My dad's case against "marriage equality"

State marriage contracts are quite clearly between two people. So, no laws are being expanded, only access to such laws. Plural marriages  aren't being denied anything - nor or people who want to marry their dog - since all existing marriage contracts are only between two people.

 

 

The aggression is already in place, the state has an incentive to promote stable family units.  They will continue to do so, if you want to advocate that the state stop doing such things, by all means go ahead.

thats what we have been doing, thanks.

But, there is no mutual exclusivity to the promotion of abolition of state sponsored marriage and promotion of gays gaining equal access to state sponsored marriage.

gays have access to state-sponsored marriage. Its a value judgment that they make in wishing to marry someone who isnt legally marriable. I dont condone expanding state privileges. We want to roll back the state, not make it promote stability and instability because "who are we to judge?" exactly, who are we to judge? End all special privileges.

You can logically do both at the same time,

ok, please explain to me how you can coherently say "get the state out of our lives" and "get the state to sanction my social life as a 'marriage'"? You can replace those statements with anything you feel accurately represents our two positions, and that can be held simultaneously, without contradiction.

there is no need to deny rights to certain races or sexes based on some lofty idealism.

straight men cant marry other men either, so youre wrong, people are not being discriminated against.

If two staright men want to get married, they should have access to existing laws allowing two people of the opposite sex to do the same - same goes for siblings. It is certainly discriminatory for them not to have the same access to state largesse based on sex alone.

Again, we aren't talkling about expansion of law or power. We are talking about access. One can be for access and against expansion.

Until you can provide some reasons as to why any two people shouldn't have access to certain priviliges only provided to a certain combination of sexes, i.e. man/woman, then you are promoting segregation. It's really that simple.

State marriage contracts are quite clearly between two people.

I think this is your goal. State marriage contracts are quite clearly between a male and a female, otherwise we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

So, no laws are being expanded, only access to such laws.

this isnt a meaningful distinction. You want to expand the scope of people who obtain special privileges, but not to everyone. Only to include a specific group of people. You have thus far alluded to interventionist, value-laden motives. I have no reason even to believe that we share the same values, rather I have a contraindication, as you are advocating special privileges for a group of people.

Plural marriages  aren't being denied anything - nor or people who want to marry their dog - since all existing marriage contracts are only between two people.

you will note that the same argument could be used against yourself. Homosexuals in fact are not being denied anything that is permitted to anyone else, including heterosexuals. Likewise, all existing marriage contracts are between a man and a woman. Except, there are gay marriages, and there are plural marriages, however I am (quite happily) unaware of any zoological "marriages." but other people choose not to recognize these plural and homosexual unions. At which point I say, remove the coercive arm of the state and let the chips fall where they may! But you think the coercive arm of the state should do things, just do them differently. Just differently enough to benefit a group of people. Hmmmmmmmm

Voting yes to marriage equality solidifies the power of government over the family.

we already have state marrage, it already solidifies the power of government over family.

the government already does regulate marriage, already does have departments for family.

if people want to vote against government power, then voting to abolish state marriage makes more sense i think, as a closer step to abolishing government in the first place if power over the family is bad.

cubfan296,

While there are certain privileges that are legitimately extended, such as tax exemption or reduction, not all of the privileges are of this type. There are a number of benefits where people recieve government money. While I am always for people taking what they can get from the government under existing laws, I do not advocate expanding the laws to increase the amount of people who can recieve money from the government.

Since there are millions of lower class families that recieve welfare, maybe we should just extend welfare to all families, rich or poor. Then it would be fair. Amirite?

If two staright men want to get married, they should have access to existing laws allowing two people of the opposite sex to do the same

they do have access to existing laws, that forbid it. You do not want the existing laws, you want to change the laws.

same goes for siblings. It is certainly discriminatory for them not to have the same access to state largesse based on sex alone.

it most certainly is not discriminatory for two people to have the same access and lack of access to the same benefits. These people want different things. The choices they are making is the discrimination, not the govt laws.

Again, we aren't talkling about expansion of law or power. We are talking about access. One can be for access and against expansion.

as I said before, you are not drawing a meaningful distinction. Youre advocating expansion of the govt program to favor certain family types. I prefer to do away with the system. If we were legislators we would vote opposite on every bill pertaining to this, its just the way it is. You favor expansion of privileges.

