Poll for Libertarians

They don't possess a self or a fully developed self? A child doesn't have a fully developed self, it's on process of becoming.

I am a God fearing libertarian in that I personally believe that marriage is between1 man and 1 woman but I also believe people may worship and practice their religious beliefs how they choose and I will defend their right to do so as if it were my belief. I will not judge your lifestyle, thats not why I'm here. I will defend anyone against the use force, thats what makes me a libertarian.

What you do as an adult that does not infringe on any right of another nor cause harm to another nor harm society as a whole is none of my fucking business.

What I do as an adult that does not infringe on any right of another nor cause harm to another or society as a whole is none of your fucking business.

For all the people who cannot "condone" this or that based on religious grounds: what part of "judge not lest ye be judged" do you not understand????

They don't possess the mental capacity or emotional stability--either temporarily due to other factors or permanently-- to be self-directed enough to make decisions in their own best interest.

OP this poll / thread is totally bogus. There is no inherent "right" to marry. No one has a "right" to marry. Legal marriage requires a license. A license denotes a "priviledge", not a "right".

And boom goes the dynamite. Like your style.

The government should have nothing to do with marriage and any church should have the right to marry whomever that wants to get married.

Well phrased.

They already do. What planet are you living on?

I think as a libertarion the correct answer would be that
government has no business in any marriage to begin with


NONE

but you did not have that in your poll

So would it be OK for a brother to marry a sister or father marry a daughter?

As long as it's a consensual contract between two adults I don't see what kind of argument can be successfully utilized against it.

However if they then have deficient children they'd be on their own as in a libertarian paradigm, no one would be obliged to help them fund their bad decision making.

Its not ok to FK like that that has been taboo since
we became civalised and no church i know of would marry
under those circumstances so why do we need laws about marriage?

ANSWER because the GOV has provided benefits to married
people take away those benefits and let the churches
do what they want.

personally i think marriage is between a man and a woman
with the idea they are going to raise childern together
but GOV has no business in it

I disagree. The phrasing is too ambiguous. I would rephrase it as:

They lack due diligence in decision making.

I think I've hit the nail on the head here.

Ability to consent is a matter of due diligence in the strictest sense.

Rights and government are concepts which are independent of one another. The poll does not ask for your thoughts on the LEGALITY or government endorsement of marriage.

But we're still plagued with the problem of how to decide at what precise point a human being gains this due diligence to make decisions.

cant be to independent of one another since we apparently adopted government to protect our rights?

But it is a representative government, is it not. Government has created that legal institution (contract) to reflect society's belief that it is societally beneficial. Societies have been recognizing the joining of man and wife in marriage for thousands of years.

Additionally government, through the representative process, has set boundaries to prohibit the privilege of marriage to couplings that serve no societal benefit, such as a brother / sister or father / daughter. Could you imagine the generational inbreeding in isolated rural areas if such laws did not exist and the societal consequences of such inbreeding? Societies do have the ability to set boundaries for themselves in situations of self-governance.

Due diligence is not something that is gained but rather PERFORMED on a case-to-case basis.

You can adopt mustard to enhance your sandwich but sandwiches are fine without it.

You can't base laws on what serves societal benefit, people are no obliged to exist to serve society, but they don't have a right to expect society to mend their mistakes either.

That still serves us for nothing in our pedophile agenda example. A pedo will ask, how can you assess unequivocally when a minor is ready or not to have consensual sex? What do you answer him?

But with that said, we're back to the same problem. Due Diligence can lead to "informed consent" but it's still pretty difficult for me to say a twelve year old can give informed consent--even if they provide proof of due diligence.

Seriously, man--this is a tough and interesting problem. But I'm not ready to concede to the pedos yet.

We have to be missing something. I'm determined to figure this out.

Last Edited by simultaneous_final on 01/30/2013 11:06 PM

At best its a states rights issue let them set these boundries do what they want if they want to it should not be a federal GOV issue.

The fed GOV was instituted to protect our basic rights and freedoms not to provide benefits to what is deemed to be of societal benefit just look back at prohabition and how well that went.It was for societal benefit as well.

Yeah, it's nice to team with someone else to brainstorm about it. Still the definitive moment is when you're faced by one of these smart ass pedos who drive you to the point of becoming mad like a religious minded freak. Those who have made me feel the most impotent regarding my arguments have been pedos arguing for their right of molesting children. I've ended up calling them degenerate pieces of shit and dropped the argument with the consequent feeling of having been a bigot with no valid argument.

Dude, I have been there! To make arguments based on rhetoric is not an option for intellectually-honest people. It sounds like you strive for that goal as much as I do. We don't want to caught using bias (easily falsifiable) to "support" our arguments.

I'm still not ready to give up on this. Give me some time. I think that I'm missing something very fundamental. I will certainly PM you when I get this sorted (or on the right track, at least).

Yeah let me know definitely, I will make my best effort to detect any flaws in whatever you present until perchance we may arrive to the goal ;)

A Libertarian would never agree that the government has any business in marriage of any sort, that a license to marry is just another excuse to collect tax and exert control. The question is really for people who are not libertarian.

Again, this poll does not imply ANYTHING about the government or its endorsement of right. It asks about RIGHTS. Nothing more or less.

It's not up to me. It's up to the institution under which they are to be married. The state shouldn't have any say.