Gay marriage to be allowed in NJ

[The Godly Nations]

Off the top of my head there's hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights also adoption I think.

Those are allowed or not allowed by the State having nothing inherently to do with one persons individual commitment to another... "marriage"

I believe there is an institution in this nation that actually defines what marriage is...I think you may have heard of it...it is called the Government.

[The Godly Nations]

Some people like being backwards, Geni.

That's vey intolerant of you.

So says the Fascist.

[Geilinor]

Off the top of my head there's hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights also adoption I think.

Those are allowed or not allowed by the State having nothing inherently to do with one persons individual commitment to another

Civil marriage is the government's way of recognizing that commitment and ensuring that those benefits are granted.

[Agritum]

Some people like being backwards, Geni.

That's vey intolerant of you.

How? Backwards isn't an insult. It's just a synonym of reactionary, which carries no negative connotations.

Unless you dislike people noticing your reactionary beliefs.

[Condunum]

There is no right without government.

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government." ~Ayn Rand

This honestly sounds like an endorsement of big government to me.

[Camelza]

Good.

[Liriena]

2. Your statement was demonstrably false. Civil marriage inherently contains several rights, most of which have been inherently associated with marriage for many centuries.

name one

Inheritance, joint custody of children, hospital visitations, medical decisions, spousal privilege... want me to go on?

[Liriena]

There is no right without government.

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government." ~Ayn Rand

Oh, lookie here! Ayn Rand had a basic grasp of Hobbes' philosophy!

[IamJohnGalt]

Those are allowed or not allowed by the State having nothing inherently to do with one persons individual commitment to another... "marriage"

The facts say otherwise. Try reading the sources provided.

You don't follow things very well. Go back and read my other posts I don't want to repeat myself. Marriage "rights" (loot) are provided by the State.(I get that...no argument here). Government should not be in the marriage business.(but it is, I get that...no argument here) If gays or straights want to marry...fine. Leave my money out of it.

[Blekksprutia]

Yay! Finally

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The facts say otherwise. Try reading the sources provided.

You don't follow things very well. Go back and read my other posts I don't want to repeat myself. Marriage "rights" (loot) are provided by the State.(I get that...no argument here). Government should not be in the marriage business.(but it is, I get that...no argument here) If gays or straights want to marry...fine. Leave my money out of it.

That's not even good Objectivism.

Rights are not provided by the State. Rights are inherent, provided by one's very existence. They are, however, protected by the state.

[Liriena]

The facts say otherwise. Try reading the sources provided.

You don't follow things very well. Go back and read my other posts I don't want to repeat myself. Marriage "rights" (loot) are provided by the State.(I get that...no argument here). Government should not be in the marriage business.(but it is, I get that...no argument here) If gays or straights want to marry...fine. Leave my money out of it.

I'm pretty sure marriage licenses are not free, and most married couples pay taxes, so it is unlikely a single dime of your own cash goes to them, even if you're single.

[Thama]

Let me correct Mr. Herrebrugh here;

FABULOUS!

[Genivaria]

The facts say otherwise. Try reading the sources provided.

You don't follow things very well. Go back and read my other posts I don't want to repeat myself. Marriage "rights" (loot) are provided by the State.(I get that...no argument here). Government should not be in the marriage business.(but it is, I get that...no argument here) If gays or straights want to marry...fine. Leave my money out of it.

No. That's your price for living here.

[IamJohnGalt]

name one

Inheritance, joint custody of children, hospital visitations, medical decisions, spousal privilege... want me to go on?

State, State, State, nothing inherent to one person commitment to another.

[The Godly Nations]

The facts say otherwise. Try reading the sources provided.

You don't follow things very well. Go back and read my other posts I don't want to repeat myself. Marriage "rights" (loot) are provided by the State.(I get that...no argument here). Government should not be in the marriage business.(but it is, I get that...no argument here) If gays or straights want to marry...fine. Leave my money out of it.

Marriage, itself, is a right provided by the state, and without any form of governance, there can be no marriage.

[Grenartia]

1. Marriage doesn't benefit single persons. It benefits couples. The rights associated with marriage are irrelevant to single people, and do not disadvantage them. My spouse being able to tell the doctor which medical treatment I'd want do not disadvantage you as a single person.

2. The state simply can't give your shit away to simply any person in particular, at least not without due process. The two people the state first look for, are your spouse, and your next of kin. If you have no legally recognized spouse, your property, by default, goes to your next of kin. If you have neither, it goes to the state, where it is liquidated to benefit the community as a whole. Without looking at your link, the only reason a poodle got the mansion was probably because the owner granted it ownership in their will.

1.) Yes, but arguably compared to each other, couples have some general advantages that may or may not be at the expense of other individuals, whether single or not.

2.) Can't say I agree with it. Arguably from another standpoint, why should you be allowed to give money to your animals when it could benefit said community better? Certainly it would be better for the state to seize said assets than give it to anyone. You are dead, after all.

1. Such as?

2. While I agree that animals shouldn't be given inheritances (other than say, items like their toys), especially for the sake of pettiness on the part of the deceased, the fact is that arguably, items of sentimental value need to be granted to whomever the deceased designates (within reason).

[Liriena]

Yay! Finally

Were it not for Chris Christie, it would have been legal last year, but yeah.

[Threlizdun]

The facts say otherwise. Try reading the sources provided.

You don't follow things very well. Go back and read my other posts I don't want to repeat myself. Marriage "rights" (loot) are provided by the State.(I get that...no argument here). Government should not be in the marriage business.(but it is, I get that...no argument here) If gays or straights want to marry...fine. Leave my money out of it.

If the government is not involved in marriage then it literally will offer no benefits anymore.

[IamJohnGalt]

You don't follow things very well. Go back and read my other posts I don't want to repeat myself. Marriage "rights" (loot) are provided by the State.(I get that...no argument here). Government should not be in the marriage business.(but it is, I get that...no argument here) If gays or straights want to marry...fine. Leave my money out of it.

I'm pretty sure marriage licenses are not free, and most married couples pay taxes, so it is unlikely a single dime of your own cash goes to them, even if you're single.

Try being a little less myopic.

[IamJohnGalt]

You don't follow things very well. Go back and read my other posts I don't want to repeat myself. Marriage "rights" (loot) are provided by the State.(I get that...no argument here). Government should not be in the marriage business.(but it is, I get that...no argument here) If gays or straights want to marry...fine. Leave my money out of it.

If the government is not involved in marriage then it literally will offer no benefits anymore.

CORRECT!

[Liriena]

Inheritance, joint custody of children, hospital visitations, medical decisions, spousal privilege... want me to go on?

State, State, State, nothing inherent to one person commitment to another.

Except... it is. As in... it's in the books.

[Yankeesse]

That's vey intolerant of you.

So says the Fascist.

I Tolerate many things.

But even when i don't at least im not a hypocrite about it.

As i don't consider Tolerance as a good thing in itself, in fact it can often be a bad thing depending on what is being tolerated.

How? Backwards isn't an insult. It's just a synonym of reactionary, which carries no negative connotations.

Unless you dislike people noticing your reactionary beliefs.

It can be meant as an insult, but the point is your implying i hold some view which is no longer relevent or valid, i.e. a wrong beleif and you do this because it runs contrary to your own and this is your way of legitmizing your own position by dismissing my views as "backwards".

Reactionary as a term is relative though and i personally do not mind being called one in relation to certain issues.

I really don't see how same sex marriage progresses anything or betters society or that it's anything other than hijacking a union of and foundation of a new family for the purpose of a Ceremony to what? Recognize a relationship between two gay individuals?

What does this do to benefit anyone? Other than people latching on to some pointless social issue in order to feel all warm inside and pretend their making "social progress".

[The Godly Nations]

If the government is not involved in marriage then it literally will offer no benefits anymore.

CORRECT!

If there is no government, there is no marriage, and not everyone in the world is a slut like Ayn Rand.

[Blasveck]

So says the Fascist.

I Tolerate things.

But even when i don't at least im not a hypocrite about it.

How? Backwards isn't an insult. It's just a synonym of reactionary, which carries no negative connotations.

Unless you dislike people noticing your reactionary beliefs.

It can be meant as an insult, but the point is your implying i hold some view which is no longer relevent or valid, i.e. a wrong beleif and you do this because it runs contrary to your own and this is your way of legitmizing your own position by dismissing my views as "backwards".

Reactionary as a term is relative though and i personally do not mind being called one in relation to certain issues.

I really don't see how same sex marriage progresses anything or betters society or that it's anything other than hihacking a union of and foundation of a new family for the purpose of a Ceremony to what? Recognize a relationship between two gay individuals?

What does this do to benefit anyone? Other than people latching on to some pointless social issue in order to feel all warm inside and pretend their making "social progress".

Utility isn't everything.

Besides, there are certain benefits that married couples receive, that gay couples do not, if they are not allowed to marry.