Should government sanction marriage?

[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.

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.

Personal unions should be sanctioned only by the parties involved. Just leave government out of the approval process. Those seeking a sense of validation by ceremony may, of course, wish to involve friends or spiritual organizations.

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.

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

This entire business has become an issue only because collectivist types are seeking majority approval for sexual conduct which is not in keeping with evolutionary principals. The laws of nature and the laws of man are not the same. If a person's behavior makes no unjust encroahment against anyone else then there is no legitimate issue. In the case of marriage all people need to do is simply unchain themselves and just say "No!" to big government.



Eric F. Magnuson

[RadMaterialist]

At last someone else has made the point I find so glaringly obvious in the "gay" marriage debate: it is not the place of the state to sanction any RELIGIOUS institution like marriage. All the state should provide are civil unions no matter whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual - or non-sexual for that matter.

I am not a card carrying libertarian though I can sympathize with libertarianism to an extent. I part company with libertarians when they glorify corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism can be as destructive of individual liberty as state socialism. It all depends on the circumstances of a particular individual. No civilization has yet existed that was not based on socialized slavery - and our contemporary corporate capitalist society is no exception. Ever and always societies contain both free and unfree individuals. All that changes are the modes of oppression and the percentage of the population/types of people who get the short end of the stick. Furthermore, the government is necessary as a countervailing power to corporations. Indeed corporations are de facto quasi-governmental bureaucracies exercising de facto political power over workers and consumers. Corporations can be oppressors as well as governments.

I do take exception to your comment:

"This entire business has become an issue only because collectivist types are seeking majority approval for sexual conduct which is not in keeping with evolutionary principals. The laws of nature and the laws of man are not the same."

This suggests that homosexual desire is unnatural. Moreover you are tacitly treating Darwinian selection as a normative principle - kind of a substitute for the "will of God" - in keeping with the currently fashionable ideology of what might be termed vulgar sociobiology. Neither position is tenable.

Homosexual desire plainly arises spontaneously among humans both civilized and primitive as well as among non-human primates and other animals. The popular fear that homosexuality is opposed to survival of the species is plainly unwarranted. The species has done just fine reproduction-wise in spite of the perennial existence of homosexuality. Indeed there must be some flaw even in the obvious Darwinian argument that homosexuality is individually maladaptive - if this were so then why hasn't homosexuality disappeared?

One possibility: the brain's hard-wired inchoate mechanisms for forming erotic attractions are incapable of differentiating sharply between male and female bodies anything near to 100% of the time. And once an initial attraction is formed (in early childhood) a neural pathway is set up which can be reinforced over time contributing eventually to adult sexual orientation (see "Neural Darwinism" by Gerald Edelman).

In any event homosexual desire seems to be a robustly perennial phenomenon which does not hinder the even more robustly perennial prevalence of heterosexual desire in human populations. The presence of an undercurrent of homosexual desires accompanying the prevailing heterosexual desires is what is natural (sometimes in the same individual, sometimes not) - not 100% heterosexual desire. Thus in any human population one may find some exclusive heterosexuals, a much smaller number of exclusive homosexuals and a sizable group of people who have both types of desire (though not to the same extent and not all the time).

What is truly unnatural (in the sense of going against the grain of spontaneous human development) is the social institution of a norm of 100% heterosexuality and companionate monogamous marriage!!!

The problem of homosexuality arises only because some people get the finicky notion in their head that nature should be other than it is. They set up an ideal Nature in place of real nature and decide that sex must serve the purpose of procreation in order to be "natural" - as if nature were governed by teleology. But purposes are not causes. And it's physical causality that governs the unfoldment of worldly events, not metaphysical "wills", Divine Providence or moralistic pontification.

The truth is that homosexual desire poses no threat to heterosexual desire. Indeed it often occurs in the same individuals. The modern notion of the (male) homosexual as a "third sex" - a kind of semi-female in a male body who is phallically impotent and exclusively passively homosexual as well as passive in interpersonal relations - is objectively wrong. Much - probably most - homosexual desire occurs in individuals who also possess heterosexual desire, albeit not to the same extent. And "masculinity" defined as aggressiveness, toughness etc. is independent of sexual orientation. The counterexamples to the homosexual=sissy hypothesis are legion. Alexander the Great is one famous example from history. According to Robin Lane Fox he fathered three or four children, had three wives, four mistresses, an egalitarian homosexual relationship with his comrade Hephaistion and an inegalitarian one with the eunuch Bagoas. And he wasn't exactly a wimp! Julius Caesar also comes to mind in this regard.