Until you can provide some reasons as to why any two people shouldn't have access to certain priviliges only provided to a certain combination of sexes, i.e. man/woman, then you are promoting segregation. It's really that simple.

well, thats a good attempt to reframe the discussion but it doesnt work. The burden of proof is on you for two reasons. First, youre the one advocating a change. Secondly, you want the govt to do something, as opposed to stopping doing something. So those are two very good reasons not to do what you want irrespective of any specific considerations. Thirdly, I dont agree that the interventionist arguments made for special privileges conferred upon hetero marriages would apply to homosexual unions. Those arguments would have to be made anew. Imagine if I said that the burden of proof was on you to explain why access to nuclear weapons was not made available to every taxpayer?

I don't think you are reading what I'm writing.

I'm not advocating that the state do things. I'm simply making an argument;  if the state already has established a law or privilige, that acces to that privilige be attainable by all citizens no matter of sex, religion, race, or creed. This is a simple concept of equality under the law, and is in no way advocating for the expansion of government power.  Equality under the law is more in line with the NAP principle. Denying individuals rights under state law is not in line with NAP.

Equality under the law is more in line with the NAP principle. Denying individuals rights under state law is not in line with NAP.

This could not be more false. The NAP only states that individuals shall not aggress against other individuals. It says nothing about a third party having the right to aggress against said individuals equally.

I'm not advocating that the state do things. I'm simply making an argument;  if the state already has established a law or privilige, that acces to that privilige be attainable by all citizens no matter of sex, religion, race, or creed.

the privilege we are talking about is to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you want to expand this privilege to include marrying someone the same sex?

Are you in favor of public schooling segregation in the deep south? Should blacks not have been allowed equal access to public schooling?  Are you in favor of apartheid? Should woman not have had the right to vote?

Under your definition of expansion of the state, it's quite clear that you would support these types of arrangements. As they would pull more individuals into the sphere of state influence, therefore expanding the state.

 

At some point you have to join reality...

Malachi, don't forget the government benefits that are extended. It is true that there are some tax reductions, but at the same time there are government benefits as well. I don't think there is a clear cut answer as to what is right or wrong in this case. I do think that it is very dangerous to expand government control and power, and extending government benefits does just that. That does not mean that they necessarily outweigh the tax reductions, but I've never the run numbers, and apparently cubfan296 doesn't care to either. All I know is it is dangerous to expand government power.

You guys are truly ridiculous.

Allowing the state, nay advocating, that the state agress against people under the law is not lofty nor is it principled. 

State marriage contracts exist, they are contracts designed for two people. Denying any two people the rights conferred by that contract is discriminatory and segregationist. The language of a man and woman are irrelevant, just as the language to deny women the right to vote or blacks access to schooling. The state cannot and should not be able to confer special rights to any person or persons based sex, race, religion, or creed.  And, to advocate for such policy  based on some principled defense of an-cap is asinine.

 

Are you in favor of public schooling segregation in the deep south?

I'm not in favor of public schooling in any region, its inherently segregationalist, even today.

Should blacks not have been allowed equal access to public schooling?

fat lot of good it did them, heh. No, they shouldnt have been forced to go to the same labor camps as other people.

Are you in favor of apartheid?

if its state-sponsored I'm not in favor of it. Are you in favor of slightly amending apartheid so your favorites are on the upside of it?

Should woman not have had the right to vote?

I dont see what good it did anybody except the government. It certainly mollified half the population that beforehand knew govt was a coercive institution. Is that what you want, you would rather pacify militant gays than explain the nature of the state to them?

Under your definition of expansion of the state, it's quite clear that you would support these types of arrangements.

now its my turn to tell you that youre not reading my posts.

As they would pull more individuals into the sphere of state influence, therefore expanding the state.

yup, I dont support compulsory education for anybody.

At some point you have to join reality...

reality is, you prefer to expand state privilege rather than do away with it.

State marriage contracts exist, they are contracts designed for two people.

they exist, they are designed for a male and a female. Your arguments would have more force if you didnt tend to gloss over this little fact as if you didnt want us to notice it, when its actually central to your argument, indeed it is the point. This means you are begging the question.

