Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Lee Haslup <biglee AT haslups.com>]

Tom Boucher wrote:

> I guess I didn't get the liberal conspiracy note when I moved out here 
> and decided to reside in Wake Forest instead of the left-wing 
> ideologue containment area known as Chapel Hill.

Nice town, Wake Forest, but I tend to like Chapel Hill a bit more 
because there is more going on.  Chapel Hill is also expensive so I live 
in Cary and spend quite a bit of time and gas money driving over the CH 
to see my friends there.

> The article you linked too makes no sense, and I don't understand how 
> libertarian ideals (which to me has been defined as small 
> government/social liberal) would be to prevent a 'marriage' between 
> any two individuals.

The odd thing is that it makes lots of sense to me, but I expect I look 
at things differently.  I've heard that definition of libertarianism 
before.  It's often also stated as "conservative on economics and 
liberal on social issues."  At the risk of having Mr Czeiszperger accuse 
me of using some sort of extreme right secret code, I am a bit uncertain 
about the word "liberal" there since it tends to drag in some 
egalitarian notions that are not necessarily part of the libertarian cannon.

Like I said, I look at things differently and it is my different 
perspective that makes Ms. Morse's article make sense to me while it 
seems to be a cipher to others on the list.  My take on things is that 
there are an infinite number of ways that people can live together, 
sleep together, shop together, etc. and, as long as they are consensual 
and all parties are adults and no gross fraud is involved, they should 
not be illegal.  Sodomy and other similar laws are silly, cannot be 
enforced and should be quietly repealed.   Perfect libertarian utopia.  
Of course, other people are also free to disapprove of some of these 
arrangements if they wish.  We've ruled out passing laws (using force) 
against people of whose behavior we don't approve, but the hairy eyeball 
is still allowed.  In fact, if we really think those others are screwing 
up their lives we have something of a neighborly duty to tell them so. 

A subset of the infinite ways to hook up -- the union of one man and one 
woman  -- is recognized by the government (and society as a whole) as 
"marriage" and given special status and a certain degree of 
encouragement.  This special status can be justified by the tendency of 
married couples to impose less cost on the government and to make the 
least trouble for society.  Experience has shown that they generally 
take care of themselves and one another and they raise up their kids to 
be passable citizens with less help from the government than people 
selecting other lifestyles.   This, of course, is not true in all 
cases.  Many married people make huge messes of their lives that their 
community and the government spend generations trying to clean up, and 
some people living an 'alternate' lifestyle are pillars of their 
communities.  But, on balance, the incentives that society and the 
government offer to married people are a good investment.  This is, of 
course, unfair in many individual cases but, I don't see how a 
libertarian, operating on libertarian principles, is required to care.  
Its an equality issue, not an issue of liberty.  When people living a 
lifestyle outside of the idea of marriage demand to be free to marry 
they are demanding that everyone else in society change their idea of 
marriage to accommodate them.  If your overriding value is equality then 
this is a compelling argument.  If you seek to maximize liberty above 
all it is absurd.

> Personally I like the atwoodkansas.com thing that I read earlier in 
> the week (was surprised it wasn't discussed at all).   They've since 
> changed the page (after their hometown web-master wrote a heartfelt 
> 'disavowing' of his home town on the recent Kansas 'marriage' 
> amendment vote.
>
> Mirror of the Atwood, KS home page:  
> http://www.ljworld.com/specials/atwoodkansas.html

I read it.  He has a few points that could be addressed by civil unions 
but he doesn't sell me on the rest.

> News Article about it from my home town:  
> http://www.ljworld.com/section/citynews/story/201783  (by the way, 
> Lawrence, KS could be called the Chapel Hill of KS)
>
> Personally I like the other passages in the bible that are in the same 
> chapter as the one the others use to say god was against it.
>
> Personally I could care less what other people want to do at their 
> home, or with someone else who wants to do it with them.   Not quite 
> sure where all the hate is coming from but I've been told over the 
> years that before I was born there were people waving the bible around 
> saying similar passages said that people with different skin color 
> than mine shouldn't be able to vote either.

You know, I do care what people do in their homes.  It's not my 
business, of course, but I care.  I have kids and I worry about them.  
It's easy to get hurt and people don't always make good decisions.  I 
worry about my family -- I have nieces and nephews that I worry about.  
I'm happier not knowing the details but I worry and I care.  I care 
about my gay friends -- I only know two who have a strong enough 
relationship to support them as they grow old, I worry about the rest.  
I care about people I meet or read about, especially the kids who are so 
proud of their constitutional right to do self-destructive things.  I 
guess that makes me a hater.  I have a couple of Bibles around here but 
I don't wave them much.   My mom used to give me one from time to 
time... hoping.  But she died disappointed in that regard.  They are in 
one of my boxes somewhere.

> I think men & women have done enough to destroy marriage that if two 
> men or two women want to do something with it they're not going to 
> hurt it anymore.   When someone goes 'holy cow, you've been married 
> for 15 years?  that's a long time these days' and the most common form 
> of divorce I've run into with people I know wasn't because a gay 
> person caused them to breakup, usually it is selfishness, or adultery 
> or some other man/woman heterosexual thing. 

Well, I disagree, of course, but the hour is late and my wife turned in 
hours ago.  I'll just go check under the bed for homosexuals and hit the 
sack.

BigLee