I hope you're right, Hazir. I really do.
After what we've seen on the Abortion front, I wouldn't put it past some religious fundies saying they refuse to have tax payer dollars going toward a lifestyle they view as immoral or sinful.
*And by that I mean spousal benefits for SS, Medicare, Disability, or Veterans Benefits.
Last edited by GGT; 06-25-2011 at 02:55 AM. Reason: *
Why is legislating religious dogma any worse than legislating socialist or liberal dogma?Originally Posted by Hazir
You mean they shouldn't have the right to attempt to get rid of those programs through legislation (let's suppose they want to do this because God told them to)?
Hope is the denial of reality
How many currently married people would be willing to give up their state-recognized spousal benefits?
Look, I am quite willing to discuss things with you, but only if you start actually discussinging rather than posing these semi-smart questions that have a very tentative relation to the debate itself and then only because you distort somebodies position to the point where the proponent of that position wouldn't recognize it himself any longer.
You think you can do that rather than your favorite 'Oh but if you say A you should really say the entire alphabet' replies on ANYTHING?
You may think it makes you look smart, but it really doesn't. It makes you look lazy and your contributions not really worthwhile.
Congratulations America
And it's legal!
For once NY removes a bureaucratic hurdle. This will be good for tourism.
Contracts do not require state approval. Arbitration of contract disputes would, but that doesn't mean the state itself has any say in the contract.
Since this particular contract involves family law the role of the state is essential.
I must say I was shocked by the quality of NY senators by the way; aside from their position on this matter. A good number of them could not string a normal sentence together They have the tendency to want to hear themselves to excess (judging by the countless explanations of votes on the tax-cap). And some of them said things that were so patently stupid that I wondered which braindead zombies thought that they could be well represented by the speaker. I actually heard one of them say 'It is not our job to spend tax money'. WTF
Congratulations America
Yeah, in general they suck. They are mainly there to cash checks, accrue pensions and get second-jobs with influential lobbyists. Our federal government is incompetent, but not corrupt. Our state government is incompetent and corrupt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/ny...nted=1&_r=1&hp
Can't wait for the leftists here to complain about the role of Wall Street and big business in pushing this legislation through. Or something.
Hope is the denial of reality
How does that follow?
Uh, marriage as a contract is an expression of and primarily of interest to, government. Very few private concerns give a rats ass. The only one that expresses significant interest is the health insurance industry and they're trying to phase away from it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Marriage as a contract is primarily of interest two the two people who are entering into it. Has government in the past had a vested interest in marriage? Certainly. I fail to see why it has to for a happy and productive society to function.
I dunno, d'you reckon a government might have legitimate cause for being interested in things that have strong influences on how people in their country turn out wrt happiness and productivity?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
By that definition they would have a legitimate cause for being interested in all relationships.
Could you explain what, exactly, the role of government should be in a marriage?
You know what the thing is with government? We have it so that every individual doesn't have to re-invent the wheel for himself every time he feels like taking a ride. We're talking about basic principles here, but somehow you lack insight on a level that is too elementary to really bother talking to you.
I don't know you but you write like somebody who's newly found out libertarianism. Libertarianism is not the smartest ideology I could think of, it's utterly unsuited for the complex societies we have today.
Congratulations America
Most of the people getting married in the 1st world, in contemporary times, don't primarily view it as a contract at all. I repeat, as a contract it is primarily for and of interest to government.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I know you are right when you say most people don't see it as a contract, but it sure as hell is shocking to me every time I read it. If it weren't for the contractual obligations and the legal implications we might just as well have done away with all types of marriage and let people have whatever ceremony they want (I couldn't even call it by its popular name 'committment' because it wouldn't even be that any longer).
For me a marriage is and always will be a contract not only binding me and my husband but also third parties including the state.
Congratulations America
Well, at least in the most important ones! And I get the impression that the government acts like it is interested in many relationships: laws pertinent to marriages; legal differences (or similarities) between marriages and other forms of sexual/romantic relationships; age of consent laws; abortion laws and funding; planned parenthood and similar initiatives; laws about parental rights and obligations; custody and property in various relationships. Of course, I'm sure there are many relationships that're more trouble than they're worth to keep an eye on.