The language of a man and woman are irrelevant, just as the language to deny women the right to vote or blacks access to schooling.

its got to be relevant to something if you want to do away with it. You cant have it both ways

The state cannot and should not be able to confer special rights to any person or persons based sex, race, religion, or creed.

youre losing the plot. The state is basically defined as a social fiction that confers special privileges on people. And if it shouldnt do that, you cant at the same time advocate that it should do more of the same.

Autolykos feel free to pick it up whenever.

 

You guys are truly ridiculous.

Allowing the state, nay advocating, that the state agress against people under the law is not lofty nor is it principled. 

LOL. That's a good one. We are against aggression, so when we say that we are not in favor of expanding state aggression, you claim this is advocating the expansion of state aggression.

Cute.

Anyway, I just realized that you have been ignoring my posts, so I can see that you are not arguing in good faith.

I'm not in favor of expanding state privilege, I'm in favor of the state not aggressing against people based on sex, race, religion, or creed.

 

If the state, especially democratic states are to be the reality, then it stands to reason that the rule of law be used to limit the state's ability to aggress. You can fight the state all you want, but there's no absolutely no reason to condone or promote the wielding of such an apparatus by those with access and ultimately  power to be used against minority positions.

This has to be about the rule of law and defense of equality under that law, not lofty idealism of an anarchy that doesn't exist.

"Blah blah blah, I don't support the NAP, blah blah blah."

Whatever.

I think you are having a problem with understanding what discrimination is, and it's relevance when discussing the rule of law.

 

If a state wants to design a contract for two people, then any two people need to have access to that contract, lest it be discrimantory and segregationist. The same applies for any state privilige or function, the wording of the original document is not important in that respect. And, if you want to advocate for the discrimation of state contracts based on sex, then you are, in fact, advocating for the influence of state power - and those who wield it - in favor of the rule of law. 

I am almost a pure pacifist, I just understand what reality is.

 

Again, the state exists, it is a powerful apparatus, and those who wield its power are, in general, shit-heads. Advocacy for the rule of law within that state, to minimize the aggression against those with less power is much more in line with the NAP. Supporting discrimination within the state is supporting the aggression of the state.

I think you are having a problem replying to my posts. I see that you go out of your way to respond to your own posts so as to avoid giving points. Interesting to say the least. Regardless, you have not addressed the vast majority of the content of my posts. So it is quite clear that you do not have any interest in discussing the issue. You just want to sound off your own opinion.

However, I will be generous and provide some sort of response anyway. If a law were drafted that allowed for homosexual marriage and included things such as tax reductions but not government benefits, then I could support such a law without hesitation. But as it stands, I do not support expanding government benefits to anyone, as it invariably increases state power and aggression. I do support people taking advantage of existing rules, but I do not support expanding those rules.

If you continue to interpret this as discrimination, that is your choice. I can assure you that the matter of someone's sexual preference does not enter the equation for me at all. What I'm concerned with is not increasing government benefits. I would also like to see them reduced. This is my opinion whether it's marijuana or gay marriage. I support the legalization of pot. I do not support the increased government control over the substance. So I abstained from voting on the matter in MA.

Again, the state exists, it is a powerful apparatus, and those who wield its power are, in general, shit-heads. Advocacy for the rule of law within that state, to minimize the aggression against those with less power is much more in line with the NAP. Supporting discrimination within the state is supporting the aggression of the state.

You can repeat this as often as you like, but at some point it would be nice if you at least attempted to substantiate this.

How am I not substantiating it?

Discrimination and segregation are tools used by those who control the state.  And, by supporting such tools, you are, in fact, supporting state aggression against minority positions within a democracy.  You are supporting a religious right wing position, that only holds such power because of the size of its electorate. This is why the rule of law is so important in a state, and especially within a democratic state.

"I do support people taking advantage of existing rules, but I do not support expanding those rules."

 

Then we are in agreement...

What am I missing here?

You are not substantiating it because you need to link the idea of "not expanding government benefits" with "aggression". You just keep restating that they are the same thing. This is not clear. In fact, expanding government benefits is aggression. Note that I am not equating "tax reduction" with "government benefits". I am equating "receiving public assistance benefits" with "government benefits".

If you were to demonstrate that "general benefits" such as "tax reductions" outweighed the "government benefits" such as "receiving public assistance benefits", then I might be willing to reconsider my position. I asked you to do this many posts ago and you chose not to do this. Perhaps you will reconsider.

 

Then we are in agreement...

What am I missing here?

You are under the belief that "expanding marriage privileges to homosexuals" does not include "expanding marriage privileges". That is what you are missing.

I agree that extending government largesse is aggression. My point is, once the government extends benefits - of any kind, be it tax cuts or assistance - that those benefits be accessible to all individuals within that state. That is not an expansion of aggression, it is simply an expansion of a the nominal amount of benefits, but it is not an expansion of actual power over the rule of law.

That is what is important, Sweden isn't less statist because they spend, in toto, less that the US in welfare payments. They are more statist because of the amount  laws designed to expand the welfare state, and how those laws control society.

 

 

It seems to me that the libertarian position is one that is rationally defensible because it remains consistent with a single axiom, the NAP.  It is not defensible by its utilitarian qualities or any other thing at all.  Unfortunately, that places us in a position of having to violate our own values if we choose a utilitarian position in instances like state-authorized homosexual marriage. 

Whether that violation of principles is worth it to you, personally, is of course your own decision.  But it's not defensible logically as a libertarian position.

Malachi:

I mean that if you need to get married in a church, because churches issue marriage certificates (like accredited colleges issue real degrees) and you needed one of those to get health insurance for your spouse (because its packaged with employment or whatever) then you would need to convince some church, any church, to give you that certification. That means that at least one church that you can access has to actually affirm that you are, in fact married, and not some other kind of relationship that they dont consider marriage. Thats influence. I mention accreditation because anybody can start a "church," just like anybody can open a "university." but the insurance company is gonna want to check your documentation so they dont end up issuing an insurance card to someone you "married" out of convenience.

Nowhere in that do I see anyone preventing any new or existing health-insurance company from "rebelling" against that arrangement and start accepting marriage certificates from non-church organizations. So how much influence is there again?

Malachi:

assume a theoretical universe where actual insurance is sold both individually and bundled with employment, and they have an interest in making sure they are not defrauded. This universe is ancap, and has churches much like our real universe. These insurance companies decide that they can talk to religious institutions, churches and temples etc and determine if people are really married or just playing a role much easier than they can by hiring detectives. So they dont consider you married unless some institution they trust has certified you as married.

See above. With all due respect, I think you overestimate the amount of "control" and "influence" in such arrangements.

Malachi:

ok, what kind of contract between two homosexuals wouldnt be enforced, if they employed the latter type of marriage contract? I'm sure you could find lawyers that would "marry" two dudes on a boat somewhere. This is why I thought it was so funny at first, is one guy gonna try to get alimony? Thats probably not going to happen, unless they can demonstrate opportunity cost somehow. I think you could draw up a marriage contract that specifies the division of household assets and it would be at least as binding/enforceable as a prenuptual agreement (which is something the courts like to ignore when it suits them).

As I understand it, a divorce suit involves one spouse seeking compensation from the other spouse for breaking the marriage contract. Unfortunately IMO, compensation is also typically awarded these days in so-called "no-fault divorces", i.e. where both spouses seek to break the marriage contract. The excuse given for this is that one of the spouses is going to be in a worse financial position as a result. However, I see no reason why this process couldn't be applied to homosexual couples.

Malachi:

state-approved marriage is about defining what is and is not a permissible family unit. I can find a link for you if you like, but I can tell you right now that the state will prosecute someone for bigamy if they legally divorce their first wife then marry a second wife and live as a husband and two wives.

I understand that state-approved marriage is about that right now, and that it's been about that historically. I think the ultimate point behind "marriage equality" is to get away from that. Furthermore, I don't think bigamy should be illegal (that is, I think the legal system should uphold marriage contracts made by three or more individuals).

Malachi:

I think I described our current system fairly accurately. These special privileges that the homosexuals want are all for married couples in order to [promote] families. Thats the justification given when the laws are made. Taxation is about controlling behavior, married couples can get a tax break somehow. Gay people cant adopt kids because then they might have a family. I actually wonder what part of my statements need substantiation. The state wont certify marriages between two people of the same sex. They require different sexes, and without getting doctors involved, this is permitting only procreative unions to be certified. You have to do this through an agent of the state. You have to dissolve the union through an agent of the state. Theoretically you can be separated, see other people, still raise kids and not be arrested, but if the kids are in public school and a teacher hears about it, or if a social worker gets involved, there could be a lot of trouble.

