|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 11 2015 04:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 03:58 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think the idea that marriage as a public institution will go away is even remotely realistic. It also makes quite some sense because people living together and sharing costs and stuff is actually pretty important. Uh huh, and what about getting rid of the public institution of marriage prevents that? You can share costs with people without a piece of paper saying you're married. There are plenty of people who are practically married, they've lived with the same person for years, decades even, but aren't officially married. How does the state saying "yup, you're married" have any affect?
Sure they can, but the institution of marriage supports it. (I assume tax benefits for married people exist in the US, too?) It makes sense for the government to encourage families, social security wouldn't work without them.
|
On February 11 2015 04:13 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 03:02 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 03:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I do think the criticism of this "corporations are people" thing is really weird. They need to be legal entities because how else would you even interact with them? Sue every shareholder? I can't imagine how that is supposed to work. Treating corporations like people ends up making them pseudo-governmental institutions. Considering how much pull they have they're practically a 4th branch of government. You wouldn't need to sue every shareholder, you'd sue the execs that made the decisions that violated whatever law. Are you fucking serious? This would put our legal state behind Roman Law. Corporations, Partnerships, and the like are crucial for all kinds of things. For one thing, how would you propose to fix contract law? For another, you make liability extremely difficult to prove. Say the cable stops working in my house that I've already paid for. Who do I sue? I'm gonna have a damn hard time finding out who exactly is responsible, and it might be literally impossible. But the Corporation has certainly fucked me. De-recognizing Corporations legally would have a ton of other knock-on effects I can't even begin to get into. You couldn't subject them to laws or regulations, you couldn't tax them, you couldn't charge politicians for conflict of interest for Sheldon Silver shadiness, you literally would have no idea what they were doing at any time. They would, in general, face the same kind of scrutiny the mafia does. Show nested quote +On February 10 2015 22:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 10 2015 16:53 oneofthem wrote:
the point is that is how it works and you should look at whether the right created by the court is gud or not No, they'll keep complaining about the process. Not because they are against the idea that "the ends justify the means", but because the Justices pushed a liberal cause forward. Don't ever see XDaunt, Danglers, Coverpunch, Millitron, Introvert, or anyone else calling out the legislative or judicial branch on their conservative bullshit ( Corporations are people too, har har har). They're just pseudo-intellectual partisan hacks. This is an ad hominem and against site rules. It's also untrue for at least 2 1/2 of the people you mentioned. This site has serious thinkers on both sides of the party divide. It also has some pseudo-intellecutal partisan hacks (and, hell, pseudo-intellectual haiku-chanters). But debate means engaging with the ideas and leaving the people alone.
Holding the corporation responsible though doesn't actually achieve anything either, because the people at fault, i.e. the high-ranking execs, never feel the sting of any of the fines imposed as punishment. They take it out on the lower employees and the stockholders. Do you think any execs from Monsanto lost any money from Agent Orange? Do you think any execs at Ford lost any money from the Pinto?
On February 11 2015 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 04:08 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 03:58 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think the idea that marriage as a public institution will go away is even remotely realistic. It also makes quite some sense because people living together and sharing costs and stuff is actually pretty important. Uh huh, and what about getting rid of the public institution of marriage prevents that? You can share costs with people without a piece of paper saying you're married. There are plenty of people who are practically married, they've lived with the same person for years, decades even, but aren't officially married. How does the state saying "yup, you're married" have any affect? Sure they can, but the institution of marriage supports it. (I assume tax benefits for married people exist in the US, too?) It makes sense for the government to support social institutions.
Why do married people get tax breaks though? Nothing about two people living together aids the state in any way.
And I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that married people produce and raise children, which the state obviously cares about. But that's plainly not true. Married gay people don't produce children, married straight people don't always produce children, and many single people do produce children. Marriage is pretty unrelated to children. If tax breaks are being given to improve a child's welfare, how about giving tax breaks to actual parents, not just anybody who's married?
|
Married people care for each other when they're old for example, that extends to gay people as well. Given the lack of social security in the US this kind of mutual responsibility is even more important than in other countries probably.
|
On February 11 2015 04:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Married people care for each other when they're old for example, that extends to gay people as well.