I haven't the faintest, but, unless you believe I'm incredibly intelligent and knowledgable that just reflects on me rather than on your questionCould you explain what, exactly, the role of government should be in a marriage?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I can't believe how difficult it is for you to understand that a person's approval of various things can depend on whether or not he views those things as being good or bad, desirable or undesirable, constructive or destructive, etc. How can that notion be so alien to you?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Out of curiosity, does cohabitation differ very much from marriage in Dutchieland? I ask because, from what I've gathered, cohabitation is largely indistinguishable from marriage, in Sweden. From a legal standpoint I mean.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I.E. They're hypocrites. They have no problem with corporations affecting legislation as long as those corporations share their preferences.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think you're confusing "hypocritical" with words like "sane", "rational", "normal", etc. I'm not sure I know anyone here who's against corporations affecting legislation in principle. I am however pretty sure there are people here who may be against specific legislative changes corporations have brought about. Hypocrisy? It's about as hypocritical as being against using money to hire a hitman but supporting using money to wage war. Or, er, saving children. Let me know if you're still having difficulties with this. Honestly Loki, your "hypocrisy" thing makes me think of fundamentalist Muslims more than anything else. Hypocrisy isn't a bad thing in and of itself.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Um, they're against corporations having an influence in politics. GGT, Khen, and Chaloobi come to mind.
Hope is the denial of reality
Perhaps it has something to do with the habit of denouncing the actor or the type of act, and not it's direction? Well that and the inherent problem in so many people's pathological hostility toward thinking that differs from their own.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Maybe they've become been conditioned to distrust--by default--lobbyists for various corporations. I can also see why some people would oppose it in principle. As for Chaloobi, gun to the head, if corporations were lobbying eg. to bring about his scifi dreams I dunno if he'd be very upset.
The opposition to corporate involvement in politics is probably strongly influenced by 1. the things being lobbied for, and 2. Loki's presence on the other side of the battlefieldie. by the adversarial tone/nature of these discussions. And occasionally by the same sentiments that drive libertarians and other anti-government ideologues.
As for myself, I make no secret of my preference for good lobbying over evil lobbying, although I'll concede that there may be problems with good lobbying as well.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
See, I just can't make any sense of that. I can see disliking the direction some firm or organization is taking, I can see thinking and saying their goals are wrongheaded if you disagree with them, but objecting to the lobbying means that lobbying itself is, or is part of, the problem. If you object to the means than presumably the means themselves are problematic, yes? I know you reject "the ends justify the means" thinking for the most part, you've said as much in the past. You HAVE to grant the people and organizations with goals you dislike the same freedom you grant for the expression or implementation of your own goals. You can't get a functional non-authoritarian society on any other basis.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I do think that the means may be problematic, but if we can identify specific problems then we may be able to take measures to mitigate them. I can't honestly claim that I know of any entirely problem-free methods, so maybe that's the best we can do.
I don't let it show, but I've slowly come to accept lobbying as one of several legitimate ways to effect political/social change. It's the reality we live in. I think lobbying is a problem when--for example--some actors have too much influence, esp. if that leads to changes I consider harmful. My enemies should have the same rights as I do, yeah, but it's very much in my interest--probably in everyone's interest--to maintain a reasonable balance of power. I dunno, maybe the only way to do that is to just ban lobbying altogether. But then perhaps ordinary rednecks might become too powerful. There's just no winning.
As for ends justifying means, I can't really deny that sometimes we end up having to do bad things in order to prevent worse things, or that we sometimes have to choose between several bad options. As a young angry/judgmental lad I was mostly interested in pointing out that morally wrong actions don't become good just because they're necessary. Perhaps it was because I didn't want people to feel good about doing bad things. Or because I felt it was important for keeping my moral bearings straight. Or because I was ignorant and foolish
I've been wondering one thing. How busy have the anti-gay-marriage lobbyists been these past few decades?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You know, it would be like banning medicine just because drugs have side-effects
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm asking a simple question as to what role the government should play in a marriage. I don't believe it has any role to play in private relationships amongst consenting adults. If they want to sign extensive prenuptial agreements, fine, if they want a more informal, loosely defined partnership so be it. If the rules defining the relationship change/degrade and there is a need for arbitration then I think the judiciary has a role to play. What I don't need is a government telling me what relationships are or aren't valid.
I also don't understand why you think the wheel would have to be reinvented. Contracts and contract law aren't reinventions of the wheel, they are the wheel.
Insightful.I don't know you but you write like somebody who's newly found out libertarianism. Libertarianism is not the smartest ideology I could think of, it's utterly unsuited for the complex societies we have today.
You seem to be equality morality with your interest...
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote