- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rogan and Shapiro agree: get government out of marriage
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:43 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:43 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Freedom is, in nearly ALL cases on nearly ALL subjects, more cumbersome than state control
The current presumption is still better and more efficient for a functioning one than whatever you seem to be proposing, I would postulate.
So, you'll have to forgive me if the whole, "but its harder" argument doesn't move me
2
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:46 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Honestly, I've had this opinion regarding the absurdity of govt "approving" marriages for more than 30 years.
Don't assume
A fishing net isn't going catch every fish it comes into contact with even though it accurately caught a ton of fish.
My opinion still stands.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:46 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Freedom is, in nearly ALL cases on nearly ALL subjects, more cumbersome than state control
So, you'll have to forgive me if the whole, "but its harder" argument doesn't move me
We did not see eye to eye at all on Net Neutrality, but I think we agree on this issue.
Freedom is hard and it takes responsibility and it has consequences. I will never agree to government involvement because life, decisions, and consequences are hard for some people.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:48 pm to Sentrius
quote:
A fishing net isn't going catch every fish it comes into contact with.
My opinion still stands.
Well the opposite is also true
Those on the left that oppose this idea do so primarily because they want to CODIFY their lifestyles.
Because if you think about it, agreeing with me would have IMMEDIATELY gotten them and any other groups they wanted rolled up what they wanted LONG ago.
Statist gonna statist
Posted on 4/4/19 at 2:57 pm to xiv
The problem with getting the government out of marriage means the end of "marriage" - because marital status is so intertwined with things like:
Taxes
Health insurance
Census taking
Birth records
De facto Powers of Attorney (particularly for medical issues)
Retirement accounts
Bank accounts
It means nothing to single people, but for married folks 90% of their existence is tied up in the martial compact. And third parties' recognition of this is paramount and that means government sanction.
If you take government out, then that means the cousin marriage rules are gone (which only really go back to the Civil War, baws, so knock yourselves out, but most of you think that's pretty icky). Anti-polygamy laws are out. Employer-sponsored healthcare stops covering spouses because you can have 100 of them, etc.
The main reason why I fought to maintain the traditional definition of marriage is because families in the traditional Western sense (1 father, 1 mother and any number of kids living together under 1 roof - the, as W. would say, "nukulur" family) are the foundation of Western Civilization.
It deserved defending. Now that it's gone, I'm ready to chuck it all. Are you baws?
Taxes
Health insurance
Census taking
Birth records
De facto Powers of Attorney (particularly for medical issues)
Retirement accounts
Bank accounts
It means nothing to single people, but for married folks 90% of their existence is tied up in the martial compact. And third parties' recognition of this is paramount and that means government sanction.
If you take government out, then that means the cousin marriage rules are gone (which only really go back to the Civil War, baws, so knock yourselves out, but most of you think that's pretty icky). Anti-polygamy laws are out. Employer-sponsored healthcare stops covering spouses because you can have 100 of them, etc.
The main reason why I fought to maintain the traditional definition of marriage is because families in the traditional Western sense (1 father, 1 mother and any number of kids living together under 1 roof - the, as W. would say, "nukulur" family) are the foundation of Western Civilization.
It deserved defending. Now that it's gone, I'm ready to chuck it all. Are you baws?
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:08 pm to Nguyener
quote:
Yes. The state should be involved in making sure children are cared for especially in the case of absent and neglectful parents.
It's funny that you would throw out marriage as a state institution because of big government, and then in the same breath you make the above big government statement. Is this pick and choose libertarianism?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:11 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Non issue. Do you prove to the IRS every year that you are married? Nope. You still wouldn't
Taxes
quote:Same. As long as I'm not trying to cover 2 women, non issue
Health insurance
quote:These two say they're married. Done
Census taking
quote:He says he's dad, she's obviously mom. Done
Birth records
quote:Here's a copy of my kid's BC. Done
De facto Powers of Attorney (particularly for medical issues)
quote:She's added to my account. Done. She wasn't added? Cool. Done
Retirement accounts
I can go on
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:14 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:The ONLY difference would be that when two people say they're married, they are. No papers needed
It means nothing to single people, but for married folks 90% of their existence is tied up in the martial compact. And third parties' recognition of this is paramount and that means government sanction.
quote:They're stupid anyway.
If you take government out, then that means the cousin marriage rules are gone
quote:Yup. But, if an insurance company says they'll only cover 1 spouse, ya gotta pick one
Anti-polygamy laws are out.
quote:LOL. Come on. This is just silly.
