I guess this means I have to be in favor of gay marriage.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
14 comments to Non! |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
This whole argument could be solved if we just privatised marriage contracts and got the state out of it. Legally, marriage should simply be a private contract between two or more adults.
Brought to you by the State the Obvious Dept.
*laughing*
This whole argument could be solved if we just privatised marriage contracts and got the state out of it. Legally, marriage should simply be a private contract between two or more adults.
The State’s involvement should go no further than having a boilerplate method of dividing joint property upon dissolution of the partnership. But we know marriage means a lot more than that to Statists, it is a way to control individuals, rewarding sometimes, punishing other times, all the while treating an individual differently simply because of a partnership they have entered into.
As long as the State deems marriage as something that is Good in and of itself, and a mechanism to propogate certain behaviors, the battle will rage on to whom the ‘privilege’ should be extended, because for many, those ‘benefits’ should be reserved for a man and a woman exclusively. At the end of the day you’ve got conservative Statist who want to preserve the ‘old ways’ and deny extending marriage, and the liberal Statists want to extend the ‘privilege’ so that all the Goodies that go along with it can be had by all (except those so fundementally afflicted in one way or another that they can’t attract a partner and so don’t have access to the State’s benevolence).
From what I’ve been able to gather, there are plenty of gays who don’t want marriage extended to them as they see it is a Statist encroachment that they’d rather do without. Unfortunately, there are many others, who basically feel it is constricting, but want ‘liberalization’ of the laws on the priciple of the matter. As with all matters relating to Statism, I wish the average person could just see marriage in simple property terms, not feel the need to exclude anyone, and strip marriage of its Statist, behavioral qualities. It would simplify matters and put everyone on an even level relative to the State.
As for the French, it seems decidely non-inclusive of them. I’m sure, though unlike if this happened in the US, the French government isn’t going to be portrayed as reactionary rightists. It must put the average frizzy-hair in conundrum.
And once again, France proves itself so much more progressive and light years ahead of those backwards, closet fascist American conservatives….
Goes to show it’s who does it that matter, not what they do.
Exactly. And if certain religious leaders do not wish to marry same-sex or polygamous couples, they should not be forced to. But we all know that “gay marriage” is just a Statist red herring.
I don’t understand. Do you have to oppose absolutely everything that France does? Why? Out of spite? If Mussolini made the trains run on time, does that mean we should oppose trains being made to run on time?
Viva la France! I’m glad they got some sense in them. About the only good thing they have done the past 500 years.
I couldn’t agree more. Everyone loves a good bit of France bashing in the morning. 😉
“I don’t understand. Do you have to oppose absolutely everything that France does? Why?”
Though this was not directed at me I’m going to respond anyway.
Theres a lot about France and French culture that I love. Two of my favourite film makers are French, Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro. Two of my favourite actors are French, Jean Reno and Gerard Depardiue. My patron saint is Joan of Arc. And I speak as someone who is by blood and ancestry French-American.
But as a member of a country that has been on the receiving end of French hatemongering propaganda for well over 50 years I reserve the right to indulge in a bit of France bashing now and then. Try reading Le Monde sometime, or look at any part of the French media, or the vile stuff that spews out of French universities. Outside of the Arab world which countries people were most willing to believe that 911 was an American-Israeli conspiracy? In many respects France has done more to threaten the safety and security of the American people than any Arab country ever has, simply by poisoning the world with the virus of anti-Americanism.
One doesn’t have to oppose absolutely everything that France does. But as a rule of thumb, its not a bad idea.
When you adopt gay marriage you must also make rules for gay divorce. Who keeps the house, who the cat and who pays alimony to whom.
“I don’t understand. Do you have to oppose absolutely everything that France does? Why?”
Gez, get a sense of humor already. I was having a little fun with my Francophobic tendencies, already.
If Mussolini made the trains run on time, does that mean we should oppose trains being made to run on time?
Fortunately, he did not in fact accomplish that. Even if he did, we would have no problem with a competitive market which rewards the provider with the better on time performance.
By the way, I did not stop wearing a turtleneck under a sports jacket just because Robert F Kennedy appeared on television in the same combination. Never let the foibles of others determine your behavior.
Since consumation is a requisite for valid marriage, how are gay marriages consumated? Technically, male/male marriage can have intercourse via the rectum which might represent consumation but, how can consumation be achieved between female/female marriage?
The entire foundation of marriage depends upon consumation of the union, which symbolizes a vow to never have intercourse with another outside the marriage for risk of disrupting the union with the possiblity of producing offspring outside the union.
Nonconsumation of the marriage invalidates the marriage, or rather, is anulled since the vow was never fulfilled.