|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 06/03/2007 : 20:37:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Sorry, I was replying to the circumstances described by another poster. I should have quoted to make more clear as to what i was referring.
|
"...By another poster..." 
So you just apologise, then clearly show that you don't give a shit about making amends.
Why not make a post where you put your statement in context, with a reference to whom you were quoting?
If you don't have more respect for us than this, then don't deserve to be treated with respect either. The door swings both ways.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/03/2007 : 21:29:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Jerome wrote: | Marfknox---I find that less interference of the State with personal relationships allows the natural compassion of the human; on a one to one base, extend fairness and happiness upon the parties involved. |
Can you back that up with anything other than your own warm fuzzy intuition about human nature?
This naive claim of yours certainly doesn't hold water when we look at the huge number of gay couples who were fucked over by lack of legal protection. Often what has happened is that when one partner dies, relatives - often distant relatives - use the legal system to take ownership of all the decease's assets, leaving the lifetime partner with jack shit. Yeah, real human compassion at work there! The same thing has happened with heteosexual common law marriages. Without contracts to protect them, the surviving partner is left very vulnerable.
And without marriage, how is child custody determined? A friend of mine didn't marry his girlfriend when she had their baby, but merely moved in with her. After the baby was 6 months old, they broke up and he had ZERO parental rights. Had they been married, he would have had part custody from the get go. Without marriage, men would have to go through the legal process of adopting their own children.
And what about if you marry a foreigner? And what about not being forced to testify against your spouse in court?
Without any evidence to back up the claim that for some reason people will be nicer to each other if there are no formal laws protecting those vulnerable to abuse, I find your claim painfully naive.
|
Marfknox, you said "huge number of gay couples who were fucked over by lack of legal protection" and "use the legal system to take ownership of all the decease's assets, leaving the lifetime partner with jack shit."
This is the exact point to which I referred when I said in another post that the law exempts humans from their natural compassion. The situations you describe are founded by the states involvement with personal and familial relationships.
I contend that without state involvement these horrible actions would not occur as they do.
FOR DOC |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 23:57:18 [Permalink]
|
Jerome - compassion does not enter into a situation when a life-partner is held in abhorrence by the deceased/incapacitated family. If the family does not agree with the persons lifestyle, it is possible that they will act without regard for the life-partner out of spite for the individuals 'choice' of lifestyle. Additionally, most people are acquisitive or worried that they haven't enough to get by. Believe me, when it's a choice between you or them - you will most always choose you. We only have the luxury of 'self-sacrifice' when we have enough not to worry about the sacrifice.
The legal system in this country was (is and should be) intended to protect the minority from the majority. Protection under the law, legal unions, are the only way to protect the members (children included - those who don't really have a voice) of non-traditional families. Should a child who has know two individuals as parents be taken away and placed in foster care because the legal parent/guardian of that child is incapacitated. That does not happen with the traditional family, but can happen in a non-traditional family, because the other partner/parent is not legally recognized as a guardian of the child. The state then must determine guardianship. If a relative of the injured exists and contests guardianship, it is likely that child will go to the relative because the other partner has no legal standing.
A legal union allows for so much, that those who are committed to each other should be allowed those benefits (married deductions on your taxes are a reward for stability) whether a traditional or non-traditional family. (I include single parents in this - they should have the luxury of a deduction for stability.)
|
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 03:34:21 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | Everything you state as necessary could be taken care of under common law and contract law. |
I'm sick of talking to you Jerome, because you pick and choose what you are going to respond to, ignore the rest, and then make additional points that are in conflict with the things you chose to ignore. Contract law is rife with problems. It is complicated, expensive, and is often easily contested by slick lawyers. Marriage is simple, cheap, and carries more legal weight. To switch over to contract law would totally fuck over the poor and less law-savvy members of our society.
Common law marriage is marriage. The only difference between that and going to the courthouse is that you just live together for a state-specified amount of time. After that, all the laws are the same, so how is this the state interfering any less?
| This is the exact point to which I referred when I said in another post that the law exempts humans from their natural compassion. The situations you describe are founded by the states involvement with personal and familial relationships. |
So gay couples - who have no kind of state involvement in their relationship - are being screwed over because the state is involved in heterosexual marriages?
How does this make any sense what-so-ever? Edited to add: By any logic, if state involvement turns peoples' natural compassion off, it should be the families with legal marriages that have problems, not the ones without.
Government is not some magical force that turns nice people into assholes. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/04/2007 03:37:05 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 04:03:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Jerome wrote: | Everything you state as necessary could be taken care of under common law and contract law. |
I'm sick of talking to you Jerome, because you pick and choose what you are going to respond to, ignore the rest, and then make additional points that are in conflict with the things you chose to ignore. Contract law is rife with problems. It is complicated, expensive, and is often easily contested by slick lawyers. Marriage is simple, cheap, and carries more legal weight. To switch over to contract law would totally fuck over the poor and less law-savvy members of our society. |
Exactly. The key is uniformity. The marriage contract is, at its most basic, a contract. However, it's special in that it is universally applied to any and all marriages in the same way. It would be foolish to have each couple that wanted to enter such a relationship to seek out a lawyer and figure out what to include and not include in a contract. And woe be the couple that gets married with an inadequate contract! (We're sorry ma'am. Your contract marriage contract says nothing about hospital visitation; you'll have to wait outside...) |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 18:45:33 [Permalink]
|
What right would any relative have to the property in possession of the housemate of a deceased, without state law?
What right would the state have to determine child placement in the event of the death of one of two caretakers of a child without state law?
Trish, the only true minority is the individual.
