Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] One more whack at the dead horse...

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lee Haslup <biglee AT haslups.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] One more whack at the dead horse...
  • Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:09:05 -0400

David Minton wrote:

On 04/18/05 2:59 AM, "Lee Haslup" <biglee AT haslups.com> wrote:

A couple of quick comments--maybe more later if I get a chance.


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.


I would be interested to see the evidence supporting this.

Shouldn't be hard to find. There are lots of expensive social problems that corelate strongly with illegitimacy.

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.


Interesting. Can I assume by this that you would have supported misogyny
laws forty years ago? Weren't mixed-race marriages considered "lifestyle
outside of the [societal] idea of marriage" in many parts of the country,
including this?

It is interesting, and a fair question. Since I appeal to the general sense of society it is fair to ask about things were society was simply wrong. I am tempted to point out that the more common term for misogyny was "mixed race marriage" which indicates that, while many people didn't like it it was none the lest considered marriage. And ( ...he said gathering certainty... ) this is probably because, although they did not like it they nonetheless recognized it as the union of a man and a woman and, thus, a marriage with all the persuant concerns about progeny (about which, to be fair, many people were pretty irrrational).


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.


According to statistics, half of your married heterosexual couples also lack
a "a strong enough relationship to support them as they grow old," and whose
marriages will end in divorce. I guess you need to worry about them as well.

Indeed, I should and I do. But at least the cup is half full.

I find it interesting that the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate in
the country:

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html

My opinion? Since objections to same-sex marriage seems to often be based on
religious/moral arguments, than the government should not be in the business
of marriage. Instead, the government could offer civil unions, and couple
could opt for a religious marriage, if they so choose.

Since you used the terms "civil union" and "marriage" separately I can agree with you provided the government reserves the right to make distinctions between the two.

David

---
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










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page