It's not that it affects society greatly so. It is to what end can regulation curb that and is there any justification? You yourself advocate liberty principles when it comes to economics, and there is no doubt that the ongoings of consenting individuals in a market place can affect the society at large as well. So in that sense, there are two standards.
Moreover, if affecting the society is what matters...then damn near everything does. If to safeguard against harm against the individual or society is the justification of law, then it can also be the justification of a police state. It is laws like these that criminalise victimless crimes like drug use. They purport to help the society by banning drugs. Are you for drug laws too?
First, you do acknowledge that society is affected, greatly so. Second, you are playing out your prejudice, trying to mold what I've said into popular social molds: it must be economic liberty but social tyranny. No, there is no difference, it is all the same, economic issues, social issues, cultural issues, religious issues, everything. In fact there is no clear line between any of these.
It is good that you are trying a different example. Drug issue is a good example. Absolutely I am for drug laws. Except for as follows, drug use or abuse of any kind, cocaine, alcohol, prescription drugs, you name it, should be absolutely free. If you wish to snort cocaine all day, knock yourself out. However, the society has every right to severely punish you if you choose to drive while intoxicated even if you have not gotten into an accident yet. Society being affected is simply a short-hand definition for cases where the activity of an individual slightly but widely affects others. Then you have to weigh to see if curbing the individual's freedom increases the total freedom or decreases. This is always the case, without exception. For example, a drunk driver reduces the freedom of thousands away, slightly so. But that reduction in freedom is much greater than curbing the freedom of an individual to drive when drunk. One should not take such comparisons lightly and only act when it is clear that freedom is being reduced. Further, it is always better to make local laws rather than universal rights to allow for various tastes, for example state laws rather than Federal laws.
In case of marriage there are two considerations. First, birth and rearing of a child absolutely impacts everyone in the society, greatly so;
this is not something you can escape from. You will be forced to deal with it, benefit from it, or pay for it, one way or another. This is because children are not born adults and the society is forced to impose on individuals to deal with children. There is no escaping it.
Second, an individual receives numerous benefits from the society. One of these benefits is the status of marriage that is recognized by the society and granted to individuals for the highly labor intensive, expensive, and difficult task of raising a child from which the society greatly benefits or is hugely harmed, whereby the society grants certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits to individuals.
As such the society absolutely has a right to have a say on who it wishes to grant this status to. Overriding this right is tyranny, not the other way around.
That is your conception of marriage, it is not a definitive one.
Ok, lets say it is my definition of it. Would you then agree with my position, if we agree to define marriage as such? Yes, it is true that it is not a definitive one. In fact there aren't any definitions for any word that is definitive. Who says that "bad" means bad. Cool kids on my block when they say something is "bad" mean that it is really good.
What is precise here is that 1) this is the historic definition of marriage. This is how it has come to be. 2) Most people in the current society do not know this nor do they honor it as such. In any case, I am hardly hung up on a word. It is that society the society will have to make up laws and impose on others laws regarding family unit. Historically this has been called marriage laws. The society has every right to have a say on this matter.
Furthermore, I am surprised I hear this from you.
If you are surprised, it is because you do not know enough, hopefully yet, though you may think you do. To illustrate this point, consider that Milton Friedman, on this issue and the issue in our prior exchange, TARP and the follow on actions that the Fed took, held the same positions I do. Of course on the latter issue, indirectly so, in that he prescribed similar solution to Japan. In fact Ben Bernanke opposed Milton's solution, i.e. printing money in every way possible, but soon found out that he was wrong and Milton was right. I am certain that you did not know this. Not that if Milton Friedman held a position then it must be right.
You seemed to be the standard barer when it comes to liberty on this site. This kind of measure is rather tyrannical. Who says the state grants parenthood at all? God - or the creator, or what have you - does. You do not need the state to have children. The fact that society has a say through sheer force has little to do with rights or consistencies in upholding the law for all individuals. It is because society sees fit that it interferes in this instance. That in itself does not legitimise the act. Essentially, Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
Well thank you for that honor. I hope that is true. On this issue also I believe I am defending liberty. State does not grant parenthood. Instead the state grants the status of marriage whereby certain rights, responsibilities, protections, and benefits are granted to individuals involved for the purpose of rearing a child. If someone wishes to have children outside of marriage it should not expect to get such benefits. Yes, God the Creator grants parenthood. And he has not granted parenthood to a gay couple. They will have to rely on a heterosexuals for that. Yes majority rule is not the solution to all problems nor is it always bad. It is the best solution in few cases.
