5 ms·
>> "I can only conclude that some people have a radically different idea of "freedom" and "smaller government" than I do." Small government conservative here.
by judah 10y ago
>> "I can only conclude that some people have a radically different idea of "freedom" and "smaller government" than I do."
Small government conservative here. It's actually pretty simple:
Small government: the government should stop meddling in marriage altogether. It's a social and often religious institution.
Freedom: We take seriously the founders' belief that government should not infringe on religious liberty.
- mikeash 10y agoThey're not arguing that government should get out of the marriage business. I've seen that sentiment before and it's totally consistent. I might even agree with it. But these people here are arguing stridently for government-endorsed traditional marriage, and against same-sex marriage, all while having that tagline at the bottom of every page.
- sremani 10y agoNation-States life is tied to babies and for now only Heteros make babies, even the gay babies. So, there is inherent interest for any Nation state to promote hetero sex and by its extension hetero-marriages (without relying on government funding for childcare).
- mikeash 10y agoModern medical technology, or even just extramarital sex, make this bad reasoning.
- sremani 10y agoWhat about modern medical technology? how many people of the 3,978,497 of people born in US in year 2015 were born out of this modern technology ? Now if we extend that to world, that is hundreds of millions of babies. My comment was neutral about gay marriage. I was trying to tie the relationship between demographics and Nation-States and why hetero-sex is mostly overlook but important ingredient. May be in the future each of us get to have clone armies and designer babies, I do not know. But to pretend Sexuality and its outcomes have no bearing in Life and Destiny of a Nation to me is laughable.
- mikeash 10y agoDid you miss the middle part of my reply? The only technology you fundamentally need is enough alcohol for the involved parties to have sex against their preference.
- sremani 10y agoNo, apparently you need to read and understand my first post, esp. taking off those "ideological" glasses.
- randomdata 10y agoHow does raping someone – at least I take that to be what you mean by drugging someone into having sex against their preference – relate to a subsidy designed to incentivize couples to willingly have (and care for) children?
- mikeash 10y agoUh.... "Against their preference" does not mean "against their will." I'm referring to gay people consensually having heterosexual sex in order to procreate.
- randomdata 10y agoThanks for the clarification. Now, if they are already willing to do it without government incentive, what does expanding the subsidy to include them add? To be clear, I'm not sure it is an effective subsidy to begin with, but that's a moot point as far as this discussion goes.
- mikeash 10y agoIt seems to make them happy.
- randomdata 10y ago
- rsynnott 10y agoIf you want to incentivise increased reproductive rates, offer appropriate social welfare and/or tax incentives, and improve availability of childcare, education, family-appropriate accommodation, etc. Some countries, notably Singapore, do this. Legalising same-sex marriage is unlikely to affect reproduction one way or another. This article is US-centric, and the US does not have a problematic low reproductive rate (total fertility rate of 1.9), so I fail to see the relevance.
- liveoneggs 10y agothat's funny because I happen to personally know two gay couples (men) who both have two children. Funny ol' world, eh?
- jordanlev 10y agoHow does banning same-sex marriage adversely impact the rate of birth amongst heterosexuals? And if banning marriages that can't result in babies were a way to increase birthrate, then why are heterosexual people who cannot have babies (post-menopausal women, men who've had vasectomies) allowed to get married?
- nommm-nommm 10y agoBy that logic it should be illegal to marry if you are post-menopausal, infertile, a carrier of a genetic disease, or openly express an interest to remain child-free. Gay families can and do raise children. Being unable to naturally produce children doesn't preclude raising children. My mother-in-law is gay. When she was a young adult, before she came out, she got married and had children because "that's what you did" and she didn't have the courage to go against what was expected of her. She, however, was incredibly miserable. Her distress with being gay and married to a man was a huge contributor to her drug and alcohol addition at that time. As a result her children didn't have a good family life. Finally she was distressed enough to divorce my father-in-law and come out. She's now married to a woman, totally sober, much healthier (she dropped over 100 pounds), and very happy.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ionised 10y agoGay couples aren't suddenly going to start outnumbering heterosexual couples.
- jpfed 10y agoMind going into all the work that's being done to get the government out of heterosexual marriages?