So do plenty of non-married people. Monogamous relationships will continue to exist with or without a piece of paper from the government saying someone is in one.
|
I get the feeling that this is going into the libertarian "oh no the government subsidizes stuff!11 muh freedom" direction and I'm not really interested in having that conversation again.
|
It is. Millitron is the guy who suggests that you go buy a BMW when you have a flat tire and $200 in your name.
|
On February 11 2015 04:29 Nyxisto wrote:
I get the feeling that this is going into the libertarian "oh no the government subsidizes stuff!11 muh freedom" direction and I'm not really interested in having that conversation again.
But why are they subsidizing it? What does having tax breaks for married people achieve, and why should only married people get them?
On February 11 2015 04:31 Jormundr wrote:
It is. Millitron is the guy who suggests that you go buy a BMW when you have a flat tire and $200 in your name.
That doesn't sound very libertarian. Sounds pretty progressive, i.e. fiscally wasteful.
|
Because marriage is an important social institution that helps people living their lives and makes them less dependent of outside help, and the government has an interest in strengthening these things? Like are you trolling me right now?
|
On February 11 2015 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Because marriage is an important social institution that helps people living their lives and makes them less dependent of outside help, and the government has an interest in strengthening these things? Like are you trolling me right now?
Its fine being a social institution, I'm not against monogamy. Getting rid of the governmental aspect of it would not remove people's desire to be in monogamous relationships. That's an innate human desire, people don't need a tax break to incentivize it. There's already enough incentive, between fulfilling an innate human desire and being able to pool resources.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is merit to militron's basic point that corporate personhood is ultimately a legal device that facilitates legal transactions etc with the corporate form. the corporate veil is followed to prevent stuff like double jeopardy where you charge the corporate actor and then the owner and that's a double counting. but it can also lead to accountability problems when it obscures actual controlling relationships.
|
Also, there is a commitment to marriage that isn't there to other ways of people living together. You commit to spending a long period of time with each other. Of course there are ways to break that commitment, but they are complicated and ensure that noone gets run over. One of the main problems here is monetary. If a couple live together, rather often one of them pursues a career and the other tends to run the household etc.... Now, without a legally recognized marriage this leads to an imbalance in power. Because should the person with the career, who is the main income producer of that household, decide that he no longer wants this arrangement, he can have the same standard of living with any other person. While his spouse suddenly sits on the street after 20 years of not working a job that gains money. A marriage license protects against that.
|
On February 11 2015 04:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Because marriage is an important social institution that helps people living their lives and makes them less dependent of outside help, and the government has an interest in strengthening these things? Like are you trolling me right now? Its fine being a social institution, I'm not against monogamy. Getting rid of the governmental aspect of it would not remove people's desire to be in monogamous relationships. That's an innate human desire, people don't need a tax break to incentivize it. There's already enough incentive, between fulfilling an innate human desire and being able to pool resources.
I get what you are trying to say, but disagree with a couple of things. First, marriage is not "pretty unrelated" to raising children. Just because gay couples cannot biologically produce a child with both of their DNA doesn't mean that they won't seek a donor or surrogate and bring a child into the world that otherwise would not exist. Likewise, just because some heterosexual married couples choose not to have children does not mean birthrates would be completely unaffected if marriage were abolished as an official institution.
Second, even if we acknowledge that marriage as a government institution isn't necessary, abolishing it entirely would be way more difficult than simply allowing gays to marry, which is why I don't see your position as a valid argument for why the Supreme Court shouldn't be proceeding in the way it has been. Just because there may be a lofty, desirable, almost unattainable outcome out there doesn't mean we can't go for the easily attainable short-term outcome that helps fix some of the inequality issues currently affecting U.S. citizens. By all means, campaign for the government butting out of people's personal lives, I am right with you on that one, but in the mean time we could, you know, let gay people be happy together.
|
The part that really blows my mind about the gay marriage debate is how it makes Conservatives/Republicans start demanding the government go into churches and tell them what they can and can't do.
How is that not fundamentally against the core of their ideology?
|
On February 11 2015 04:45 Simberto wrote:
Also, there is a commitment to marriage that isn't there to other ways of people living together. You commit to spending a long period of time with each other. Of course there are ways to break that commitment, but they are complicated and ensure that noone gets run over. One of the main problems here is monetary. If a couple live together, rather often one of them pursues a career and the other tends to run the household etc.... Now, without a legally recognized marriage this leads to an imbalance in power. Because should the person with the career, who is the main income producer of that household, decide that he no longer wants this arrangement, he can have the same standard of living with any other person. While his spouse suddenly sits on the street after 20 years of not working a job that gains money. A marriage license protects against that.
