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

[David Minton <dminton AT mindspring.com>]

On 04/18/05 11:09 PM, "Lee Haslup" <biglee AT haslups.com> wrote:

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

Why can't this be one of those cases, that society is wrong? I just don't
buy any of the arguments against it. If marriage is about procreation, then
sterile/infertile people should not be allowed to marry. As far as morals,
the government should not be in the business of regulating morality, as long
as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

>> 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.

The distinction would be that the government wouldn't touch anything called
marriage, and would not be able to discriminate based on sexual preference
for Civil Union.