Employer-sponsored healthcare stops covering spouses because you can have 100 of them, etc.
Insurance Company - "We'll cover A spouse" - Which one ya covering?
quote:NONE of which requires a fee or a piece of govt issued paper
The main reason why I fought to maintain the traditional definition of marriage is because families in the traditional Western sense (1 father, 1 mother and any number of kids living together under 1 roof - the, as W. would say, "nukulur" family) are the foundation of Western Civilization.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:15 pm to Nguyener
quote:
The parties should be equal and have equal protections. How do you define weaker party and why are they afforded more protections?
The party in a weaker position is always going to be the one who isn't the high earner. We have laws to protect weaker parties in all kinds of areas that go back a long time, like say laws that protect employees from their employer who is primarily in a position of authority/power over employees.
And for those saying that ending state endorsement of marriage would take the lawyers out of it while talking about making it based on a private contract... You realize that wouldn't take the lawyers out of it right? If anything lawyers would be more involved/expensive because you would be dealing with a million permutations of private contracts and each state would be setting new precedents on how to handle those cases.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:17 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
The party in a weaker position is always going to be the one who isn't the high earner. We have laws to protect weaker parties in all kinds of areas that go back a long time, like say laws that protect employees from their employer who is primarily in a position of authority/power over employees.
And for those saying that ending state endorsement of marriage would take the lawyers out of it while talking about making it based on a private contract... You realize that wouldn't take the lawyers out of it right? If anything lawyers would be more involved/expensive because you would be dealing with a million permutations of private contracts and each state would be setting new precedents on how to handle those cases.
You can leave literally EVERY law in place regarding how govt addresses marriage, taxation, insurance etc etc etc with the SINGLE caveat saying, "govt don't give a frick who you marry.........you don't need a license and ya don't have to pony up a fricking fee to get married"
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:19 pm to xiv
Question for PT lawyers:
Couldn't government overreach into the institution of marriage be challenged in a court based on the separation of church and state?
Has this been tried before?
Couldn't government overreach into the institution of marriage be challenged in a court based on the separation of church and state?
Has this been tried before?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:20 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Same. As long as I'm not trying to cover 2 women, non issue
ShortyRob you are smarter than this. If the government is blind to the institution of marriage then you cannot cover a spouse under health insurance. It would be a meaningless term.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:22 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You can leave literally EVERY law in place regarding how govt addresses marriage, taxation, insurance etc etc etc with the SINGLE caveat saying, "govt don't give a frick who you marry.........you don't need a license and ya don't have to pony up a fricking fee to get married"
So you are saying that you should leave all of the US laws about marriage in place? And what about polygamy?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:23 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:Of course you can
ShortyRob you are smarter than this. If the government is blind to the institution of marriage then you cannot cover a spouse under health insurance
quote:You act like someone has an insurance company in a straight jacket preventing them from simply saying, "who is your wife?".
It would be a meaningless term.
And before you say, "what if you lie"? Meh. We have convenience/benefits driven marriages now.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:24 pm to CivilTiger83
Why not? Once again, an insurance contract is a private contract between the insurer and the insured. They can negotiate whatever the market will bear.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:27 pm to Nguyener
quote:If we were speaking French, I would have conjugated faire and we all would have understood, but English is different
You said this twice, so I know it's not a type-o. How exactly do you "do liberty"? What does that mean?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:28 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:What about it?
And what about polygamy?
You want to call 4 women your wife and they all agree to it? Cool
That doesn't require the IRS, insurance companies or anyone else to COVER more than 1.
Why is this shite so hard for everyone?
Life would go on. All State would still cover your wife.(Hell, did you send them a marriage license when you added her as a driver or health insurance recipient?)
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:29 pm to DRMPHD
quote:And, I suspect that most insurance companies would say "we cover 1 spouse" or, perhaps they'd just have added rate structures for multiple spouses.........or, certain companies would sprout up to fill that niche
Why not? Once again, an insurance contract is a private contract between the insurer and the insured. They can negotiate whatever the market will bear.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:31 pm to Sentrius
quote:True, but Rogan isn’t being homophobic—just libertarian to an unfettered degree.
It's over. They lost the fight. The queers can marry and they need to get the frick over it.
This get government out of marriage nonsense is just take my ball home so nobody can play with it bullshite.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 3:50 pm to xiv
quote:If government is out of marriage, why would you have the right to marry?
The areligious have the right to marry; who, therefore, is to witness, enforce, and govern the marriage rights of these people?
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News