Devil's Advocate

Not without dating myself... DINK = Double Income No Kids SIWK = Single Income With Kids (I made this one up as a play on DINK) From around the same time period ('80s), a 'yuppy' was a young urban professional mdegges used FMS, which I interpreted to mean, Free Moral Society... was that correct??

While I agree in principle that government shouldn't act as an interloper in consensual relationships, I'm not convinced that legal recognition of historically task specific marital roles (breadwinner, homemaker) isn't justified. Until recently marital tasks were gender specific, according to biological and financial (albeit culturally biased) necessity. The introduction of surrogate mothers combined with today's financial necessity for double incomes has altered the historical dynamic in many cases, but not all cases; specifically those pairings who choose to marry according to the historical model. The legal needs of DINKs are objectively different than those of biological parents relying on a single income (SIWKs?), and I believe the law ought to reflect those differences for the security of pregnant spouses who remain unemployed to bear, deliver and raise children by agreement. Civil unions are better suited for DINKs, and marriage for SIWKs, and there remain legitimate differences of entitlement for these two forms of contract.

The problem I have with your assertion that government shouldn't be involved in consensual relationships, but marital relationships ought to be held to some standard of civil rights, is that we both know who enforces any standard of civil rights, don't we? I agree with you initial claim that government shouldn't be involved; can you provide some standard of civil rights that doesn't rely on government regulation?? I'm interested to see if your claim doesn't in fact attempt to qualify marriage as a right to life issue, i.e. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (or property). Do you think that all unions between individuals ought to be secured equally, i.e. equal individual rights imply equal marital rights?

I'm more familiar with Ayn Rand's views on individual rights... Can you cite any specific comments made by Ayn Rand endorsing the goals and objectives of the civil rights movement as practiced? Specifically that a marriage between a man and a woman ought to carry the same legal weight as a civil union (or marriage) between two men (or two women)??

But we have agreed to eliminate government, i.e. civil rights... My question to you is, what specific ethical/moral standard (other than one imposed by government in the form of civil rights) are you using to support the premise that a contract between two genders who agree to live together till death do they part, must carry the same legal weight as a contract between the same gender, or no contract at all? If you want government out of consensual relationships, why do you rely on "civil rights" to justify your position?

I agree Why? By that, I mean outside the issue of the government acting as an interloper, what ethical standard are you applying to the issue of a contract between a man and a women, as opposed to any other parties??

So espionage should always remain off limits to government censorship? Perhaps I'm misreading your position??

Essentially your argument is that contracts which favor one kind of relationship over another should not exist in a fms (free moral society?)... is this correct? If so, why? If a man and woman choose to marry, and local regulation of marriage awards them greater legal benefits than two men (or two women) who choose a civil union, or two individuals choosing to live together, what standard of liberty or morality is being violated? Why specifically should a contractual arrangement between a man and woman that is unique to other combinations of gender or commitment, not exist in a fms??

Civil unions are a good example of the efficacy and consistency of government regulation; marriages are a good example of the efficacy and consistency of two individuals being allowed to set their own terms. "By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." ~ Socrates.

I think Nicky has fairly well covered the bases on this one, except the legality of how Dogge acquired his ability to perform Teller's act. It matters if Dogge figured out how the trick works on his own, or if he somehow managed to steal how the trick works. The information presented so far is vague on this point. It's not illegal to "reverse engineer" a copy righted product, although there have been efforts to limit reverse engineering. If Dogge purchased a ticket to the act, and then went home and figured out how to recreate it, he's entitled to profit from his effort.

It's only desirable when two individuals choose to spend the rest of their lives together and want to formalize their commitment to each other in a manner that makes it evident to their community; it creates a legal and spiritual unity. Civil unions work fine to accomplish the former, and jumping over a broom works fine for the latter, but marriage accomplishes both. It's not desirable or necessary for individuals who choose otherwise.

LOL, seriously...

"There is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value. The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice." ~ Trader Principle, Ayn Rand Lexicon In purchasing his property, Person A has effectively taken Person B's right of way (to B's property) without the consent of Person B or the local authority, which maintains a right to access all property for utilities, emergencies, etc. In reality, your scenario cannot have occurred; an easement of some kind must have been granted. However, for the sake of argument, the Objectivist principle being violated is the Trader Principle (see above). Person A hasn't earned the right to confine Person B to his property by purchasing A's property. Presuming Person B desires to come and go from his property, Person A must deal with person B as a trader and negotiate a right of way.

... and the Grand Old Presumption (GOP) that government is required to define and regulate moral issues, e.g. marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc., according to the mandate of a narrow group of religious crusaders, might finally wander out of the political desert and become relevant to political affairs once again...

The key term is commitment, Eiuol, and that is the primary focus of the two individuals choosing to share the rest of their lives together; the rest is so much red tape. Marriage only becomes necessary as a recognition of commitment. The contract only becomes necessary if the commitment is lost, and even then the value of the contract is questionable. The State taints marriage by requiring its involvement to be recognized, as it does with everything else it regulates. I believe the State's involvement is improper, because it acts like an interloper. The legal arrangement called marriage, and the voluntary commitment called marriage, are two separate issues; the latter isn't dependent on the former, and the latter definitely belongs exclusively to the individuals choosing the commitment. In terms of the former, I agree (if this is your position) that marriage ought to be deregulated.

