Monday, June 16, 2014

The Slope Keeps Getting More Slippery

Gay marriage. This is a concept that would have been considered pure battiness a very short time ago. Many homosexuals, like Gore Vidal, considered the whole concept wrong-headed, and I'm sure many still do. But not liberals. The more deviant something is, the better they like it, and the more "normal" and "natural" they insist it is. Meanwhile, a preference for traditional lifestyles that are not self-destructive is considered evidence of moral turpitude at best, and insanity calling for institutionalization at worst.

And, like eager puppies, the "thick" libertarians happily follow after the liberals, lapping up all their trendy social ideas, and making them the bedrock of their ideology, and a litmus tests for cranky old SOB's like me, who are to be ejected from the movement because of my refusal to gush in admiration when a pair of guys get their organs of generation and excretion mixed up.

So, no. Libertarians, let's distinguish ourselves from the liberals who change direction with every gust of trendiness, and the neocons, who show their differences by changing direction the same way a couple of beats later to show how thoughtful they are — Yes, let's distinguish ourselves from the liberal/neocons and base our thinking on actual facts, logic, and the principle of survival.  No? You'd rather not? Then you're proving Glenfilthie right.

For the record, as a rational person before I'm a libertarian, gay marriage is virtually an oxymoron, and therefore impossible to approve of.  A same-sex pair can only pretend to be married, and it's pretty insane to advocate sanctioning such a thing by law. It is, you see, about reproduction. Marriage is, that is. In order to have reproduction, you have to have a male and a female. You can't say, "Aha! They can adopt!" because anybody can adopt, and marriage status is not relevant.

Well, the following is from http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/further-thoughts-on-gay-marriage/#more-22386, and Vabadus says some interesting things. In the end, though, I have to agree with Glenfilthie in the quibcag.

Further Thoughts on Gay Marriage

by Vabadus

As a libertarian, I cannot object to the legalisation of gay marriage, whatever I personally think of homosexuality. If consenting adults draw up a contract and decide to call that marriage, we have no business utilising the weapons of state power to intervene. The state should not be holding a monopoly on the legal definition of marriage anyway.

I do, on the other hand, find the opposing arguments of social liberals and religious conservatives insipid and unconvincing, with the former pontificating about ‘equal’ rights, and the latter outraged about deviating from Biblical morality. Let us take an objective view of history here.

The institution of marriage predates both the state and religion, and has existed in some form in all cultures for millennia. The purpose of marriage is, in short, to subdue our animalistic impulses by restraining female hypergamy and the male impulse to ‘spread the seed’. As women are the guardians of sex, lifelong, faithful marriage forced them to make do with the best of the group of men desiring her, which in turn gave beta males a chance at fatherhood (ethology proves itself to be informative here). The knock-on effects were that inheritance rights were formalised, fatherhood ascertained (as a general rule), and couple incentivised to remain together for life as a stable unit.

Central to the purpose of marriage, then, is reproduction. Where procreation is in principle impossible, marriage is an irrelevance. In the case of infertile and voluntary heterosexuals, and straight couples past the childbearing age, procreation is only incidentally impossible, because between a man and a woman, procreation is in principle always possible. Gays and lesbians are not merely incidentally incapable of reproducing; it is impossible for them to do so in principle. So I sympathise with the view that redefining marriage in law by excising the reproduction component from it essentially destroys the necessity for the institution at all.

The libertarian issue here is, however, that individuals ought to be free to negotiate the terms of their own contracts as they see fit, and the best solution here, both in terms of practicality and congruence with our ideology, is marriage privatisation, in order to cut the state — and everyone else, particularly those who take moral objection to our form of marriage — out of our affairs.

I would abolish civil marriage as we know it; instead, secular marriages would come into existence by nothing more than the signing of the marriage contract in front of a lawyer’s. Having a party or reception to celebrate this can be optional and of no legal effect, although I am sure the overwhelming majority would opt for this given our traditions. The lawyer could even perform the role of the contemporary registrar in reading out vows selected by the marrying parties, made official thereafter by the signing of the contract. The libertarian solution should be favourable to social conservatives, whose religious clergymen would have no obligation to perform or recognise the unions of homosexuals, divorcés, and so on. Marriage would be governed by contract law.

Another cause for conservatives to embrace this suggestion, is that it would reintroduce fault in divorce, exactly as companies prematurely terminating contractual obligations to one another would be prevented from unjust enrichment. No-fault divorce, which exists only de facto in England and Wales, has done more to harm the institution of marriage than anything gay unions could dream of doing. It is responsible for the astronomical rise of divorce rates, and the attractiveness of divorce, particularly for women, as a financial investment, even if they are adulteresses or otherwise responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Of course, if a particular couple wishes to allow for no-fault divorce in their contract, that is great, but the beauty of this is the freedom. If I were contracting a marriage under a libertarian system, I would ensure that I make provision for alimony to be paid on an at-fault basis, or not at all,
-----
Quibcag: The illustration is Akane Tendo, of Ranma ½ (らんま½), who is very sensitive to deviancy and degeneracy, and disapproves of both.

6 comments:

  1. "If consenting adults draw up a contract and decide to call that marriage, we have no business utilising the weapons of state power to intervene. The state should not be holding a monopoly on the legal definition of marriage anyway."

    Exactly. He says it all there. The State's role in individual contracts should simply be acknowledging them and enforcing them. Thus anyone should be able to engage in a contract. For that reason alone I support gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Facebook showed me that you wrote in a group that "Gay marriage is about benefits not reproduction", Isn't supposed that gay marriage is actually about feelings? And that's why opposition to gay marriage sounds actually conservative to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "No-fault divorce, which exists only de facto in England and Wales, has done more to harm the institution of marriage than anything gay unions could dream of doing."

    I agree with that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you don't support Gay marriage your not a Libertarian, Period. And yes , being Libertarian is what being "Liberal" meant before Liberalism was hijacked by Robespierre

    ReplyDelete
  5. Marriage is not just about Reproduction, it's about God's command that Man should not be alone.

    It's be ideal if we no longer had Civil marriage at all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. " If I were contracting a marriage under a libertarian system, I would ensure that I make provision for alimony to be paid on an at-fault basis, or not at all."

    Well, that alone should differentiate the libertarian position on this issue from that of the "Liberal" fascisti.

    Can you imagine the howls of rage from the distaff side of the leftards' fire at this being enacted into the statute books?

    ReplyDelete