3 ms·

Basically what I'm saying is that being against State privileged gay marriage doesn't have to be anti-gay. It can be anti-State. While I think this is a perfec

Basically what I'm saying is that being against State privileged gay marriage doesn't have to be anti-gay. It can be anti-State. While I think this is a perfectly rational position, I'm dubious that it's a very good basis for opposing gay marriage rights. I've noticed that libertarians and leftists both tend toward a passionate hatred of compromise and "half-measures," and this reasoning strikes me as one of those cases. If you really don't think the State should be involved in marriage at all, then you don't want the state recognizing gay marriage because you don't want it to recognize any marriage. But on a practical level, that's not going to happen any time soon. Extending gay marriage rights arguably reduces the State's ability to dictate who can and can't be married and thus increases individual freedom. Isn't that clearly preferable from a libertarian standpoint?

burntsushi 13y ago
I clarified in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461745 But to succinctly answer your question; no I don't think it is unequivocally libertarian. But it depends on who you talk to. > I've noticed that libertarians and leftists both tend toward a passionate hatred of compromise and "half-measures," and this reasoning strikes me as one of those cases. You mean compromise with respect to the expansion of the State. This is usually the distinction between a moderate and a radical. > I'm dubious that it's a very good basis for opposing gay marriage rights. Here's the problem: you're presupposing that marriage is a right. I appreciate that marriage (along with a myriad of other things) is listed as a right in the UDHR, but that really isn't why gays---or others like polyamorous cohabitants---want marriage in the first place. They want it because of State granted privileges bestowed upon married couples. Those aren't rights. Unfortunately, some of those privileges restrict the rights of all unmarried persons. Particularly with respect to hospital visitation. Everyone---including unmarried people---should be allowed to control such things about their lives. Other privileges include tax breaks and the like. I won't go down that road... With that said, you're basically telling me that I oppose something that I don't think even exists in the first place. To me, rights are much more fundamental than constructs like marriage. The problem is that the debate is framed in terms of gay marriage. One's position against marriage in general can subsume one's position on gay marriage. But the lynch mob lacks perspective and can only imagine that being against gay marriage means being against gays. Once you finally recognize that, "oh gee whiz, yeah, being against marriage in general is cool, but still, you aren't pragmatic enough for me." OK. Now we're done. Before I was a bigot. But now I'm just not being pragmatic. That isn't a lynchable offense. So, we good now? (Not talking to you specifically, but in general.) Disclaimer: I don't vote and don't contribute to any political causes/campaigns because there are none that exclusively support voluntary interaction. If someone put a gun to my head and told me to vote, I'd vote in favor of more egalitarian laws every time. Sorry for being a windbag, but in this kind of topic, it's just way too easy to take short responses that aren't precise in bad faith.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  > One's position against marriage in general can subsume one's position on gay marriage. This makes no sense to me. When gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, the total number of extant marriages will increase by no more than a few percent. It seems, at the least, incredibly churlish to me to want to deny gay people the right to marry the consenting single adult of their choice just because you think it's unfair that marriage carries privileges. In short, your beef is mostly with straight people, but you're willing to take it out on the gays anyway, just because they're politically weaker. I can't see this as a principled stance. And for the record, I agree that some of said privileges should be available to single people as well, like control over hospital visitation. I just think this is a completely orthogonal issue to gay marriage.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    Respectfully, I think you've completely missed my point. Here's what tipped me off: > In short, your beef is mostly with straight people No. It's very much not with straight people. It's with the State. The State is the one suppressing people (not just gays) by giving special privileges to a preferred class of people. > but you're willing to take it out on the gays anyway, just because they're politically weaker. Uh, no, I'm not... This is exactly why I don't vote and don't contribute to political campaigns. > And for the record, I agree that some of said privileges should be available to single people as well, like control over hospital visitation. I just think this is a completely orthogonal issue to gay marriage. Then you haven't appreciated what it means to be against the State's involvement with marriage. Against State privileged marriage => against all forms of State privileged marriage. Once again, my point remains the same: being against State privileged marriage (and therefore State privileged gay marriage) does not make one a bigot. This runs contrary to what the lynch mob would like to assume.
    - ScottBurson 13y ago
      >> In short, your beef is mostly with straight people > No. It's very much not with straight people. It's with the State. But the State is made of people. And most of the people who support, and benefit from, those special privileges are straight. > I don't vote and don't contribute to political campaigns. Okay -- I can understand neutrality. I just can't see your argument as supporting a position of active opposition to gay marriage. > you haven't appreciated what it means to be against the State's involvement with marriage Well, I was indicating that I didn't completely disagree with you about it. I certainly don't completely agree, either. > being against State privileged marriage (and therefore State privileged gay marriage) does not make one a bigot No. But opposing gay marriage more than you oppose straight marriage does. Eich donated to Prop. 8. There's no way this makes sense as an expression of uniform opposition to all State-privileged marriage. I think chipotle_coyote put it very well. Allowing gay marriage reduces the State's involvement in marriage. Presumably the number of actual marriages will increase slightly, but that is because a restriction on them has been removed.