We still have to do pre-nuptial agreements to achieve this. Marriage itself doesn't really protect anyone. There's no reason standard contract law can't cover this.
On February 11 2015 04:51 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 04:41 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Because marriage is an important social institution that helps people living their lives and makes them less dependent of outside help, and the government has an interest in strengthening these things? Like are you trolling me right now? Its fine being a social institution, I'm not against monogamy. Getting rid of the governmental aspect of it would not remove people's desire to be in monogamous relationships. That's an innate human desire, people don't need a tax break to incentivize it. There's already enough incentive, between fulfilling an innate human desire and being able to pool resources. I get what you are trying to say, but disagree with a couple of things. First, marriage is not "pretty unrelated" to raising children. Just because gay couples cannot biologically produce a child with both of their DNA doesn't mean that they won't seek a donor or surrogate and bring a child into the world that otherwise would not exist. Likewise, just because some heterosexual married couples choose not to have children does not mean birthrates would be completely unaffected if marriage were abolished as an official institution. Second, even if we acknowledge that marriage as a government institution isn't necessary, abolishing it entirely would be way more difficult than simply allowing gays to marry, which is why I don't see your position as a valid argument for why the Supreme Court shouldn't be proceeding in the way it has been. Just because there may be a lofty, desirable, almost unattainable outcome out there doesn't mean we can't go for the easily attainable short-term outcome that helps fix some of the inequality issues currently affecting U.S. citizens. By all means, campaign for the government butting out of people's personal lives, I am right with you on that one, but in the mean time we could, you know, let gay people be happy together.
People will always want to be monogamous, a piece of paper giving them tax cuts won't change that. Any marriages lost due to lack of tax breaks were pretty clearly only in it for said tax breaks.
If you want to help families raising kids, go ahead and give them tax breaks. Include gay people too. But the tax breaks should be tied to parenthood, not spousehood.
Allowing gay people to marry the way the Supreme Court has been doing it has two problems. First, its constructionist BS (we've been over this already so I'm not going to get into it). Second, it deincentivizes working towards that lofty outcome. Many people will be satisfied with the roughshod fix the SC is pulling, and will stop pressuring for a true fix to the system. The easy, kinda crappy solution prevents the harder, better solution from being implemented.
On February 11 2015 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The part that really blows my mind about the gay marriage debate is how it makes Conservatives/Republicans start demanding the government go into churches and tell them what they can and can't do.
How is that not fundamentally against the core of their ideology?
Yeah, I don't get it either. If a church wants to perform gay weddings, who are republicans to stop them? It's the exact kind of infringing on religious freedom thing that they usually rail against.
Well maybe I do get it. The bible belt tends to only care about its specific sect of Christianity, and any other sects or religions are practically cults as far as they're concerned.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not that uncommon for congress to have policy that encourage certain behavior or give assistance to some groups. marriage is one of those old ones but meh.
|
On February 11 2015 05:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 04:45 Simberto wrote:
Also, there is a commitment to marriage that isn't there to other ways of people living together. You commit to spending a long period of time with each other. Of course there are ways to break that commitment, but they are complicated and ensure that noone gets run over. One of the main problems here is monetary. If a couple live together, rather often one of them pursues a career and the other tends to run the household etc.... Now, without a legally recognized marriage this leads to an imbalance in power. Because should the person with the career, who is the main income producer of that household, decide that he no longer wants this arrangement, he can have the same standard of living with any other person. While his spouse suddenly sits on the street after 20 years of not working a job that gains money. A marriage license protects against that. We still have to do pre-nuptial agreements to achieve this. Marriage itself doesn't really protect anyone. There's no reason standard contract law can't cover this. Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 04:51 ZasZ. wrote:On February 11 2015 04:41 Millitron wrote:On February 11 2015 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Because marriage is an important social institution that helps people living their lives and makes them less dependent of outside help, and the government has an interest in strengthening these things? Like are you trolling me right now? Its fine being a social institution, I'm not against monogamy. Getting rid of the governmental aspect of it would not remove people's desire to be in monogamous relationships. That's an innate human desire, people don't need a tax break to incentivize it. There's already enough incentive, between fulfilling an innate human desire and being able to pool resources. I get what you are trying to say, but disagree with a couple of things. First, marriage is not "pretty unrelated" to raising children. Just because gay couples cannot