Why should people be taxed differently based on how they structure their household?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 18:56:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What right would any relative have to the property in possession of the housemate of a deceased, without state law?
What right would the state have to determine child placement in the event of the death of one of two caretakers of a child without state law?
Trish, the only true minority is the individual.
Why should people be taxed differently based on how they structure their household? |
Your questions aren't entirely clear. In terms of the final question though-- the state often structures its tax system to encourage people to do things the state finds advantageous. So it encourages you to own a home. It encourages you to invest in the stock market. It encourages you to give to charity, and so on. Since the state seems to think that marriage is a good thing, it writes tax laws to encourage that.
The reality is far more complex than I've just explained it, but that's a superficial explanation to that. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 18:59:22 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox, I am not sure what I did not respond to.
Marfknox said "So gay couples - who have no kind of state involvement in their relationship - are being screwed over because the state is involved in heterosexual marriages? "
Yes, if special status was not given by the state to certain types of relationships there would not be a problem, everyone would be treated the same.
Marfknox said "Government is not some magical force that turns nice people into assholes."
The law turns nice people into assholes. Ever been in a fender bender? Ever dealt with community associations? Ever seen anyone sue because they spilled coffee on themselves? Ever watch the "Peoples Court"? People commonly treat other people poorly because of the backing of "Law"; doing things no noraml person would attempt without the "Law".
The Law always seems to "totally fuck over the poor and less law-savvy members of our society."
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 19:06:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What right would any relative have to the property in possession of the housemate of a deceased, without state law?
What right would the state have to determine child placement in the event of the death of one of two caretakers of a child without state law?
Trish, the only true minority is the individual.
Why should people be taxed differently based on how they structure their household? |
Your questions aren't entirely clear. In terms of the final question though-- the state often structures its tax system to encourage people to do things the state finds advantageous. So it encourages you to own a home. It encourages you to invest in the stock market. It encourages you to give to charity, and so on. Since the state seems to think that marriage is a good thing, it writes tax laws to encourage that.
The reality is far more complex than I've just explained it, but that's a superficial explanation to that.
|
A person is not free if the state financially limits or cajoles a person into taking action that they would not do on their own.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 19:19:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
A person is not free if the state financially limits or cajoles a person into taking action that they would not do on their own. |
Do you have a driver's license, Jerome? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 19:34:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
A person is not free if the state financially limits or cajoles a person into taking action that they would not do on their own. |
Do you have a driver's license, Jerome?
|
Yes, Dave I have a drivers license. I do not believe the state should license drivers. I believe people should be held responsible for their actions.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 20:06:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Yes, Dave I have a drivers license. |
I figured as much, but I wanted to see how far you'd take your romantic ultra-libertarian values. Apparently not so far as to protest against the state by living to your ideals.| I do not believe the state should license drivers. |
Of course you don't. You were just financially coerced into doing something you wouldn't have otherwise done.| I believe people should be held responsible for their actions. |
When was the last time that "I have a driver's license" was used as a defense in civil, criminal or traffic court? Hell, when was the first time it was used? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 20:12:22 [Permalink]
|
Dave asked "When was the last time that "I have a driver's license" was used as a defense in civil, criminal or traffic court? Hell, when was the first time it was used?"
This is the point Dave, if a license holds no benefit or protection what is the point of paying the state for the license?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 20:21:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is the point Dave, if a license holds no benefit or protection what is the point of paying the state for the license? |
Wow, how short-sighted and naive.
Your driver's license confers benefits to everyone who isn't you. Allow me to speak on behalf of all of them to say, "thank you for your cooperation." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 20:26:11 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | Yes, if special status was not given by the state to certain types of relationships there would not be a problem, everyone would be treated the same. |
You are horribly mistaken. In the absence of formal law, its predecessor, social conventions and norms, rears its – often ugly – head. Gay couples would most certainly not be treated equally if heretosexual couples had no access to legal civil unions.
Also, you advocate common law marriage, but you have not responded to the contention by myself and others than common law marriage is the state being involved in familial relationships just as much as marriage on demand. Also, common law marriage has never been applied to gay couples.
| Ever been in a fender bender? |
Yes. The other person was at fault. Her insurance paid for the damage to my car except for a $60. deductible ‘cause I had to get a new muffler. Her insurance also covered my rental car. Wasn't that big a deal. My brother was involved in a fender bender a couple years ago and that scenario ended pretty much the same way as mine. Your point?
| Ever dealt with community associations? |
You mean like ones that are led by block captains compensated by the city? We have those in Philly. One of these such community associations near where I work managed to dismantle one of the largest open-air drug markets in Philadelphia – something the cops had failed to do. My local community association hosts block parties each year so residents can get to know each other. Nice stuff. Again, your point?
| Ever seen anyone sue because they spilled coffee on themselves? |
Once on national news. Stuff like that is national news ‘cause it doesn't happen very often.
| Ever watch the "Peoples Court"? |
Yeah. Small claims stuff. That is a good thing too. My friend's landlord tried to screw him out of his deposit, but he was smart and had documentation that the claimed damage to the apartment was done BEFORE he was a tenet. Without the threat of the law, that landlord would have taken advantage of my buddy. But with the threat of the law, my buddy got his deposit back. That's what should have happened.
| People commonly treat other people poorly because of the backing of "Law"; doing things no noraml person would attempt without the "Law". |
Do you think we just came up with all these laws ‘cause we were bored? I mean, granted, many many bad laws that cause more harm than good have been created and enforced, but generally we create a law in reaction to a social problem. If human societies were such utopias without the law, why would those same people create and/or support the creation of laws in the first place?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Same-sex Marriage
Topic Locked