- sedachv 10y agoSome of America's "Christian Taliban" communities support pedophilic marriage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/... Others are campaigning to make polygamy legal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sister-wives-case-utah_us_570bf74ae4b0885fb50dc415 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sister-wives-case-utah_u... Some support pedophilic polygamy: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-jeffs-trying-to-lead-polygamist-sect-behind-bars-officials/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-jeffs-trying-to-lead-poly...
- jack9 10y agoThese are different goals (that might share a component) than divesting US Govt from Christian-style marriage.
- e40 10y agoFreedom: We take seriously the founders' belief that government should not infringe on religious liberty. How on earth is allowing other people to get married infringing on your religious liberty?? The logic of this baffles me. I disagree with you, but I will not downvote your comment.
- judah 10y agoHere are two recent examples where government meddling -- one in healthcare, one in marriage -- ended up infringing on religious liberty. Healthcare: The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charitable organization that also offers healthcare for women, were required by the Affordable Care Act to provide contraception as part of their services. This infringed on the religious liberty of practicing Catholics. Nonetheless, the federal government fined the Little Sisters of the Poor for not providing a service the Catholic Church considers immoral. Million of dollars in lawyer fees later, the Supreme Court finally reversed the decision [0]. Marriage: A gay couple asked a Jack Phillips, a Christian baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make the wedding cake for their upcoming gay marriage ceremony. The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths all forbid homosexuality; Philips asked the couple to take their business elsewhere. But the couple took Phillips to court and the court ruled that Phillips and his staff were required to break their moral convictions and were ordered take re-education classes and file quarterly compliance reports for two years [1]. [0]: http://thelittlesistersofthepoor.com/#supreme-court-ruling http://thelittlesistersofthepoor.com/#supreme-court-ruling [1]: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/26/christian-baker-forced-to-bake-gay-wedding-cakes-or-make-no-wedding-cakes-at-all/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/26/christian-baker-forced-to-...
- int_19h 10y agoHe specifically asked about same-sex marriage. These examples involve something else - the first one is about requirements for medical insurance, the second is about anti-discrimination laws.
- judah 10y ago>> "the second is about anti-discrimination laws." You are merely changing the language to avoid admitting the reality of a government infringing on religious liberty. The government forcing religious people to go against their religion is infringement of religious liberty. Forcing those religious people to undergo government re-education classes is Stalinesque. The founders of the US saw this potential abuse; it's why religious liberty is protected as the first right in the Bill of Rights. And on a broader point, this is why we fight for small government: a large, powerful government is a bastion for tyranny. And the religious are merely the canary in the coal mine. Perhaps the left will recognize this wisdom after President Trump issues executive orders overturning all that the left holds dear.
- pc86 10y agoSmall government conservative here, too! And it's not nearly that simple. "Religious liberty," especially in the context of the American founders, is the freedom to practice your faith privately in whatever manner you wish, and to speak about that faith publicly without fear or persecution. It is not the freedom to impose your religious mores on other people who do not share your religion, or even those who do. To imply otherwise is to bastardize what this country was founded on and does a disservice to the founders. If you want government to stop meddling in marriage, I hope you're fighting against tax breaks and other marriage incentives just as hard as you are against allowing two people you'll never meet to enjoy the same recognition straight people do.
- phd514 10y ago>>"Religious liberty," especially in the context of the American founders, is the freedom to practice your faith privately in whatever manner you wish<< That's a common viewpoint today, but there's nothing in the 1A about _private_ exercise of religion. The public exercise of religion is very much what is protected though there are limits when it affects others or infringes on other laws (e.g., bigamy, etc.) Tax breaks and other marriage incentives have a legitimate function in domestic policy (e.g., it's very much in the state's interest to encourage two-parent families for raising the next generation of productive citizens). While those reasons are not always entirely uncontroversial, it's unfortunate that they are sometimes swept up into the debate around "getting government out of the marriage business."
