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

[Lee Haslup <biglee AT haslups.com>]

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
>
>
>
>