Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

damnrad · Feb 16, 2004, 01:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,)
This is not even a real issue, but a phony one. People have forged their own chains in this regard. All people need to do is simply deal with the personal and property aspects of marriage separately.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But many do precisely that through state sanctioned marriage. By what right do you say that they should not?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,)

It has never been a legitimate function of government to sanction spiritual unions or promissory sexual arrangements. It's doubtful whether these agreements even possess all the elements of a legally enforceable contract.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Says you. In fact, such arrangements ARE often defined by states as legally-enforceable contracts. Whether or not they should be is something that only the people as a whole can decide.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,)
Personal unions should be sanctioned only by the parties involved. Just leave government out of the approval process. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Why? Who looks after the rights of weaker parties, particularly children?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,)
Those seeking a sense of validation by ceremony may, of course, wish to involve friends or spiritual organizations.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That seems reasonable. But that doesn't address the practical issues.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,)
For the protection of adults and children the state has traditionally made provision for tenancy and the distribution of property upon the sundering of unions, whether by death or other means. These provisions apply to all people and can be utilized by them without reference to the nature of the union itself.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, but it DOES require definition of the conditions under which a union exists.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,)
Any of the the following legal arrangements can be put into place by any number of individuals living either together or apart. Details relating to these options can be easily researched elsewhere:

1. Sole Ownership
2. Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship
3. Tenancy by the Entireties
4. Tenancy in Common
5. Various Forms of Business Ownership
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Why twist something else to fit a specific type of relationship? Why should we let libertarians be our masters and push business law on us as the sacred law of all relationships?

Why not define 'civil union,' as some politicians have striven to do so, but apply it to ALL affirmation of couple relationships, not just applying it discriminatorily to homosexuals? Why not let religions, and other communities, define marriage for themselves, while the state sanctions civil unions?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,)

See what the World Libertarian Order has to say about other current issues;
http://wlo418.tripod.com/worldlibertarianorder/
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No thanks. I don't need to saddle myself with libertarian masters.

Feb 16, 2004, 01:26 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,) This is not even a real issue, but a phony one. People have forged their own chains in this regard. All people need to do is simply deal with the personal and property aspects of marriage separately.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But many do precisely that through state sanctioned marriage. By what right do you say that they should not? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,) It has never been a legitimate function of government to sanction spiritual unions or promissory sexual arrangements. It's doubtful whether these agreements even possess all the elements of a legally enforceable contract.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Says you. In fact, such arrangements ARE often defined by states as legally-enforceable contracts. Whether or not they should be is something that only the people as a whole can decide. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,) Personal unions should be sanctioned only by the parties involved. Just leave government out of the approval process. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why? Who looks after the rights of weaker parties, particularly children? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,) Those seeking a sense of validation by ceremony may, of course, wish to involve friends or spiritual organizations.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That seems reasonable. But that doesn't address the practical issues. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,) For the protection of adults and children the state has traditionally made provision for tenancy and the distribution of property upon the sundering of unions, whether by death or other means. These provisions apply to all people and can be utilized by them without reference to the nature of the union itself.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, but it DOES require definition of the conditions under which a union exists. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,) Any of the the following legal arrangements can be put into place by any number of individuals living either together or apart. Details relating to these options can be easily researched elsewhere: 1. Sole Ownership 2. Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship 3. Tenancy by the Entireties 4. Tenancy in Common 5. Various Forms of Business Ownership <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why twist something else to fit a specific type of relationship? Why should we let libertarians be our masters and push business law on us as the sacred law of all relationships? Why not define 'civil union,' as some politicians have striven to do so, but apply it to ALL affirmation of couple relationships, not just applying it discriminatorily to homosexuals? Why not let religions, and other communities, define marriage for themselves, while the state sanctions civil unions? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Eric F. Magnuson,) See what the World Libertarian Order has to say about other current issues; http://wlo418.tripod.com/worldlibertarianorder/ <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No thanks. I don't need to saddle myself with libertarian masters.