biologically produce a child with both of their DNA doesn't mean that they won't seek a donor or surrogate and bring a child into the world that otherwise would not exist. Likewise, just because some heterosexual married couples choose not to have children does not mean birthrates would be completely unaffected if marriage were abolished as an official institution. Second, even if we acknowledge that marriage as a government institution isn't necessary, abolishing it entirely would be way more difficult than simply allowing gays to marry, which is why I don't see your position as a valid argument for why the Supreme Court shouldn't be proceeding in the way it has been. Just because there may be a lofty, desirable, almost unattainable outcome out there doesn't mean we can't go for the easily attainable short-term outcome that helps fix some of the inequality issues currently affecting U.S. citizens. By all means, campaign for the government butting out of people's personal lives, I am right with you on that one, but in the mean time we could, you know, let gay people be happy together. People will always want to be monogamous, a piece of paper giving them tax cuts won't change that. Any marriages lost due to lack of tax breaks were pretty clearly only in it for said tax breaks. If you want to help families raising kids, go ahead and give them tax breaks. Include gay people too. But the tax breaks should be tied to parenthood, not spousehood. Allowing gay people to marry the way the Supreme Court has been doing it has two problems. First, its constructionist BS (we've been over this already so I'm not going to get into it). Second, it deincentivizes working towards that lofty outcome. Many people will be satisfied with the roughshod fix the SC is pulling, and will stop pressuring for a true fix to the system. The easy, kinda crappy solution prevents the harder, better solution from being implemented. Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The part that really blows my mind about the gay marriage debate is how it makes Conservatives/Republicans start demanding the government go into churches and tell them what they can and can't do.
How is that not fundamentally against the core of their ideology? Yeah, I don't get it either. If a church wants to perform gay weddings, who are republicans to stop them? It's the exact kind of infringing on religious freedom thing that they usually rail against. Well maybe I do get it. The bible belt tends to only care about its specific sect of Christianity, and any other sects or religions are practically cults as far as they're concerned.
It's not only about tax breaks, and you know that. Regardless of whether or not it's a good idea, there is legitimacy associated with obtaining a marriage license. It's an official commitment to one another, rather than just living in the same household, and provides a modicum of insurance since it is rather difficult to get out of. Of course monogamous relationships would still exist without it, but there are benefits other than tax breaks to the government at least recognizing a marriage as legitimate.
I get what you are saying about removing some of the incentive for marriage reform if gay marriage is approved, and that may be a valid argument if we weren't talking about civil rights here. However, continuing to discriminate against a specific group in order to further a greater political agenda against marriage as an institution is kind of deplorable. You fix the problem you can fix now, and yeah you may have to work harder to address the bigger issue, which I'm not convinced is an issue to begin with.
Totally agree about Churches, as well. Legal marriage and religious marriage should be two completely different things, and if churches do not want to marry certain couples that should be completely up to them. But that same couple should be able to get a legal marriage easily. It's up to them as individuals and partners to reconcile their being gay with wanting to be married in a church for whatever ungodly reason. Let crazy religious people be crazy religious people, but gay couples should have access to the same legal rights and title that heterosexual couples have access to.
|
On February 11 2015 05:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2015 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The part that really blows my mind about the gay marriage debate is how it makes Conservatives/Republicans start demanding the government go into churches and tell them what they can and can't do.
How is that not fundamentally against the core of their ideology? Yeah, I don't get it either. If a church wants to perform gay weddings, who are republicans to stop them? It's the exact kind of infringing on religious freedom thing that they usually rail against. Well maybe I do get it. The bible belt tends to only care about its specific sect of Christianity, and any other sects or religions are practically cults as far as they're concerned.
Yeah they would lose their shit if the courts/government were telling churches they couldn't refuse gay weddings, but telling them they can't accept them and many Republicans/Conservatives can't support the idea more.
It takes a mind capable of some of the most astonishing cognitive dissonance known to keep both notions in the same brain.
|
I think that keeping legal incentives to marry is a good public policy, particularly in lieu of a more directly administered, governmental "child safety net."
|
The problem is the word marriage itself is inherently religious.
All the government cares about are tax related issues, who can inherit what, and who gets the survivor social security benefits.
So the government using the word "marriage" is a big conflict... when it does nothing to enforce a marriage (the vows).
|
Freedom of expression would necessarily trump the concerns of religious folk when it comes to who gets domain over the word "marriage."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
