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

[Lee Haslup <biglee AT haslups.com>]

Michael Czeiszperger wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Lee Haslup wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> If married couples "impose less cost on the government", then 
> shouldn't you be encouraging same-sex couples to marry?

Most of the cost to society comes from the improper socialization of 
children (boys being especially expensive) so I see the reproductive 
potential of man-woman partnerships as a key factor in shaping the 
institution of marriage.  From there I also observe that if anything is 
a marriage then nothing is a marriage.  It is, of course, a slippery 
slope issue but I have picked my spot on it.

> > 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.
>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "liberty" in this case. If liberty 
> doesn't include the right to enter into a permanent relationship with 
> another human being, what could it mean?   If you are arguing that 
> people who are offended by the idea of same-sex marriage have a right 
> not to be offended, I don't remember freedom from being offended by 
> others as a constitutional right.  Since when does the majority get a 
> vote on the inalienable rights of an individual?

When did I say anyone couldn't enter into a permanent relationship?  I 
am merely disinclined to call it a marriage in some cases.

> The basic problem here is people are confusing their religion's right 
> to define marriage with the state's role in sanctioning it.  The 
> consensus solution that I've seen (i.e. people who agree with me)  
> believe that the state should hand out marriage certificates without 
> regard to religion, and if religions want to pile on additional 
> restrictions to have that marriage recognized, then its up to them. 
> The government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing 
> judeo-christian religious doctrine.

I quite agree.  No religious test for a marriage license.  Just a blood 
test.  As long as the couple has three X chromosomes and one Y between 
them they are good to go.  I pick this combination, not because 
Jeeeezussssss told me to, but because that is the combination that has 
the reasonable possibility of procreation, and marriage is about 
providing an environment for raising kids.

> ___________________________________________________________________
> michael at czeiszperger dot org  |  "Kindness knows no shame"
> Chapel Hill, NC USA              |      -- S. Wonder
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers