• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage

Gay marriage; where do you fall?

  • I support gay marriage as a Federal mandated "right"

    Votes: 19 52.8%
  • I support GM on a state to state basis IF decided by the citizens or passed by its Legislature

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • I support State Courts dictating to the legistlature that gay marriage is a right

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • I believe a Constitutional Amendment should be passed baning gay marriage

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • I do not believe Gay Marriage should ever be a right

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
It's role is to represent society, to protect people from violation, and in my opinion to help structure and provide the economic functions, but not to engineer people's personal lives.

The role of the gov't is to maintain order, justice and security. This includes supporting the necessary social structures required for this. Atomism is not good for society, not any kind of social arrangement can create order and freedom. The state, or rather gov't, has a duty to help maintain the necessary social order as it is a part of that order.

As I said above.

The reason it requires this light to moderate place in maintaining social stability and authority is because in this day and age there are strict limits to authority of those groups and leaders of social associations. The parent's authority is very circumscribed, as is the that of the kinship group and its pater familias or even mater familias, as is the local community and its leaders, the priests, the employers, the guild/union leaders etc. With the authority of these greatly reduced the state needs to pick up the slack a little.
 
Marriage, as a government institution, should not exist.
 
Marriage, as a government institution, should not exist.

Depends on the social situation. If this is what it tkes for the association to in some contexts be recognised by the gov't and society rather than smply two individuals then a decent purpose is served by maintaining this last bastion against atomism.
 
Depends on the social situation. If this is what it tkes for the association to in some contexts be recognised by the gov't and society rather than smply two individuals then a decent purpose is served by maintaining this last bastion against atomism.

No, it does not depend on the social situation. I am under no obligation to validate the lifestyle choices of others, nor am I obligated to confer financial benefits upon them because of those lifestyle choices. Combating "atomism" is not the government's prerogative.
 
No, it does not depend on the social situation. I am under no obligation to validate the lifestyle choices of others, nor am I obligated to confer financial benefits upon them because of those lifestyle choices. Combating "atomism" is not the government's prerogative.

It is about maintaining social order, stability and freedom which is certainly part of the state's responsibility. If atomism completely takes over then that will not only threaten social stability and order but increase the power of the state. By some social associations setting limits on how much the state can access the individual, ie marriage means that socially and for the state for some purposes the congenial association is the one touched by the state, you not only help maintain a stable, healthy soicety by maintainin the necessary material and ideational functions of these associations but you help maintain individual liberty by increasing the autonomy of the individual from the reach of the state. This is why any decent libertarianism or classical liberalism, such as De Tocqueville's or Acton's, requires an important place for the intermediate voluntary and natural associations of society.
 
It is about maintaining social order,

What do you mean, riots? I certantly believe there should be riot control features in the police structure.

stability

In which regard though? Using the government to provide economic stability, yes, It would be very effective if done right.

and freedom

Well I said the government should act to protect people from violation, same thing. Protect their freedom.
 
It is about maintaining social order, stability and freedom which is certainly part of the state's responsibility. If atomism completely takes over then that will not only threaten social stability and order but increase the power of the state. By some social associations setting limits on how much the state can access the individual, ie marriage means that socially and for the state for some purposes the congenial association is the one touched by the state, you not only help maintain a stable, healthy soicety by maintainin the necessary material and ideational functions of these associations but you help maintain individual liberty by increasing the autonomy of the individual from the reach of the state. This is why any decent libertarianism or classical liberalism, such as De Tocqueville's or Acton's, requires an important place for the intermediate voluntary and natural associations of society.

None of this is relevant to the fact that:

1. I am under no obligation to validate the lifestyle choices of other people.

2. I am under no obligation to confer pecuniary benefits upon people because of their lifestyle choices.

3. Combating "atomism" is not a legitimate concern of the government.

4. Your justifications are legally immaterial.
 
What do you mean, riots? I certantly believe there should be riot control features in the police structure.
Nope, order as is orderly social relationships, not too much crime, alienation, anti-social behaviour, anomie etc


In which regard though? Using the government to provide economic stability, yes, It would be very effective if done right.
And to provide stability to important associations in society such as family, local community, workplace etc. The state's role is small but important, it often is more about what it doesn't do but it does have a positive role.

Well I said the government should act to protect people from violation, same thing. Protect their freedom.
Freedom is far more than that. Freedom requires social and associational support, to a degree freedom exists in the intercises of a plurality of social authorities.
 
None of this is relevant to the fact that:

1. I am under no obligation to validate the lifestyle choices of other people.
We are talking about what the state should do and recognise.

3. Combating "atomism" is not a legitimate concern of the government.
It most certainly is. It is a concern of all society, too much atomism will lead to disorder, alienation and statism. The self-sufficient individual is a myth, man is very much dependent on social associations and to a degree these provide him with the freedom, order, meang for his life.

The problem with extreme individualists is they don't realise that they shoot themselves in the foot. By thinking it doesn't natter how healthy a society is they leave the door opne for the state to fulfill the necessary psychological and material roles that these social associations should be. After all in this day and age what other organisation can compete with the overbearing state if these tradtional social associations like family are undermined.

4. Your justifications are legally immaterial.
Marriage is legally recognised so I'm not sure what your point is here.
 
Last edited:
not too much crime,

Ok, police, got ya

alienation,

You think forcing them is by law is going to make them unalienated? And why is it disorderly to be alienated?

anti-social behaviour,

Well they probably, as the name would suggest, do not like society. How is forcing someone who doesn't like society to go into society going to help anything? Why can't they just be?

anomie etc

The government can't cure anomie, try as it might. Creating some militarized social complex will do nothing but raise suicide levels and cause more civil strife, more shooting sprees, more murder, etc.

And to provide stability to important associations in society such as family,

What can the government do to stabilize a family?

Freedom is far more than that. Freedom requires social and associational support,

And by support you really mean, force and manipulation?
 
You think forcing them is by law is going to make them unalienated? And why is it disorderly to be alienated?
You don't really understand this do you. We're not always talking about naked force, we are talking of things like recognising marriages, treating couples, familes, communities, worplaces etc as a irreducible in some contexts, supporting the authority of associations and their leaders in some contexts and so on.



Well they probably, as the name would suggest, do not like society. How is forcing someone who doesn't like society to go into society going to help anything? Why can't they just be?
Yes of course teenage binge drinking and behaviour problems resulting from it is because they "don't like society". Anti-social behaviour is usually some sort ofm Situationist style protest..oh wait..it isn't.

Much of this behaviour is because social support and constraints are lacking or out of touch not because they are there.



The government can't cure anomie, try as it might. Creating some militarized social complex will do nothing but raise suicide levels and cause more civil strife, more shooting sprees, more murder, etc.
I have no idea what you are talking about? I said nothing about creating a militarised social complex. I'm not sure you even understand what I'm saying.




What can the government do to stabilize a family?
not encroach on its functions, maintain the necessary ideational framework to support it, give it s necessary autonomy, to some degree treat it as irreducible, help maintain a degree of authority for it and its leaders.

And by support you really mean, force and manipulation?
Certainly there is a degree of force as a last resort but authority here means such as the authority of the parent, guiding, restraining, supporting and only when necessary does it require any kind of coercion. The parent helps to raise the child, to educate it, to teach it about the world and society, to set it up on its way in the world. This means the parents requires the use of force in occassionally, if the child is doing something dangerous such as the young kid who is punished for running across a busy road. To remove social authority is simply to broaden the necessary powers and role of the state in society.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom