddling a lot of crap.
As for why people institutionalize rules of marriage. You might want to read Robert Bates- Prosperity and Violence and give your mental masturbation a break.
Simply- marriage became institutionalize as a cheap means to stop or reduce conflicts among social groups over who they mate with and the families they raise. Marriage and domestic relations law is hardly irrational but has evolved in ways consistent with changing social needs and trends. An example of this is how the law deals with widows. Likewise, rules of custody have changed as women have become income earners.
And yes, having a marriage recognized in legal paper means more than one without it. That’s why gays want the right to marry. Because they seek to enjoy the benefits of marriage like everyone else. Deny them that right and you deny them their equality. It’s a pretty simple concept. The effort to deny them that right makes them second class citizens because a majority seeks to sustain a two tiered system. However, that type of system has generally been found as unconstitutional under US law. That gays are denied those rights is, I think, a big mistake in US law that will inevitably be reversed.
Arbitrary laws? Father dies, mom is left to raise a family and the law recognizes and supports her custodial rights. This is arbitrary? Father dies (as men don't live as long) and the law protects the mom's right to a share of the estate to raise the father's children even if the father tries to disown the mother because he's pissed off with her. This is arbitrary? The law protects the right of the parents to discuss family arrangements without forcing either to state what the other spouse said in court, so the "babe, you know, maybe we should talk to our child about dealing drugs" is a protected conversation. Or how about father is essentially brain dead and Mom is left to decide whether she should turn off the oxygen. Meanwhile, Mom is able to access joint bank accounts by virtue of her marriage relationship.
These are hardly arbitrary laws.
Arbitrary, redundant, meaningless, non-essential. Why would the law protect the mothers rights to money that is not her, that is bullshit.[/quote]
Man, you got shit for brains. Why, because Dad has three children that are under age 10 and when he dies, she’s left to fend for those kids on her own. That’s why.
The kids, as children of the deceased, would naturally be entitled to a degree of the estate, and that has NOTHING to do with marriage.
Depending on the jurisdiction, but more importantly, the mother would presumptively be the guardian of the children and thus agent over those moneys. Why, little Tommy has a illness and needs access to his estate, but he can’t get to it because he’s too young to manage his money. Who represents? The state? No, the mom.
As the MOTHER of his children, unless they are of age, she becomes the keeper of that money, plain and simple.
= state intervention through formal law.
If he wants to leave some to her, so be it. If he doesn, that's his right.
Most jurisdictions reject your values. Which, by the way, is the problem of your argument. You’re being dogmatic about your values and seek to impose them on others, regardless of the costs and consequences on society. Happily you don’t get to be dictator. This is also a reminder why one should not elect an idiot or someone who has ruined his mind on cocaine and alcohol, to high office.
She has no RIGHT to his money if he deems it otherwise. What you are asking for is the state to supercede peoples decision post-mortem, and that is WRONG.
In CAPITAL letters. No not really. The state intervenes all the time. Why, because the person might have made a will under duress or under an unsound state or, more importantly for out discussion, with the express intent to exorcise his obligations as a father.
What you seem to want is a life without obligation, where all your desires are fulfilled without consequence or responsibility, where you can be totally free of restraint. And you’re pissed off that its not like that.
In other words, you want to be a spoiled child and are upset that the world doesn’t work that way.
Grow up and get your head out of your ass.
Simply fucking wrong. If she married a scumbag, she deserves to reap the benefits of what she has sown. The government is not here to protect people from their own decisions, it is not an older brother or a parent. The purpose of the government is to protect us from other people and things outside of personal control.
Wrong. The purpose of government is to rule. Who rules? Depends on who controls them- and what social group dominate government.
While you may want a more libertarian notion of family rights, the truth is that liberatarianism, in all its forms, tends to have significant social consequences on those who don’t share those beliefs. And sadly for you, the state and the law does intervene when people make bad decisions. If people didn’t make bad decisions, we wouldn’t have so much litigation or need for a state to keep society and the economy functioning.
Case in point- the current economic crisis in the US is a consequence of too much “let the market control and keep the state out.”- which did little but to serve the interests of the credit industry leading to bad mortgages that can’t be repaid and high credit card debts as the poor, left out of the Bush plans and left behind when the market rules, are maxed out. And so economists are saying we may be in for the worst recession in 50 years.
As for protected conversation, what purpose does this serve? Why couldn't best friends have protected conversation?
Because there is a difference between what the parents of a child talk, “We need to get our kid of crack,” and this conversation between best friends, “Hey Lou, let’s go knock over a liquor store.”
What logic gives two people who are married the right to have more civil protections than any other two people?
Protects the family.
