4 ms·
Surely this entire argument is an artifact of the governments uneccessarry intervention in private and family life. If we remove the governments role in marria
by 7952 10y ago
Surely this entire argument is an artifact of the governments uneccessarry intervention in private and family life. If we remove the governments role in marriage completely then people can decide for themselves what role it should play. Small government is a sensible ethos but never seems to be applied to these conservative hot button issues.
- throwanem 10y agoIs it, though? The argument I advance against homosexual marriage proceeds from the legitimate interest of the state in supporting marriage and reproduction. If it helps any, I hardly more often find myself in agreement with conservatives on most issues than with progressives...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 7952 10y ago>> the legitimate interest of the state in supporting marriage and reproduction. Why is that a legitimate interest of the state?
- throwanem 10y agoBecause it perpetuates the state's existence.
- 7952 10y agoYou don't need state intervention to encourage people to reproduce. I am sure that groups that believe in waiting until marriage to have sex would acknowledge church marriages as they always did. Cynically you could argue that the state benefits far more from dysfunctional families who are more likely to become dependant. I would rather the government spend money on sex education and contraception for teens than supporting married couples.
- throwanem 10y agoIndeed you don't, but there's a lot the state can do to encourage and facilitate children being reared in stable families which can prepare them for an adult life which is a net benefit to their society. Your cynical argument has value as well. The trouble is that the only even temporarily stable state thus produced is a single-party state, and you can't really kick everyone off the dole once you've finished using it to get where you want to go. It's an ongoing cost whose magnitude is only ever likely to grow over time, and the probable economic result is frightening.
- throwaway-hn123 10y agoSo, you would deny marriage rights to a heterosexual couple who are infertile and unable to have children?
- throwanem 10y agoNo, I would hesitate to extend marriage rights to an entire class of people, of all of whom the same is true.
- throwaway-hn123 10y agoWhy extend marriage rights to the class of people who are infertile? I don't get why you're giving that class of people special privileges.
- throwanem 10y agoI'm looking to find a balance between the interests of the state and those of its individual citizens. In a heterogeneous society, which all societies to some extent are, this is a complex question. To oversimplify it benefits no one. And do you really want to equate homosexuality and infertility, which for all intents and purposes is a medical disorder? Is that where you want this conversation to go? It's not where I want this conversation to go. My sexuality is not a medical disorder.
- tanderson92 10y agoI don't believe the intent was to call your sexuality a disorder, it was to demonstrate the dangers of applying rights by class instead of universally.
- throwanem 10y agoThere's a difference between applying rights and inventing them. The latter is certainly worth doing when it's warranted, but it also strikes me as worth setting a very high standard for doing so, because in a state constituted as ours is, to create a new right instantly overrides broad swaths of existing law and precedent. Such potentially dangerous actions should not be contemplated except in a case where their absence perpetuates a harm so grievous and unjust that nothing less will do. As I've argued at length in this thread and the comments I've linked therein, I don't think it's reasonable to consider that standard met here.