04 Feb '11 17:19>
Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the government SHOULD be in the business of sanctioning "marriages"?
Originally posted by sh76Apparently we are all a bunch of libertarians.....until the health care Nazis and evironmental Nazis come out of the shadows. 😲
I ask this because in the other thread pretty much everyone has conceded that the best long term solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business all together.
A few weeks ago, not one of us would stand against legalization of marijuana.
Are we a bunch of libertarians?
If so, what about a message board like this draws nothing but peop ...[text shortened]... hold positions that are, in the context of greater society, almost fringe libertarian positions?
Originally posted by sh76I've never wavered from these beliefs. 😉
I ask this because in the other thread pretty much everyone has conceded that the best long term solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business all together.
A few weeks ago, not one of us would stand against legalization of marijuana.
Originally posted by sh76I'm OK with it. No one thought it was a big deal until gays wanted to start getting married and have their marriages treated like everyone else's. It is at least arguable that marriage has a number of salutary benefits and therefore a decision by government policy makers to encourage it seems rational.
Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the government SHOULD be in the business of sanctioning "marriages"?
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the biggest argument for giving married people "benefits" is that they often have minors to support. However, if that is the case all that needs to be done is give those who have children perks.
I'm OK with it. No one thought it was a big deal until gays wanted to start getting married and have their marriages treated like everyone else's. It is at least arguable that marriage has a number of salutary benefits and therefore a decision by government policy makers to encourage it seems rational.
Originally posted by sh76During the elections the anti gay marriage is always an issue when conservative votes are needed. Strangly enough it are the conservatives in particular who hate Washinton's interference.
Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the government SHOULD be in the business of sanctioning "marriages"?
Originally posted by sh76OK. You can tell me if the following means I think "the government SHOULD be in the business of sanctioning marriages" and if I sound like a libertarian.
Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the government SHOULD be in the business of sanctioning "marriages"?
Originally posted by sh76Tricky line, that. Government (currently secular) making a dash into territory traditionally held by spiritual institutions. How would/could the government make any position holy, exactly?
Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the government SHOULD be in the business of sanctioning "marriages"?
Originally posted by JS357Well thought out analysis that unfortunately sidesteps the polygamy issue. Why shouldn't people be allowed to game the system by having multiple "social partnerships"?
OK. You can tell me if the following means I think "the government SHOULD be in the business of sanctioning marriages" and if I sound like a libertarian.
I will state some hopefully provocative assumptions: Government is a part of society that WILL form; government being that entity or collection of entities that have a monopoly on the use of force (call it ...[text shortened]...
So that's my defense of governmental interest in marriage.