- Mendenhall 10y agoI wish all government connections to marriage were removed. No special taxes etc etc for anyone married or not. That way there is no connection at all to marriage and government. Such an easy problem to solve, thing is people dont really want to.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoIt's not really an easy "problem" to solve though. Civil (ie. government sanctioned) marriage is a social construct that most people want to, and eventually will, enter into. People enter into marriages because they want the legal framework around it. If there were no legal framework around marriage people would have to run around filling out paperwork everywhere setting up their partner as their next-of-kin. There's also currently no non-marriage way to create the same sort of civil partnership that marriage brings, stuff like spousal privilege and unlimited inheritance just to name two. And these are things people want. If all people were interested in was religious marriage or partnership/love/companionship they either wouldn't bother getting married or wouldn't bother registering their religious marriage with the state. Its currently impossible to get government out of marriage without also fundamentally changing our concept of marriage. There's arguments that the "family/marriage" concept is benefited too much in society, and I'd probably agree with that.
- ap3 10y agoWhy do conservatives want less regulations for bussineses but more regulations for people?
- st3v3r 10y agoOnly for certain people.
- judah 10y agoAnswer: We want less regulations all around so as to have a smaller government. The exception is when regulations prevent infringement on protected liberties. For example, we support the Bill of Rights' 1st amendment which states the government shall make no infringement on the free exercise of religion. That's a regulation that protects liberty, so we support it. And we are generally pro-life for the same reason: the Declaration of Independence states that every person has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since abortion snuffs out all three, we seek regulation that restricts it. The end goal is the same: smaller government, less powerful, with less impact on individual liberty.
- qball 10y ago>We want less regulations all around so as to have a smaller government. The exception is when regulations prevent infringement on protected liberties. So basically, bigger government. A smaller government would recuse itself and let the surrounding society punish infringement on protected liberties, which it already does quite well (example: do you, a San Francisco landlord, trust a racist renter over a non-racist one? And you know, because you looked them up on Facebook.) Aren't you the least bit concerned with the other sectors of your society, that don't necessarily come to the same conclusions as you, taking notice and doing the same thing to yours? What happens when the definition of "every person" isn't universal ("group of cells" defined in an arbitrary way for the Left, from conception for the Right), or when different groups are split between which one is more important (parent for the Left, unborn child conceived the "right" way for the Right)? Let's take another 1A example- freedom of speech. Both the Left and the Right have legitimate claims that exercise of certain kinds of speech damages the fabric of society. Their names and emphasis on certain parts are different, but the incidentals are otherwise identical (societies, like religions, are destabilized by blasphemy). But if we cave in and allow one subgroup's restriction, the other logically follows and every subgroup suffers- hard power is even more inflexible than an opposing subgroup's view of you/r group. So subsocities agree to disarmament; one group gives up the authority to ban stuff culturally justifiable in areas held by a different group, and vice versa. This is the other purpose of the Bill of Rights- all groups, including yours, need protection from the society around them. The fact that there's an amendment ensuring that groups can defend themselves with force if things really go wrong should speak volumes about how important and valuable that treaty is.
- wyager 10y agoThe hypocrisy of "small government" conservatives in this regard is that they ostensibly want the government to get out of marriage, indeed a socio-religious ceremony, but they don't want the government to stop giving legal and taxational benefits to marriage. I agree, the government should get out of marriage, but that also necessarily implies that it gets no special legal recognition, and would mean that gay people could also get married.
- judah 10y agoIt's not hypocritical to want a small government and also want less taxation. These are harmonious goals. Governments may wish to encourage male-female marriage (moms & dads => children and healthy environment => productive families => civilization). If that means less taxation for families, and thus a smaller and less powerful government, all the better.
- wyager 10y ago"Less taxation" is not the same thing as "tax favors for admittedly religious ceremonies".
- judah 10y agoYou're right, but the end result is the same, and is ultimately good: encourage male-female marriages, encourage stable homes for raising families, less taxation, and a smaller government.
- wyager 10y agoEven though I don't agree with everything you're saying w.r.t government incentivization of particular social structures, I respect that it's as reasonable as any other political standpoint. However, it's objectively wrong to claim that such policies are in any way "small government"; you're just centrally planning the social structure instead of the economic structure. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely possible that this is a good idea. However, it's pretty much the definition of "big government".
- st3v3r 10y agoI cannot have any respect for that position whatsoever until the "small government" conservatives are lobbying to get government out of straight marriage as well. Until then, it's a bunch of bigots who are too timid to own up to their bigotry.
- tehwalrus 10y agoI like the idea of decriminalising marriage, but it does mean that anyone can define marriage however they want. This brings same sex/different sex marriage into parity, if you do it according to the principles you espouse. So it still doesn't make sense.