burntsushi 13y ago

I clarified in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461745 But to succinctly answer your question; no I don't think it is unequivocally libertarian. But it depends on who you talk to. > I've noticed that libertarians and leftists both tend toward a passionate hatred of compromise and "half-measures," and this reasoning strikes me as one of those cases. You mean compromise with respect to the expansion of the State. This is usually the distinction between a moderate and a radical. > I'm dubious that it's a very good basis for opposing gay marriage rights. Here's the problem: you're presupposing that marriage is a right. I appreciate that marriage (along with a myriad of other things) is listed as a right in the UDHR, but that really isn't why gays---or others like polyamorous cohabitants---want marriage in the first place. They want it because of State granted privileges bestowed upon married couples. Those aren't rights. Unfortunately, some of those privileges restrict the rights of all unmarried persons. Particularly with respect to hospital visitation. Everyone---including unmarried people---should be allowed to control such things about their lives. Other privileges include tax breaks and the like. I won't go down that road... With that said, you're basically telling me that I oppose something that I don't think even exists in the first place. To me, rights are much more fundamental than constructs like marriage. The problem is that the debate is framed in terms of gay marriage. One's position against marriage in general can subsume one's position on gay marriage. But the lynch mob lacks perspective and can only imagine that being against gay marriage means being against gays. Once you finally recognize that, "oh gee whiz, yeah, being against marriage in general is cool, but still, you aren't pragmatic enough for me." OK. Now we're done. Before I was a bigot. But now I'm just not being pragmatic. That isn't a lynchable offense. So, we good now? (Not talking to you specifically, but in general.) Disclaimer: I don't vote and don't contribute to any political causes/campaigns because there are none that exclusively support voluntary interaction. If someone put a gun to my head and told me to vote, I'd vote in favor of more egalitarian laws every time. Sorry for being a windbag, but in this kind of topic, it's just way too easy to take short responses that aren't precise in bad faith.

ScottBurson 13y ago
> One's position against marriage in general can subsume one's position on gay marriage. This makes no sense to me. When gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, the total number of extant marriages will increase by no more than a few percent. It seems, at the least, incredibly churlish to me to want to deny gay people the right to marry the consenting single adult of their choice just because you think it's unfair that marriage carries privileges. In short, your beef is mostly with straight people, but you're willing to take it out on the gays anyway, just because they're politically weaker. I can't see this as a principled stance. And for the record, I agree that some of said privileges should be available to single people as well, like control over hospital visitation. I just think this is a completely orthogonal issue to gay marriage.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  Respectfully, I think you've completely missed my point. Here's what tipped me off: > In short, your beef is mostly with straight people No. It's very much not with straight people. It's with the State. The State is the one suppressing people (not just gays) by giving special privileges to a preferred class of people. > but you're willing to take it out on the gays anyway, just because they're politically weaker. Uh, no, I'm not... This is exactly why I don't vote and don't contribute to political campaigns. > And for the record, I agree that some of said privileges should be available to single people as well, like control over hospital visitation. I just think this is a completely orthogonal issue to gay marriage. Then you haven't appreciated what it means to be against the State's involvement with marriage. Against State privileged marriage => against all forms of State privileged marriage. Once again, my point remains the same: being against State privileged marriage (and therefore State privileged gay marriage) does not make one a bigot. This runs contrary to what the lynch mob would like to assume.
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    >> In short, your beef is mostly with straight people > No. It's very much not with straight people. It's with the State. But the State is made of people. And most of the people who support, and benefit from, those special privileges are straight. > I don't vote and don't contribute to political campaigns. Okay -- I can understand neutrality. I just can't see your argument as supporting a position of active opposition to gay marriage. > you haven't appreciated what it means to be against the State's involvement with marriage Well, I was indicating that I didn't completely disagree with you about it. I certainly don't completely agree, either. > being against State privileged marriage (and therefore State privileged gay marriage) does not make one a bigot No. But opposing gay marriage more than you oppose straight marriage does. Eich donated to Prop. 8. There's no way this makes sense as an expression of uniform opposition to all State-privileged marriage. I think chipotle_coyote put it very well. Allowing gay marriage reduces the State's involvement in marriage. Presumably the number of actual marriages will increase slightly, but that is because a restriction on them has been removed.