My thoughts on the gay marriage thing

[J. D. Stembal]

We both had already established that marriage is vastly different than voluntary monogamy, so don't keep calling it marriage. In the case of gay marriage, the difference is clear. Gays were free to have monogamous relationships without any authority endorsing it via legal document, but they are currently clamoring for a political definition of gay marriage so that the state recognition and benefits will be conferred.

Philosophy speaking, you and I are considering different concepts.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

The marriage would be deemed legitimate by the insurance agency, who would be enforcing the contract. If you don't or are not planning to have children, then I think by definition, no marriage exists.

 

The insurance agency could have a requirement that the families of the couple put money in escrow, or any number of stipulations that would provide incentive for the marriage to continue. 

 

Marriage, philosophically, absolutely is for the purposes of raising children. You can pair bond with whomever you like, but sexual exclusivity and a consistent relationship, that is specifically for the raising of offspring. If two people break a pair bond after years, but they have no children, then there is no moral concern. But if they do have children, then they are responsible for taking care of their offspring and a voluntary society will recognize this.

[dsayers]

We both had already established that marriage is vastly different than voluntary monogamy, so don't keep calling it marriage.

Pardon me but I have established no such thing. I recognized that State coercion is why such consideration has become a political matter. I am happy to discuss it strictly in the paradigm you put forth:

 

Gays were free to have monogamous relationships without any authority endorsing it via legal document, but they are currently clamoring for a political definition of gay marriage so that the state recognition and benefits will be conferred.

First of all, some heteros seek the legal document for reasons other than love or the stable raising of children, so the differentiation based on gender is meaningless. Secondly, there's a difference between disagreeing with people and initiating the use of force against them. Again within the context of government, if heteros are able to receive such things, then homos should also. In fact, to provide for this would actually help to diminish colloquial bigotry by normalizing it.

 

Which brings us to the crux of the issue as to why politicians are generally unwilling. It serves to remediate one of the divisions of people that they benefit from. By not allowing it, they perpetuate people coming to them to ask for them to allow us this and that. It preserves and grows the perception of their fictitious existence in a different, opposing moral class as valid.

 

The marriage would be deemed legitimate by the insurance agency, who would be enforcing the contract. If you don't or are not planning to have children, then I think by definition, no marriage exists.

I used to think of it that way also. I have a buddy of mine who is happily married with no intention of having children. I forget the specifics of our conversation, but after talking with him about it, I was willing to relax my view away from that. Obviously this wasn't a rational conclusion. So I am inclined to agree with what you've said.

 

However, I wonder how would we verify people's intentions? Would it by actions alone, whereby being pregnant was proof of intent? This is problematic in both directions. Both in that people can get pregnant without actually intending to raise children. And to properly raise children, I think the rational thing to do is make preparations before getting married. I'm not saying I reject your claim if you cannot answer all the what-ifs (that wouldn't be productive). But I wonder if you could flesh it out a bit more for me and others who might have a hard time conceptualizing this.

[Spaceballs]

I only read about half of Proudhon's Pornocracy but marriage is about devotion.  Love, sex, etc. are only supporting that idea.
A marriage without children is called concubinage no ?

By reading you two debate it seems that Marriage (until the child is independent enough,not until death imo) is impossible in an anarchist society.

[J. D. Stembal]

I only read about half of Proudhon's Pornocracy but marriage is about devotion.  Love, sex, etc. are only supporting that idea.

A marriage without children is called concubinage no ?

By reading you two debate it seems that Marriage (until the child is independent enough,not until death imo) is impossible in an anarchist society.

 

No debate had started. We never got past definitions.

 

Marriage, as it stands now, and throughout recorded history, has been supported by politics, through arranged marriage, religion, through unions blessed under God, and the State, through civil laws specifying the requirements and conferred benefits of State-sanctioned marriage. If you have a voluntary union for the sake of raising children, starting a family business, or an agreed-upon contract that does not impose force on one or both parties, it would not be called marriage because no marriage has ever existed that has not fit into one of those three categories.

[Jer]

Who is marrying in a free society? Which authority deems the union legitimate?

The Blockchain bro https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-wedding-marriage-on-the-blockchain/ All hail the great Blockchain!

 

Stefan has made very good arguments for marriage in a free society as a public commitment beneficial to children. As a linguist I'd predict that the fact that you don't need a license to marry in a free society will not cause the word "marry" to fall out of use just because it's more convenient to keep it.

[J. D. Stembal]

The Blockchain bro https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-wedding-marriage-on-the-blockchain/ All hail the great Blockchain!

 

Stefan has made very good arguments for marriage in a free society as a public commitment beneficial to children. As a linguist I'd predict that the fact that you don't need a license to marry in a free society will not cause the word "marry" to fall out of use just because it's more convenient to keep it.

 

For the sake of argument, I will concede that the definition is accurate. Can you describe the ways that the BTC blockchain improves a couple's chances of remaining married until death, benefits the children, or promotes voluntarism in the family?

[Jer]

For the sake of argument, I will concede that the definition is accurate. Can you describe the ways that the BTC blockchain improves a couple's chances of remaining married until death, benefits the children, or promotes voluntarism in the family?

I'm not suggesting it improves chances of success more than a wedding ceremony in a church or whatever. It's just a public record of their contract which could be enforced by a DRO if desired.

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm not suggesting it improves chances of success more than a wedding ceremony in a church or whatever. It's just a public record of their contract which could be enforced by a DRO if desired.

 

I'm curious about what dispute resolution would look like, and whether it would decrease the divorce rate.

[Mister Mister]

For the sake of argument, I will concede that the definition is accurate. Can you describe the ways that the BTC blockchain improves a couple's chances of remaining married until death, benefits the children, or promotes voluntarism in the family?

I think the prerequisite is self-knowledge.  If people are more clear about their values, their long-term goals, and WHY they choose a certain mate, they are more likely to have a stable long-lasting, healthy monogamous relationship.  In the absence of government subsidizing of broken families, and with social pressure to remain together, people will develop better capacity for negotiation, mutual consideration and respect out of necessity.  Just a theory, but I think there's good arguments for it.

[J. D. Stembal]

I think the prerequisite is self-knowledge.  If people are more clear about their values, their long-term goals, and WHY they choose a certain mate, they are more likely to have a stable long-lasting, healthy monogamous relationship.  In the absence of government subsidizing of broken families, and with social pressure to remain together, people will develop better capacity for negotiation, mutual consideration and respect out of necessity.  Just a theory, but I think there's good arguments for it.

 

I whole-heartedly agree, but the government not only subsidizes broken families but has long subsidized married couples as well (post-WW2 to get women out of the workforce). I am welcoming others on FDR to consider what the voluntary family looks like, especially in light of decentralized technological tools such as the blockchain. As it stands, no aspect of the family is voluntary. We are born tax slaves, indoctrinated and traumatized, and we die as slaves.