What marriage offers, is a chance to have faith in something tangible; another person. Contracts are fine, but contracts basically presume distrust. Personally, I don't think a marriage ceremony requires much more than jumping over a broom together. Having experienced both living together and marriage, I can say that living together doesn't even equate to marriage lite. Roommates live together; a spouse changes your life forever. The only other experience that even comes close, is having a child. So far as legalities go, why shouldn't government regulation taint marriage, just like it does every other aspect of human relationships. Committed couples ought to be allowed the same legal protection married couples get. My only issue here, is that marriage ought not to be reduced and regulated as a business partnership; it isn't. As Spiral Architect suggests, it's more art than science... and by the way, I fully understand SA's perspective as expressed, which has nothing to do with enslavement.

"I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values." ~ Marriage, Ayn Rand Lexicon I read the combination of, "an affair or a marriage" as an either/or proposition, but I'd be curious to know what is the Objectivist position on extramarital affairs is these days?

OK, well a couple of minor points... The position that marriage is just something you do when you fall in love contributes as much to the divorce rate as the position that marriage is pointless. Also, marriage is a choice, but not a necessary choice; one doesn't starve, or go homeless for want of being married. It's a pursuit of happiness, but like any other pursuit, not a guarentee of happiness; living happily ever after is a fairy tale. If your position is that marriage is a quaint custom that's no longer relevant in today's society, as is the prevailing position being promoted these days (and I suspect for the last several generations), then I say pfui!! Dismissing the possibility of entering into, and maintaining, a good marriage, because of divorce rates or contractual disputes, is throwing out the baby with the wash. That being said, you should only get married when you can't talk yourself out of it... and then hang on for the ride of a lifetime. The best defense of the practice is a golden anniversary

Your example reminds me of the joke about two guys encountering a hungry cheetah. One of the guys pauses to replace his hiking boots with a pair of running shoes, and the other says, "You can't possibly outrun a cheetah", to which the first one replies, "I only have to outrun you." I had a similar job experience when my firm swapped from dividing profits to pay bonuses (rewarding effort & avoiding paying higher taxes), to channeling profits to pay off loans taken out in order to buy out retiring CEOs. I still work there, but now I only run a little faster than my coworkers. In terms of a working philosophy as an employee, job security depends on convincing management that replacing U costs more than replacing employee X. Maintaining a diversity of job skills is essential; delegators are expendable. In this regard, I find that maintaining an active interest in everything helps me to perform better at work, and that work provides me with a test platform to try out new ideas. That's one reason I keep returning to this forum and back to work.

Taxpayers are entitled to benefits, or restitution, depending on the legitimacy of the tax. Disability payments are paid as insurance claims, therefore the presumption is that one may receive more than one gives, because in reality, it's more likely one will give more than one receives. Trying to calculate ethically how much to withdraw from the system, is like trying to determine how to fairly rob Peter to pay Paul; whatever money you paid has already been given to someone else, and whatever money you receive came from someone else.

@ mdegges, What is so special about marriage, is the integration of 2 individuals into a durable living partnership founded on faith and commitment. That you don't see the point of it suggests you aren't ready to enter such a relationship, and reminds me of my own attitude just prior to finding the person I married; if/when you meet the right individual, the point becomes obvious. What you've seen, looking from the outside in, is about as instructive as buying a car based on commercials instead of going for a test drive. Marriage is more an argument for monogamy and dedicating yourself to maintaining a life long relationship that may, or may not, include raising children, than a personal financial investment. Prenups are a consideration of course, but if your primary concern is about the money, stay single

Divorce rates are high for the same reason voter turnout is low; apathy. Speaking as a 3rd decade marital survivor who's been continuously hated for having a good one, all I can say is, it's pretty hard to defend something that society is trying so hard to kick down. Marriage IS a contract, yes indeedy, but those who focus on the fine print too often miss out on what's written between the lines. Remaining happily married is a work in progress; and one, quite frankly, most people today aren't suited for... and that's a genuine shame for those who never will experience one.

The Republican response would be, "Because government got in the way", and the Democrat response would be, "Because we built it". The truth lies somewhere between party lines, but neither party gets elected by telling the truth. I lost heart in this year's election after the Supreme Court upheld Obama's Individual Mandate, which pretty much untethered both parties to run amok. One might argue that Mitt won't run as far as Obama, but I wouldn't. My view is we've finally moved past a democracy into a corporate oligarchy. Mitt and his corporate buddies shed great big crocodile tears when Chief Justice Roberts redefined the Individual Mandate as a tax, and said the government has unlimited power to tax and spend; they know only too well who owns the government these days.

LOL dream_weaver - if you're going to hijack a recipe, you could at least try to use the proper ingredients... these are for dolphinfish, aka mahi-mahi; not Flipper. But they are quite delicious

This continuing discussion about dolphins reminded me about a book I read quite some time ago (I apologize for not recalling the title), about a guy who figures out how to communicate with dolphins in the wild. In the story, he goes to a research facility where captured dolphins undergo scientific study, and discovers those dolphins were driven insane by captivity and the endless process of repetitive testing. I think any test of intelligence based on communication between species is inherently biased in favor of the species performing the test