Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Marriage and Divorce Entitlements

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Marriages sure are similar to other types of contracts, like wills. The governments role in marriage should be to enforce such contracts and create certainty regarding legal interpretation. So it make

Fixed. The opposite would be, "Gay people can practice Objectivism, but they can't be called Objectivists."

Because it has no bearing on the concept of marriage - Sexual organs, nor any other random part of physical appearance like height, weight, or skin color, has any effect on it. It is unessential, and

  • 1 month later...

Ron Paul on Marriage, from his book Liberty Defined:

116tdh3.png

I agree with his second paragraph, but there should be an objective definition of marriage. Instead of having the fundamental characteristic of marriage be 'a relationship between only a man and a woman', the fundamental characteristic could just be 'a romantic relationship between consenting adults.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Just started reading "What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense" - ranked as the #2 kindle bestseller in the political philosophy section (just behind atlas shrugged). On the surface, it seems to advocate the point of view that others in this thread have supported:

 

"If the law defines marriage to include same-sex partners, many will come to misunderstand marriage. They will not see it as essentially comprehensive, or thus (among other things) as ordered to procreation and family life—but as essentially an emotional union."

 

and

 

"If marriage is centrally an emotional union, rather than one inherently ordered to family life, it becomes much harder to show why the state should concern itself with marriage any more than with friendship."

 

What do they think is at stake?

 

"Redefining civil marriage would change its meaning for everyone. Legally wedded opposite-sex unions would increasingly be defined by what they had in common with same-sex relationships. This wouldn’t just shift opinion polls and tax burdens. Marriage, the human good, would be harder to achieve. For you can realize marriage only by choosing it, for which you need at least a rough, intuitive idea of what it really is. By warping people’s view of marriage, revisionist policy would make them less able to realize this basic way of thriving—much as a man confused about what friendship requires will have trouble being a friend."

 

According to the authors, the definition of marriage is rooted in ability to unite with another person mentally and bodily. Apparently, to unite with someone bodily requires "a sterile act of heterosexual sex," and that pleasure and sexual reproduction are secondary. Then they claim the state should be involved in this union because children need to be raised in a monogamous household, under both a father and mother. According to one convinced reviewer:

 

"...if this book's authors are wrong, then there's not much at risk. But if they are right, gay "marriage" advocates have lined up their cross-hairs on something that is intrinsically human and distinctively good, and they're bringing all possible energy to bear against it. With that at stake, I should think they would want to double-check what they're aiming at before they continue firing.

Whether gay-rights advocates care about distinctive human goods or not, the rest of us should. I've been in these debates a long time. This book is the best possible equipping I have ever seen get for discerning, defending, and explaining what matters about marriage."

 

Apparently, this debate has a lot at risk: the "human good" - (whatever that is).

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...if this book's authors are wrong, then there's not much at risk. But if they are right, gay "marriage" advocates have lined up their cross-hairs on something that is intrinsically human and distinctively good, and they're bringing all possible energy to bear against it. With that at stake, I should think they would want to double-check what they're aiming at before they continue firing."

 

Meh. That argument uses the same logic as Pascal's Wager.

 

I think gays are trying to force acceptance down people's throat through legislation. Their ultimate goal isn't to get equal rights, it is to get included under the word marriage.

 

The government should toss out the word marriage. It should be irrelevant to the government whether it is called marriage or civil union by the people in the relationship. The only role the government should have is to enforce contracts and if people want to enter into a contract to set terms of their relationship, then they should be able to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think gays are trying to force acceptance down people's throat through legislation. Their ultimate goal isn't to get equal rights, it is to get included under the word marriage.

 

If the government grants benefits to hetero couples (as they do now), gay couples should receive the exact same benefits. Until and unless that happens- more power to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this been discussed in this thread, I haven't gone through all the pages yet. There is a quote Rand has on marriage in it:

http://ronpisaturo.com/blog/2013/03/28/i-am-married-to-a-woman/

[T]he concept “marriage” denotes a certain moral-legal relationship between a man and a woman, which entails a certain pattern of behavior, based on a mutual agreement and sanctioned by law.

— Ayn Rand (an atheist) (1966,1967), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New York: The Objectivist, p. 37 (Chapter 4).

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about social acceptance. Equal rights isn't the same as acceptance.

 

I don't know what all of their motives are, but the main one is gaining the same rights/benefits as married couples. I'm sure some people care about social acceptance (for that matter, don't most people?) but who cares? That's not something that can be earned or granted. Imo, most people just want to be left alone and free to live their lives as they see fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what all of their motives are, but the main one is gaining the same rights/benefits as married couples. I'm sure some people care about social acceptance (for that matter, don't most people?) but who cares? That's not something that can be earned or granted. Imo, most people just want to be left alone and free to live their lives as they see fit.

