|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The institution is ancient and found in pretty much every society, once the whole gay marriage thing is taken care of, than I fail to see the authoritarianism, rather I see people who view everything through a lens of authoritarianism or libertarian. |
How ironic. I'm sure someone who's against marriage equality could say the exact same sentence.
Your support of government's influence on people's private lives is based on the fact that it's an "ancient institution found in pretty much every society"? Well, sure it is. But that has nothing to do with the government.
Once you decide to give tax benefits or special privileges to certain people based on their lifestyle, you've 1: gone astray on equality and 2: dug yourself a deep moral hole. Why should polygamy or polyandry be treated differently than heterosexual or homosexual marriage in the eyes of government? You're saying that 2-person marriage should be promoted by the government because it's an ancient and near-universal institution, but isn't that exactly the rational behind the forces of homophobia? In this situation, how can you claim the moral high ground?
The only moral path is to discard government benefits for certain lifestyles. Practical considerations can then be made non-judgmentally:
1 Spousal visa is allowed
Power of Attorney falls to the first spouse if no legal documents indicate otherwise.
Situations of children in divorce are already handled by judges, I think they can continue to handle that.
Tax benefits to be discontinued. There's no reason a government should support or oppose certain lifestyles. Why should single people be taxed more anyway?
Claiming that we need government in our marriages is at best a sign of lazy thinking and at worst a poor attempt to hide one's own desire to impose their ideal society on others. |
Not everything is a out and out moral battle ground. Of course the government should promote certain lifestyles, to do otherwise would be unwise. Should the government promote things like health through certain programs and tax structures? What about education? Things like that are a public good in that everyone in that society benefits. Public goods is one are that libertarians are very weak on. Society benefits from the institution of marriage, and as such it's fair that society (the government) provides some benefits. We need government in marriage, as marriage is a legal matter. It makes the most sense, for the reasons I've already sketched out, if legally it is between two people. I know that gay people can get married in a church ceremony, and be married in their eyes and the churches eyes, even if the state doesn't recognize it currently. I believe the laws that punish polygamy should be removed, and that people should be free to do so in a ceremonial way, but not in a legal manner.
For all this talk about moral high grounds and authoritarianism, how come the Scandinavian countries have a higher per-capita GDP, higher quality of life scores, less crime, etc. etc.
Government involvement in neither inherently good or bad. The world is not black or white, try to look at things from a different perspective from time to time. |
Leon has proved the point.
On this issue. There is no middle ground.
Leon, like all those opposed to and trying to regulate one form or another of personal relationship, is willing to use the power of government to regulate the peaceful choices of individuals, that are none of his business. This is the same as Jerry Falwell et al. Although Leon would regulate different groups differently than Falwell, he uses the same government power and has the same reasoning.
The other items are separate issues that are totally unrelated to the removal of the government entirely from the marriage issue. They are used as smokescreens to bamboozle those with weak minds to join on the side of the statists.
In any case, we should never allow minor items, such as those straws Leon has been grasping at, to be used as an excuse to deny basic civil liberties to every human being. Similar silly arguments could be used as an attempt to justify slavery or the draft. Denying individuals the right to engage in personal relationships of their own desire and choosing is on the same level as slavery - indeed slaves were often better treated than gays have been.
Power of attorney - is granted by one individual to one other. Personal decision, no business of the government.
Age of consent - separate issue involving when we grant that a child has reached an age considered adulthoood and can form his or her own contracts. (From birth to some age, children need care from their parents.) Upon reaching adulthood, each individual should have the freedom to choose.
Visas - Without government regulation of marriage, visas, including dependent visas, can be granted based on other criteria. A spousal visa is merely a form of dependent visa. Limits could be based on the ability to financially support the dependents.
Taxes - Taxes on income and property are disasterous for the economy in any case. Additionally, using them as tools of social control has been an abject failure - The controls have caused massive harm to individuals and the economy. There are no benefits that can be shown to have accrued.