The thing about children is also completely pointless, as I said marriage served an arbitrary purpose, not child registration. Birth certificates are very useful and should have nothing to do with marriage in any meaningful way. When a kid is born, they become a citizen, and as such are registered as a citizen, given a social security number, etc etc, this does not need the legal establishment of marriage to work just fine.
Except in our free market system, the raising of the children is left to the family. Or would you prefer that each child get indoctrinated and raised by the state?
Chaos emerges as polygamous marriages turn marriage and family property rights to hell.
Are you supporting polygamous marriage? Because, you know, some churches say its kosher.
Yes, I am supporting polygamous marriages. I am supporting gay marriages, straight marriages, secular marriages, religious marriages, taboo marriages, illogical marriages, self-marriages, group marriages, and what the fuck ever selse kind of marriage you can think of. It is personal and no one at all should have the right to tell you who you can or can not be with. I can not think of one good reason why a girl should not be abvle to get married to her dog if she is weird enough to want to do it.
Congrats for joining a very small minority. To be honest, I support most marriages but have yet to see how polygamous marriages are really tenable in this society. Also, dogs can’t serve as legal agents- so no bestial marriages (at least under law).
Well, historically the age of majority was 21 because most 18 year olds were too immature to make adult decisions.
And how is this not more state intervention than marriage and current family law? What you are suggesting is a fucking disaster.
WHy?
(1) it invites even more family conflicts. Why- "I am the son who is supposed to inherit... No I am the one... No I am the one.. No we we should split it evenly... no I am the wife, I get the first dibs... No I am also the wife.. I get even dibs.."
Order of estate preference can go on the declaration, easy as that. Like a will, but with less formal authority.
Did you pull out this magic document, like most of your ideas, out of your ass?
Also, this is something that does not and should not be state regulated, I was speaking of privatized practice, or personal keeping.
Dumb ass- the law is the regulator of the economy, making such documents enforceable. Or would you prefer clan violence instead?
Use your imagination, buddy, it isn't hard to fill in the holes. I don't want to have to spell it out in immaculate detail, that's too much fucking writing.
Amazing that you can’t see the problems in what you espouse.
As for the age thing, I think once a person is a legally independant person, something like this would need to be filed, thats why I say 18. If an 18 year old can move out of their own volition, than the grounds should be covered, sort of like how they have to file for selective service.
Which is why 18 years is the age to vote. Yet not necessarily the age of majority.
(2) Property distribution- See above.
Answer: See above.
(3) What if I don't want to be kin with you and we have no real "blood" relationship?
Then alter the paperwork, why would that be hard?
SO we let anyone change the paperwork anytime they want- and the line to court is how long? And this is less messy and confusing why?
(4) Hey, we don't need responsibility, do we? WHy? Dude fucks a woman, has kids, calls them family. Next year he says, "fuck this, I don't want to be married to this bitch" and splits. Woman, who had to give up her job to raise the kids is left holding a family together.
This, once again, has nothing to do with marriage. This happens all the time, how is the legal regulation of who is and isn't married stopping that from happening? This argument does a pretty poor job of defending the current situation.
How- because marriage is a relationship with legal responsibilities. Yes this happens all the time. An bastard children can sue for paternity- not the easiest thing to do. But at least in a marriage, the wife can sue for divorce, for custody, for support, and alimony. So if said individual is a business owner, he might want to think twice about fucking around least he get divorced and lose his business. Marriage is not only about right, it is about responsibility. As the judge told me, easy to get into, difficult to get out of. It means that your choices matter.
Rules of marriage and domestic relations not only prevents conflicts and regulates the distribution of property and rights, but it also forces people to be a bit responsible or pay the consequences.
Be responsible? How does registering to get married force you to be responsible? People get divorces all the time. Both of my parents have been married no less than 4 times each.
Which explains your views on this. Sorry your parents are crap role models, but your situation is not universal. I am not saying marriage doesn’t have problems. But I am saying its better than the crap you have suggested. Your thinking is childish. You think, hey marriage doesn’t work right, lets get rid of it. No, you fix it.
You can impose responsibility- but that's more state intervention. But now its state intervention in a new system in which individuals get to choose who is kin and who is not.
Solve problems when problems arise, pre-emptive problem solving is the same argument used for the rise of every Orwellian dystopia. That is an uncomfortable premise for the law...
= WTF?
If you don't want to stay with someone your whole life, why should you be legally forced to do it in the first place? Look at the divorce rates right now and tell me that it really matters.
You don’t. You can get divorced, and the ability to get divorced has become very easy. Yet divorce is supposed to deter people from recklessly getting into marriages that they would rather regret. That doesn’t mean people won’t do it. But a lot of folks will have second thoughts about ending a marriage because of divorce and instead, will try to make it work. Your parents? Perhaps not. Mine, yes.