I realize that I am over generalizing - but my point was that there is a large bulk of gays (if not a majority) whose ultimate goal is not to get equal rights, but to get included in the definition of marriage. Their goal should be to get all the same benefits under the law, not to try to force society to accept their type of relationship by getting the moral approval of government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my link:

" What is doubly wrong is for government—the agency of force—to change the meaning of a fundamental, rational concept"

An epistemological crime. Like concept stealing, severing it from its original genetic roots: Man and woman.

How does or would it apply in regards to filing joint income taxes, to having them on vehicle insurance, to health insurance, etc. Would this ruling exercise force against them by adding same-sex partner? Or would they have a choice?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that I am over generalizing - but my point was that there is a large bulk of gays (if not a majority) whose ultimate goal is not to get equal rights, but to get included in the definition of marriage.

Most people, including gay people, don't have a rigorous understanding of individual rights. Be careful not to condemn them for having such an understanding while acting against it. Broadly speaking, when people advocate for gay marriage, they are acting for equality before the law. If marriage wasn't a legal institution, I suspect you'd see very few gay people trying to break into it.

Edited by FeatherFall
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

From my link:

" What is doubly wrong is for government—the agency of force—to change the meaning of a fundamental, rational concept"

An epistemological crime. Like concept stealing, severing it from its original genetic roots: Man and woman.

I think this is partially true (minus fundamental and rational), but the epistemological root is more in concepts of ownership of another person and men subordinating women. That's just the way it is. I read that article before, it's bad on many levels. There isn't even a suggestion that marriage is a good concept, just that implicitly somehow it is "wrong" to prefer equality in the law than unfair legal superiority granted by the government to prescribed relationships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this been discussed in this thread, I haven't gone through all the pages yet. There is a quote Rand has on marriage in it:

http://ronpisaturo.com/blog/2013/03/28/i-am-married-to-a-woman/

[.

The anonymous comments from March 31st and April 2nd have some brilliant insights into the epistemology of gay marriage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to oism, private wedding venues should be allowed to choose who gets married on their property, and who doesn't. (For example, a park owner can make it explicit that gay people or black people are not allowed to be married on his property.)

 

But that would be a problem on public property: it's funded by taxpayers who have varying beliefs, and the views of everyone can't be met. As far as I know, people who get married on public property also have to pay to have their weddings held there. (For example, the canal in Indianapolis is a public place that you don't need to pay or show id to enter. There's sidewalks, flowers, benches, bridges, etc. on both sides of the canal for people to enjoy as they're walking or jogging. Anyways, it's a beautiful place that a lot of people choose as their wedding venue. You need to have a license to have your wedding held there, have insurance, and of course pay someone to rent the space and add any additional reception items. It's interesting there's only one party rental company (a private business) that you can go through if you want to have your wedding at the canal- you have to pay them directly to reserve a space.) In this example, and in other public places, it should be illegal to discriminate, right? The party rental company can't say "only asian people can be married here" since the weddings are being held in a public location.

Edited by mdegges
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a free society, mdegges, property owners can definitely say that they don't want certain people on their property, whether rational or irrational reasons, as that go's along with their property rights. Business can discriminate, for sure. They would not be forced to hire anyone they do not want to hire, or deal with, etc. Blacks, gays, etc. So if they don't want gay marriage to take place on their property, then that's that. They can say only heterosexual weddings. This leaves them perhaps vulnerable in the marketplace, but that would be them simply exercising their property rights. Have you read Rand said about "private racism"?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure- but we don't live in a society where all land is privatized. Hence my question, should it be illegal to refuse to provide services for people based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, hair color, etc. on public property? I gave a specific example above, where a private business (or in this case, a party rental company) gets paid directly to provide services in a public location. Should that company legally be able to refuse servicing specific types of people?

 

To clarify,

1. the land is public, and paid for by taxpayers.

2. a private business gets paid to schedule events on this land, and can optionally provide supplies for those events (given extra money)

3. does it follow that... the business cannot discriminate against specific types of people, because it functions on public land?

 

(The problem I see is that public land is funded by all types of people with varying beliefs. It doesn't seem right that there are laws saying 'business owners can't discriminate' - as stated above, business owners should be able to do whatever they want (within reason) on their own land - but what about public land? Who determines the rules there?)

Edited by mdegges
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

On that subject, just saw this in the news:

" OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Several Republican lawmakers filed a bill Thursday seeking an exemption to the state's anti-discrimination laws just weeks after legal action was taken against a Richland florist who denied service to a gay couple for their upcoming wedding.

The bill introduced by Sen. Sharon Brown, R-Kennewick, would allow businesses the right to deny services or goods if they felt doing so was contrary to their "sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience."

More on it here:

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2116231

" Under state law, it's illegal for businesses to refuse to sell goods, merchandise and services to any person because of their sexual orientation."

That is an immoral, rights violating law.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...