I was asking you to substantiate this: "The state certifies procreative unions as permanent, requiring the state's procedures and final approval for dissolution." And this: "They dont decide if youre going steady or not, they affirm that youre stuck raising kids together until further notice." What I mean is, do you have any evidence that the state necessarily sees marriages as just about having and raising kids together? That certainly hasn't been my experience, but that could just be me.

In any case, do you not see how legalizing marriage between homosexuals would lead to a rather fundamental change there? At the very least, I think it would necessarily change what the state sees as constituting a family.

Malachi:

those are very progressive ideals but I dont think value-free government sounds like something I would enjoy. I think you will agree with me that our current government has values and employs coercive taxation. Given all of this I wonder how movement toward a free and open society is facilitated by increasing the amount of things government is involved in.

Yes, I agree that our current government has values and aggressively coerces money and other things from people. But I see enforcement of contracts as being fundamental to any legal system. Whether it's monopolized or not is a separate issue. I don't see how enforcing contracts increases the amount of things that government (as a legal system) is involved in.

What do you mean when you say that you don't think value-free government sounds like something you would enjoy? What does "value-free government" mean to you?

Malachi:

then why arent they pushing to have all benefits to marriage removed? As it is now everyone who is not legally married is encumbered by this arrangement. Being single and promiscuous is a voluntary social arrangement, as is being single and celibate. Those things arent encouraged because they arent procreative.

I think removing all benefits to marriage is a secondary concern to them. I think the way they see it is that, if they're in the same kind of relationship as a man and a woman are in, and that relationship confers certain rights and responsibilities, then they should have those rights and responsibilities as well, whatever they may be.

How is everyone who's not legally married encumbered by the benefits afforded to those who are legally married? Not getting those benefits is an encumberance?

Malachi:

I can agree with you that existing contracts between consenting individuals should be honored by the courts without regard to particulars at issue here, i.e. irrelevant semantic issues, number of parties, sex of parties. Can you briefly give an a example of what you envision with regard to enforcement of a marriage contract between two men or two women? Are you referring to settlement of assets in tne event of a divorce, custody arrangments, etc? Or are you referring to health insurance type benefits, as in whether the insurance company provides for the partner?

Ideally speaking, I'm referring to settlement of assets, custody arrangements, and compensation (alimony, child support) in the event of divorce. I'm also referring to the terms of the contract, although it's probably inevitable that certain types of contract will be referred to by certain special words, such as "marriage". I think third parties have an unqualified right to associate and not associate with whoever they wish on whatever basis. So I think it's legitimate (however I might dislike it personally) if businesses don't want to cater to homosexuals, or even only to homosexuals who've entered into marriage contracts with one another. However, I think a legal system that doesn't enforce all contracts that I think are legitimate is an unjust legal system.

It is not about equality it is about additional rights. Everyone has the same rights regarding marriage, they are free to marry the opposite sex like everyone else. What homosexuals want is additional rights. It would be no different than requesting the right to legally marry an animal or an inanimate object in my opinion.

Marriage is traditionally a deeply religious act between a man and a woman. Anything contrary to that invalidates the religious side of marriage immediately, as it is not compatible with the popular religions. If it is just about the legal contract side of things and not about the traditional marriage aspect then starting a business together and changing surnames should suffice.

But as I have already said it is not about the religious aspect and it is not about the legal contract side of it. It is about the social acceptability of homosexuality in society and Ill even go as far as saying that some might have an interest in getting married to get some tax benefits or other kind of benefits that are granted due to the marriage contract. Which i may add in my opinion is not a good reason to allow for same sex marriage.

Instead of requesting additional rights in terms of homosexual marriage, I think it would be more effective for everyone if they advocated removing the additional and unfair benefits that one is granted as a result of being married. If anything is discriminatory, it is the benefits that are offered to married couples.

As Doug Stanhope says on marriage, Did you ever love some one so much that you said to your partner, "Lets get the lawyers in on this shit!"

So your father would be against inter-racial marriage since it followed the same logic of gay marriage of being forbidden at first and allowed later?

Vitor:

So your father would be against inter-racial marriage since it followed the same logic of gay marriage of being forbidden at first and allowed later?