Divorce - With the government absent from marriage, government would also be absent from divorce. Individuals forming their own unions would write their own contracts with their own terms for legth of agreement and disolution. Financial considerations would be in the original contract as would the disposition of assets. There would be fewer legal battles and less need for courts as the original terms of the agreements would better fit the indivudals involved.
Minor children - in divorce would be subject to the terms of the volutary agreement of the parties. Since they would have chosen their own terms, in most cases, the outcome would be according to the terms with no legal proceedings required.
The fact is that today's regulation of marriage and divorce leads to murder and murder suicide on a regular basis. The heavy handed use of a fascist-socialist marriage contract and court system is to blame. Parents are unfairly forced to pay excessive sums or lose rights to partial custody or visitation. This leads to violent outcomes that would not occur in a free society.
Without the involvement of the State, most divorcing parents would likely have opted for joint custody from the outset, with visitation for both.
Under most common marriage agreements, assets would revert to the original owner and incomes would remain with the income earner. This would end most disputes. These contracts would allow for each parent to pay for their own custodial costs while the children are with them, but not to assist the other under most circumsances. And in most cases neither party should be required to assist the other as such forced transfers are not needed.
Parents who were more open to asset and income transfers in the case of divorce would put them in their orignial contracts and having consented from the outset they would continue to make the large transfers.
There is no reason for any busybody to interfere with whatever form of contract these individuals may have desired or consented to. The government and the busybodies should stay out.
Peaceful, freely made choices will lead to the best outcomes for all concerned.
However, the fascists, socialist and theocrats - really, these are just megalomaniacal control freaks - will have to get used to the idea that they have no right and have lost their power to control others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some issues are complex and have many facets. Some issues clearly have a middle ground. However, some issues clearly have only two sides: Liberty vs Statism.
Some things are indeed absolute. Were that not true, then we could state that: "Nothing is absolute." Of course the statement itself proves itself false.
When the issue involves the individual, personal choices of adult human beings whose choices have no affect on the Liberty of anyone else nor on the right of others to make their own similar individual, personal choices then the state has no right to intervene under any circumstance. And in cases such as these the battle is between Liberty and Statism and there is no middle ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Some issues are complex and have many facets. Some issues clearly have a middle ground. However, some issues clearly have only two sides: Liberty vs Statism.
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it seems I may have been wrong about the topic of national debate.
Republicans kills civil unions in U.S. state
| Quote: |
DENVER (AP) � A last-ditch effort by Colorado's governor to give gay couples in the state rights similar to married couples failed Monday after Republicans rejected the proposal during a special legislative session.
[...]
The bill's demise was expected by Democrats, who have begun using the issue as a rallying cry to topple Republicans in the November elections. Republicans assigned the bill to House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which was likely to reject it. The panel voted 5-4 along party lines to kill the measure.
[...]
House Republicans hold a 33-32 voting advantage, but there was enough support for civil unions to pass.
Last week, Democrats tried to force Republicans who control the calendar to bring up the bill for debate. But it became clear Republicans were filibustering by unnecessarily talking at length about other bills.
Republicans then halted work for hours, killing the bill and several others that needed a vote before a key deadline. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
Well, it seems I may have been wrong about the topic of national debate.
Republicans kills civil unions in U.S. state
| Quote: |
DENVER (AP) � A last-ditch effort by Colorado's governor to give gay couples in the state rights similar to married couples failed Monday after Republicans rejected the proposal during a special legislative session.
[...]
The bill's demise was expected by Democrats, who have begun using the issue as a rallying cry to topple Republicans in the November elections. Republicans assigned the bill to House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which was likely to reject it. The panel voted 5-4 along party lines to kill the measure.
[...]
House Republicans hold a 33-32 voting advantage, but there was enough support for civil unions to pass.
Last week, Democrats tried to force Republicans who control the calendar to bring up the bill for debate. But it became clear Republicans were filibustering by unnecessarily talking at length about other bills.
