Atheism (page 79)

botchtowersociety

jgnat posted this on the other thread, I thought it was interesting:

It has been called the revanche de Dieu. We are seeing it especially in the backlash occurring in Muslim-majority countries that have recently thrown off secular autocracies.

When religion was state enforced, all of its precepts, including marriage, were state regulated. In our society, the government sanctioned institution of marriage is a surviving vestige from before the separation of church and state. In my view (which you claim is not reality), freedom of contract should be granted to all competent consenting adults--and this extends beyond same sex marriage. It also includes polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, and other arrangements people may desire.

Your VIEW exists, but the libertarian ideal for marriage does not exist. Fight for it if you wish, but states still regulate marriage.

But as you have already pointed out, religion is what shaped government's view of marriage, and I'll further that by saying that religion is the force behind preventing same sex marriage.

But I agree with your last sentence. It makes no sense to tell adults what kind of marriage they can enter into, just cuz you don't like it. And that dislike is almost entirely on religious grounds.

Which goes to my point---that people's religious views are not private and do affect me. Religious people accumulate political power and use that power to further their religious agenda. They cannot always be separated.

What is the libertarian view of the benefits given to marriage? It is impossible to separate this, because there are next of kin issues (as when a spouse is hospitalized) child custody issues (as when one spouse dies, and a same sex spouse having no rights to those children) and many other things that government protects for these unions. Are they so hands off, that they think this is a private contract, or do they think that the government has a place offering certain benefits and responsibilties. Because my understanding (which could be wrong her) is that Rand Paul (to avoide the same sex marriage question) said that govt. should play no role in this, and these are contracts between individuals.

NC

botchtowersociety

Your VIEW exists, but the libertarian ideal for marriage does not exist.

Of course it exists. It exists as much as any idea can be said to exist.

Fight for it if you wish, but states still regulate marriage.

The times they are a'changin.

But as you have already pointed out, religion is what shaped government's view of marriage, and I'll further that by saying that religion is the force behind preventing same sex marriage.

I have pointed out no such thing. I have merely pointed out government has enforced marriage as it exists. Marriage predates Christianity. It predates all world religions in their current forms.

But as you have already pointed out, religion is what shaped government's view of marriage, and I'll further that by saying that religion is the force behind preventing same sex marriage.

Globally, SSM exists in only a dozen or so countries--and only very recently. In fact, oddly enough, it is in precisely those countries with a Christian cultural heritage that SSM has become legally available. It will be very difficult for you to attribute this state of affairs to a single religious tradition. I am curious, as a student of anthropology, would you attribute this to a cultural selection pressure, or something else?

What is the libertarian view of the benefits given to marriage?

Perhaps you should make that a plural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights

t is impossible to separate this, because there are next of kin issues (as when a spouse is hospitalized) child custody issues (as when one spouse dies, and a same sex spouse having no rights to those children) and many other things that government protects for these unions. Are they so hands off, that they think this is a private contract, or do they think that the government has a place offering certain benefits and responsibilties. Because my understanding (which could be wrong her) is that Rand Paul (to avoide the same sex marriage question) said that govt. should play no role in this, and these are contracts between individuals.

All things, from custody, to survivorship, to power of attorney, to shared benefits, can be established through contracts entered into by participants. No government one-size-fits-all needed.

mwah hahahaha!

tal /

botchtowersociety

Good evening James. *hat tip*

Atheism

tec

botchtowersociety

NewChapter

botchtowersociety

sizemik

james_woods

Low-Key Lysmith

Twitch

talesin

botchtowersociety

Share this