You have your history screwed up. Anti-miscegenation laws were created precisely to prohibit not only interraction marriage, but also interracial cohabitation. Many states created the marriage license for the sole purpose of preventing interracial marriage:

It has been argued that the first laws banning all marriage between whites and blacks, enacted in Virginia and Maryland, were a response by the planter elite to the problems they were facing due to the socio-economic dynamics of the plantation system in the Southern colonies. However, the bans in Virginia and Maryland were established at a time when slavery was not yet fully institutionalized. At the time, most forced laborers on the plantations were indentured servants, and they were mostly white. Some historians have suggested that the at-the-time unprecedented laws banning interracial marriage were originally invented by planters as a divide-and-rule tactic after the uprising of servants in Bacon's Rebellion. According to this theory, the ban on interracial marriage was issued to split up the racially mixed, increasingly mixed-race labor force into whites, who were given their freedom, and blacks, who were later treated as slaves rather than as indentured servants. By outlawing interracial marriage, it became possible to keep these two new groups separated and prevent a new rebellion.

I don't have the time to look for a better source on that, but I've read it before and elsewhere that one of the main origins of the marriage license in the US was to prevent interracial marriages. Anyway, your argument is silly because of the laws prohibiting cohabitation. It's one thing for the state to not recognize marriage, but it's another to prevent the relationship entirely.

Also of note is the system placage. It was an extralegal system meant to deal with the absurd practice of state prohibition of interracial marriage. It was not a perfect system, but it was a response to a ban. I don't see that sort of thing happening today. It's interesting that in the past, people would have just gone ahead and created their own "law" in order to deal with the shortcomings of statutory law. Today, however, people just don't feel like actually solving the problems.

It's amazing how voting has placated the population. Truly amazing.

Autolykos:

Nowhere in that do I see anyone preventing any new or existing health-insurance company from "rebelling" against that arrangement and start accepting marriage certificates from non-church organizations. So how much influence is there again?

an insurance company's decision to accept marriage certificates from non-church organizations would constitute rejection of the antecedent:

Malachi:

 What if people had to get married in a church, or they couldnt get health insurance for their spouse? Can you imagine the amount of indirect influence churches would have?

So the rejection of the consequent does not trouble me. I think its logical that if one must obtain X in order to achieve Z, and someone controls X, then insofar as one wishes to achieve Z, one is subject to the influence of he who controls X. If X is not necessary to obtain Z, then the above would not be the case. Thats all I am saying.

Autolykos:

As I understand it, a divorce suit involves one spouse seeking compensation from the other spouse for breaking the marriage contract. Unfortunately IMO, compensation is also typically awarded these days in so-called "no-fault divorces", i.e. where both spouses seek to break the marriage contract. The excuse given for this is that one of the spouses is going to be in a worse financial position as a result. However, I see no reason why this process couldn't be applied to homosexual couples.

Awarding compensation for opportunity cost, time spent at home, dissolution of shared assets, and gross breach of contract is one part of a divorce. My point is that government is required to dissolve the marriage regardless of any disputes, even a dissolution or anullment must be filed with the state, and performed by an authorized agent of the state. This isnt a necessary part of all contracts. I dont think its a good idea to expand this government involvement. I would rather see it diminish. I see no good reason to apply this process to homosexual couples, especially when the mainstream trend is generally towards easier, less onerous divorces. 

I understand that state-approved marriage is about that right now, and that it's been about that historically. I think the ultimate point behind "marriage equality" is to get away from that. Furthermore, I don't think bigamy should be illegal (that is, I think the legal system should uphold marriage contracts made by three or more individuals).

do you think our shared end of "getting away from having the state decide on interpersonal relations" is better achieved through means of expanding the state's influence in deciding questions of interpersonal relation or diminishing aforesaid influence? Would you rather legalize bigamy by having government deign to recognize plural marriages, or having government cease passing writs of recognizance on marriahes of any type?

I was asking you to substantiate this: "The state certifies procreative unions as permanent, requiring the state's procedures and final approval for dissolution." And this: "They dont decide if youre going steady or not, they affirm that youre stuck raising kids together until further notice." What I mean is, do you have any evidence that the state necessarily sees marriages as just about having and raising kids together? That certainly hasn't been my experience, but that could just be me.

My substantiation for my claims is twofold. Firstly, its descriptive. The state does provide benefits for heterosexual marriage. They provide benefits for these couples to have kids. As far as I know, it ranges from somewhat to extremely difficult for gay couples to adopt. So, in purely descriptive terms, the government encourages procreative marriage to the detriment of other couples (who do not enjoy the same benefits). The second part is, I will admit, mostly assumption. I've watched enough c-span in my life to make me willing to assume that when laws were modified to favor man-woman marriages and their children the arguments that were put forward to justify the legislation were based around having strong healthy american families.  If you are not satisfied, please let me know and I will (attempt to) find you statements from agents of the state to that effect.

In any case, do you not see how legalizing marriage between homosexuals would lead to a rather fundamental change there? At the very least, I think it would necessarily change what the state sees as constituting a family.

yes, I do, however I am thus far disinclined towards large-scale social engineering. I would much rather extralegalize marriage altogether. 

Yes, I agree that our current government has values and aggressively coerces money and other things from people. But I see enforcement of contracts as being fundamental to any legal system. Whether it's monopolized or not is a separate issue. I don't see how enforcing contracts increases the amount of things that government (as a legal system) is involved in.

I am inclined to believe that if two men wrote up a contract where they lived together, one worked and the other kept house, and if it ever didnt work out they would split household assets 50/50, they could even put in big bold letters "Certificate of Marriage" right at the top, then I think that a court would treat it like another contract. I do not believe that a lawsuit to enforce the contract would be dismissed on the basis of there being two men involved, or sexual orientation, or whatever. Now it might be dismissed if one party was seeking a settlement like some of the more ridiculous divorces, alimony with a life insurance policy on the payer is one of the worst ones, these kinds of settlements are actually becoming fewer and fewer because an entire generation of men has been reduced to indentured servitude and little to no good came of it. So I actually have several reasons to oppose the expansion of this corner of government. I dont feel that the divorce proceedings we currently have are good, and the trend is actually away from that.

What do you mean when you say that you don't think value-free government sounds like something you would enjoy? What does "value-free government" mean to you?

we can agree that humans have values. So I interpreted "value-free government" as a power structure with no explicit purpose, a warlordship. The actual thought that came to mind was Seleucus I, one of Alexander the Great's successors. He established himself in mesopotamia by nothing more than military might, and he gave his wife to his son (from a prior marriage) in marriage in front of his assembled troops as demonstration that he did not care for the laws of gods or men, and that he would do as he pleased. To draw a tangent to an earlier discussion of ours, I find it hard to conceive of a value-free "state" using a van creveldian definition.

I think removing all benefits to marriage is a secondary concern to them. I think the way they see it is that, if they're in the same kind of relationship as a man and a woman are in, and that relationship confers certain rights and responsibilities, then they should have those rights and responsibilities as well, whatever they may be.

I dont agree that the two relationships are of the same kind. As far as I know, most governments do not, which is kind of why we are having this discussion. I dont think government should have an opinion on these kinds of relationships, whereas you think government should modify its opinions. We can agree that those rights and responsibilities are upsetting to social order. What I dont understand is why we would seek an expansion rather than retraction.

How is everyone who's not legally married encumbered by the benefits afforded to those who are legally married? Not getting those benefits is an encumberance?

its manifestly an encumbrance, I refer you to homosexual couples who wish to relieve themselves of that same encumbrance.

Ideally speaking, I'm referring to settlement of assets, custody arrangements, and compensation (alimony, child support) in the event of divorce. I'm also referring to the terms of the contract, although it's probably inevitable that certain types of contract will be referred to by certain special words, such as "marriage". I think third parties have an unqualified right to associate and not associate with whoever they wish on whatever basis. So I think it's legitimate (however I might dislike it personally) if businesses don't want to cater to homosexuals, or even only to homosexuals who've entered into marriage contracts with one another. However, I think a legal system that doesn't enforce all contracts that I think are legitimate is an unjust legal system.

if you will refer to our earlier twofold taxonomy of marriage contracts, I will agree with you as regards the latter type of marriage contract, and disagree about the former. I do not agree with the requirement that a marriage must be performed by an agent of the state. I oppose efforts to expand the role of these agents by expanding the scope of ceremony that they are permitted to officiate over.