Republicans then halted work for hours, killing the bill and several others that needed a vote before a key deadline. |
|
This is what I was trying to tell you, calling it a civil union isn't going to fly with the fundamentalists any more than marriage would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| This is what I was trying to tell you, calling it a civil union isn't going to fly with the fundamentalists any more than marriage would. |
Its a religious issue. People are dancing around it but at its root its a religoius issue.
Goldwater said it best "Mark my words, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, its going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
That's the problem with issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Its a religious zealotry and so no compromise.
I'm a Christian. I would even categorize myself as a fundamentalist in terms of my beliefs. I believe homosexuality is a sin. However, the last thing I want is religion involved in politics. I don't want mine or anyone else's religious beliefs be made law. First and foremost its not what the constitution subcribes to and the framers made it very, very clear they wanted religion out. This in times when religion was far, far more invasive socially. Second, is one day, it may not be my religion or beliefs that is made law.
Tons of things are sins in the bible I read and they are all bad. Yet, most fellow fundamentalists put more into some sins than others. I've been told I'm not truly a Christian for wanting to allow gay rights and marriage. I think I'm being a Christian by wanting people to have free choice and freedom.
There are tons of Christians who, while not liking it, will accept a son who lives with his girlfriend but will not accept that same son if he lived with a man in a romantic relationship. Its hypocritical.
I had an uncle who fought in the Korean war. It was the first truly integrated military in America. He said the argument against was just as if not moreso heated against integrating the miliitary then as gays in the military was today. He thinks moreso.
States having to recognize interracial marriages back then fought it with the same arguments they are fighting gay marriages today. Relilgious. Moral. Legal reasons.
Fact is marriage has been re-defined in America and has evolved. Women were pretty much chattel, interracial unions were illegal in many states. If we defined marriage soley by how it was when the country was founded, many marriages and the particulars of marriage (property division, etc.) would be unacceptable. So, saying those saying they are 'defending' marriage or stopping people from 're-defining' marriage, I would ask what era in America's view of marriage are you defending or re-defining because the concept of what is a marriage has been changing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| This is what I was trying to tell you, calling it a civil union isn't going to fly with the fundamentalists any more than marriage would. |
I wasn't trying to argue speculation so much as trying to focus you on the proper issue, that being the definition and not the rights. I don't think we would have much disagreement on the rights that married homosexual couples should have (if not what rights polygamous couples should have).
| sirius black wrote: |
| Its a religious issue. |
Yup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
The fear is that gov't would in effect force all churches to comply or shut
their doors, whether or not anyone actually wanted to get married there or not is beside the point. |
Looks like his fears may not be far off.
Kansas town approves law barring churches from discriminating against gays
| Quote: |
A Kansas town is divided over a law that would bar organizations including churches from discriminating against same-sex couples, with backers saying gays deserve the protection and critics complaining it's a case of government going too far.
The Hutchinson City Council voted 3-2 to add sexual orientation to the city's anti-discrimination ordinance, which covers churches, as well as employers, restaurants and other local businesses. Churches that don't make their facilities available to the public would not be affected by the measure, and it would not cover same-sex marriages, which are illegal in Kansas.
"If a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party," states a fact sheet put out by the city prior to the vote.
[...]
Witt dismissed concerns from critics that the measure would force churches in the city to rent facilities for gay weddings.
�Same-sex marriage is banned in the Kansas Constitution, so let�s clear that up right away,� he said. �You�re not going to see gay marriage in the anti-gay churches of Hutchinson, it�s a ludicrous notion. People are not bothering to educate themselves on what the law actually says or are outright lying.� |
The Kansas constitution doesn't ban same-sex marriage; it only bars the state from recognizing it. So while clergy may not be forced to perform the marriage ceremony, the ordinance may force churches to act as host.
I should say, this would still be a poor argument in favor of a national ban on homosexual marriage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's more of a cautionary tale in the need to write a law properly than anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| That's more of a cautionary tale in the need to write a law properly than anything else. |
Yeah, I would have to agree... at least once they figure their way out of the mess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
