Bob McCoskrie sent me a two-pager explaining why libertarians should not support gay marriage. Full of woolly thinking. Bob and I agree on some things but this isn't ever going to be one of them. Below are the 4 assertions made by Maggie Gallagher and a response to them from another source.
1. Government did not create marriage and has no business redefining it.
1. She wants government to prevent evolution in marriage. Marriage is constantly redefined and conservatives wish to prevent that. So they do want government involvement very heavily, to the point of taxing people in 'unmarried' relationships at higher rates. Was govt. redefining marriage when it allowed divorce? Marriage is always changing and most the time government is playing catchup, it doesn't lead the charge but reluctantly brings up the rear.
Notice also her non sequitur. She argues that marriage encourages the binding of parents to children. "If
encouraging mothers and fathers for children is a key part of
marriage’s public purpose, then same-sex couples simply do not fit."
There
are many parts to marriage. No marriage is required to fill all of
them. Certainly allowing the marriage of post-menopausal woman doesn't
fit. Nor does the marriage of women, or men, who are sterile, or men who
had vasectomies. There are many functions to marriage not just one.
2. When marriage declines, government expands.
2. If the decline of marriage causes government to expand, then wouldn't expanding marriage reduce the size of government, so why fight the expansion of marriage?
3. Gay marriage has no economic benefits.
3. No economic benefits to whom? She is very careful to define economic benefits in odd ways. The benefits to couples, who don't pay the higher tax rates, she seems to ignore. Marriage gives people backup, that is others who care for them. When they don't have that they rely on the state. So wouldn't allowing gays to marry eventually reduce welfare costs?
4. The Slope Really Is Slippery
4. Slippery slope arguments are mostly impossible to address. Where did the slope begin? Why is gay marriage the beginning and not interracial marriage? Also note she says people only have a "right to raise our natural children." Does this mean that adoptive parents do not have parental rights? Is she slipping in Catholic crap to mean no one has the right to children born through IVF?
And Unsolicitedious has a good post on the subject here.
15 comments:
Marriage is constantly redefined
Really?
No - the cultural marxists have done this in the last forty years before that divorce was rare and SHAMEFUL and of course the state was not acting in loco parentus or loco pater familias for a substantial proportion of children.
Un-natural marriage is just the latest assault from the left to undermine the family by rendering marriage meaningless and turning it into nothing more than a vanity for the better off.
Marriage has always been about establishing kinship and responsibility for your own.
It has never been about getting sanctification about who you get your rocks off with.
Do a father and daughter, both of age and both engaging in sexual relations with eachother have the "right" to marry ?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10811774
Obviously, the answer is yes if the same cultural Marxism is applied.
Make no mistake, civil unions and gay "marriage" are a bridgehead to legalized polygamy, incest and sex with children.
Of course marriage changed. In the Bible it was about property thus the mandate for a man's to marry his brother's widow lest she take property away from the family. In Rome marriage was about politics, and affairs on the side were for romance.
For most of the Western history it was about property, and also treated women as property. The idea that woman had equal rights to men was a radical departure from traditional marriage. And, when the Vatican attempted to impose marriage rules on Europe if fought for close to 1,000 years because it was opposing the traditional marriages of Europe which often allowed more than one wife.
People who are ignorant of history wouldn't know that marriage has taken many forms in Western history and that it was only when Theodosious became emperor of Rome, and starting imposing a dictatorship, did he make same-sex marriage illegal.
"Make no mistake, civil unions and gay "marriage" are a bridgehead to legalized polygamy, incest and sex with children"
Interesting that the only people who have the gall to make such appalling statements do so with anonymity (4:18).
Anyway. Great post Lindsay - hadn't really looked at the issue from the liberatian point of view.....good squashing of the silly points.
Anon 4:30 - well said.
A true Libertarian would not want the Government involved in peoples relationships in any way shape or form.
The reason why societies took an interest in heterosexual relationships, long before governments existed to even get involved was the matter of establishing paternity and kinship and defining the duties and responsibilities that came with that.
That this is incomprehensible to the modern mind is a sure sign we live in a culture that has gone insane.
Where do children come from, who is responsible for their upbringing, what is the optimum way of raising children, who will look after us when we are old? And so forth
This is a no-brainer. Governments should not be meddling in marraige and wanting to change the status quo. So out of line with your welfare stance, Lindsay.
Anon (last), Why?
Faggots will destroy mankind. Fact.
True libertarians do want the state out of marriage. It should be a matter of contract law only, with a default position regarding property and custody of children in the event of divorce (and another for annulment if it was fraudulent).
Then indeed any consenting adults could marry. Churches and other religious institutions can restrict or allow whatever forms of consensual adult marriage they wish.
Those who don't like certaint forms can express their views as much as they wish, and vice versa.
However, the status quo is NOT that, as the state is very much part of determining marriage. It defines it by legislation, it registers it and has a whole panoply of legislation around it.
Remove all that, grandfather existing marriages based on the legislation and make future ones only the state's business as far as they are contracts.
Then people of all religions (and none) can decide on what marriage means to them, as long as it involves consenting adults (the state always should be there to enforce the contracts, deal with fraud and false consent in the case of forced marriages or lying about existing ones).
What puzzles this libertarian is what legislation legalising gay marriage would actually amount to.
Presumably, such legislation would allow gay couples to opt for marriage instead of civil union, just as straight couples can now opt for civil union instead of marriage.
Is that it?
I can think of a couple of other reasons to oppose homosexual marriage. Firstly, it a step towards homosexual adoption and surrogacy. Secondly, it is just another thing to normalise and promote homosexuality and bisexuality. Both of these sexual preferences are health hazards.
A couple of days ago on One News some nutbar was arguing that active homosexuals should be allowed to donate blood despite the fact that the HIV rate of homosexuals is almost 50 times the rate of the general population. It is one thing for homosexuality to be legalised but another for the state to promote it.
Lindsay, your rebuttal is not a rebuttal at all.
1. There is no such thing as evolution in marriage - this is just nonsense. Marriage defines what it is and it is a permanent thing. Govt. cannot change marriage any more than an adopted parent can claim to be a biological parent.
Also, if you think government should able to define marriage, then it should be able to define religion, libertarianism, rugby, etc...this has the ramifications in number 4.
2. You have misread the statement. It is not suggesting causality, it is associative. And expansion of REAL marriage would reduce a governments role. So called expansion into experiments like homosexual marriage will necessitate more govt...look at he SRB after civil unions. The same will apply here. The evidence shoots your argument down totally here.
3. Again, the evidence is against you. Homosexual marriage has bought no economic benefits to any state or country that has enabled it. Indeed, not even homosexuals are interested in it:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299944/gay-divorcees-charles-c-w-cooke#
4. "Catholic crap"? is that all you've got? Really? that's mature. Maybe this might help: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
I used to think you might have something to offer. Sad to say, not any more.
DrCP
You haven't read the introduction to my post.
"Below are the 4 assertions made by Maggie Gallagher and a response to them from another source."
It wasn't my rebuttal. But as it happens the responses make more sense to me than the assertions. And I do think the catholic attitude to IVF treatment is awful.
There is a good piece in the Herald today by John Roughan underlining the fact that it is the children who need a mother most, and that once at school, the kids adopted by gay couples will realise they are missing out on something...he has a point.
Amusing to see someone who is completely unlibertarian telling libertarians what they should believe.
My view is that asking the government to endorse gay marriage is a pointless privilege, and to oppose it is no more arbitrary and whimsical than to ask in the first place. http://blairmulholland.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/cameron-slaters-obsession-with-gay-marriage/
Post a Comment