I suspect that the widespread belief in the third sex theory of homosexuality is the real foundation of current homophobia. Religious superstition is just a convenient rationalization for this.

In closing I can only hope that progress toward secularization continues. The task is far from done! Religion? Bah humbug! Just say no to superstition!

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Furthermore, the government is necessary as a countervailing power to corporations. Indeed corporations are de facto quasi-governmental bureaucracies exercising de facto political power over workers and consumers. Corporations can be oppressors as well as governments.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I agree with the topic poster, but disagree with RadMaterialist here - I posit that no corporation can be an &#39;oppressor&#39; WITHOUT the consent/cooperation of government - in fact, it is SOLEY due to governments&#39; abusive powers that corporations have any power at all (which is gained THROUGH manipulating government).

I realize this is a seperate thread, would you care to expand on your views Rad and start another thread more appropriate?

only in liberty,
michael

(BTW: yes, I am libertarian with a dash of AnCap thrown in for fun)

[Jackney Sneeb]

No.

--Jackney Sneeb

[Impenitent]

yes

marriage is a contract, government is in the business of enforcing contracts...

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
yes

marriage is a contract, government is in the business of enforcing contracts... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

enforcing, but not defining the terms or participants (besides being of sufficient age/mental capacity to enter into a contract)

this is the same as the government saying &#39;Only males may enter into a Business Partnership&#39;

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
yes

marriage is a contract, government is in the business of enforcing contracts... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

enforcing, but not defining the terms or participants (besides being of sufficient age/mental capacity to enter into a contract)

this is the same as the government saying &#39;Only males may enter into a Business Partnership&#39;<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

enforcing the private contracts made by private individuals...

privacy is the key issue

if the contract excluded everyone but males, the government would be required to enforce it...

are you going to have the government force the klan to accept blacks?

a lot of idiots are trying to have the boy scouts accept girls...

[damnrad]

</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&#39;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&#39;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 &#39;civil union,&#39; 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&#39;t need to saddle myself with libertarian masters.

[Poetic_Justice]

Very well said, marriage is a spiritual and cultural institution, not a legal institution, at least not naturally... Well at least not naturally in the Christian realm, and certianly not in the Atheist realm(I don&#39;t particularly know the basis of marriage in other religions)

Of course, I don&#39;t think anything should be government sanctioned, so I&#39;m kind of biased

Cry Freedom
Dave

[Leopard]

damnrad,
you really don&#39;t know what libertarianism is, do you?

No thanks. I don&#39;t need to saddle myself with libertarian masters.

to be a libertarian is to NOT be a Master or be beholding to one - it is an oxymoron to say &#39;libertarian masters&#39;

but your statement:

Why not let religions, and other communities, define marriage for themselves, while the state sanctions civil unions?

is almost purely libertarian... add the phrase &#39;religions AND civil unions&#39; in place of &#39;religions&#39; and wipe out everything beyond the comma (make it a period) and we are in complete harmony...

... come into the light... just one more small step...

michael

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)

Why not define &#39;civil union,&#39; as some politicians have striven to do so, but apply it to ALL affirmation of couple relationships, not just applying it discriminatorily to homosexuals?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Why should it be just couples? If and two women can marry, and one man and one woman can marry, and two men can marry, why can&#39;t three men who want to be united marry? Why can&#39;t two men invite a consenting woman to join their marriage? Why can&#39;t four women be married? What is sacred about the number "two"?

--Jackney Sneeb

[Anarchist Patriot]

I don&#39;t really think it should be relevent. Marriage can and perhaps should be sanctioned by governemnt for the sole purpose of creating the entity of a family for legal purposes. For instance, married couples can file tax returns jointly, have legal custody over children or can inhabit the same dwelling in single family housing.

But as far as defining a married couple as one man and one woman, I see that as an promotion of religious values on a secular government. There is no reason for it.