Meritocratic Isles
November 12, 2018, 11:01:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Please take a look at the historical documents in The Athenaeum.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: How Would Non-Traditional Marriages Benefit The State?  (Read 10196 times)
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« on: September 04, 2008, 10:42:17 PM »

Proposition:  The State's objective is to grow and prosper, while bringing the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of citizens.

Dilemma:  Two percent to five percent (though some argue as much as ten percent, though WE feel this number is grossly exagerated)  want the government to recognize their idea of marriage while the other ninety-eight to ninety-five percent (or ninety percent) wish for marriage to remain what it has traditionally been recognized as.  WE shall even allow for enough sympathy to exist that forty percent of persons want the meaning of marriage to change, but sixty percent want marriage to remain as what they have always known it to be.

Question:  How does the State benefit from recognizing a change in the meaning of the word, "marriage".  Remember, in this question, it is the State's objective to grow and prosper AND more people will be happier if marriage retains it's traditional meaning.  How Would Non-Traditional Marriages Benefit The State?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2008, 10:44:58 PM by King Chester » Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2008, 12:17:47 PM »

You are absolutely right.
Using this objective of the State of course. We feel that the primary objective of the State is to protect the rights, lives, and privileges of the people. While building prosperity is essential to protecting the privilege of the people, it is equally important that there is enough education and opportunity that wealth can be reached by anyone who has the merit.
As for growth population growth, we do not see this as a goal of government. Rapid population growth puts stress on the infrastructure. I feel that all people have the right to decide how many children they have, but it is unwise for the government to encourage extreme population growth.
As for territory growth, Kadoshim would not conquer territory from other nations. Such a practice is simply a distraction from the true objective of the government.
As for government growth, the larger a government is, the less efficient. It is essential to provide services to citizens that ensure they have opportunity, freedom, and safety, but these programs should be as small and efficient as possible.
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2008, 01:03:06 PM »

Archon Basileus Kadoshim, WE appreciate your disection of the question.  WE beg for the your opinion on the answer.
Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2008, 01:36:00 PM »

I do not see how changing the definition of marriage would impede the population growth of the country, as it clearly would not change the number of homosexuals who live in the country in the first place.
As for the prosperity of the country, I think having a more liberal definition of marriage could very well benefit it. Allowing homosexuals to marry could lead to them working harder, and therefore helping the economy, since having a family is a very common reason people put in extra hours and extra effort.
I hope this answers your question.
As for your question, I would not be so sure that more people will be happier if marriage retains it's traditional meaning. Observing that the State protects the civil rights of people who are different could be reassuring to people that they are not slaves to the opinions of the majority.
When a government denies the right to marry for sexual minorities, other minorities could start to worry. With political minorities, religious minorities, racial minorities, age minorities, cultural minorities, economic minorities, and many others, you can see how the mistreatment of a single minority, for what ever reason, can really add up to the discomfort of a huge portion of the population, possibly even the majority.
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2008, 08:52:48 AM »

Recapping your last message, followed by OUR comments.

1.  Result of non-traditional marriage on population = no change.  (Therefore, no benefit to the state.)

2.  Claim of "family" motivating harder work/greater prosperity.  (If couples do not create children and create a legacy, there is no real reason to assume they will work any harder for their partner.  Also, it is preferred by most governments that traditional marriage partners get preferential status when adopting children.  Therefore,  no proven benefit to the state.)

3.  The minority versus the tyranny of the majority.  (Then there are some who believe that minorities attempt to become tyrants through the legal systems, offending the sensibilities of the majority.  Therefore, no proven benefit to the state)

4.  The discomfort of minority groups.  (WE have heard of a place called, "The United States of America", where minority groups have banded together and taken major control of an organization called, "the Democrat Party".  The Democrat Party has the redistribution from the producers to the non-producers as one of it's chief goals.  Therefore, no proven benefit to the state.)
Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2008, 09:28:59 AM »

1. Agreed, no change in population growth is neither benefiting nor hurting the state.

2. About adoption: it is understood that traditional marriage partners often get preferential status. I will not question the fairness of that--for now. Surely though not ALL orphaned children are adopted and it is completely logical to predict that allowing non-traditional "handfastings" would lead to more children being adopted.
You claim that children are best raised in a traditionally structured family, and while non-traditional parents do not fall under this, they are certainly closer to this ideal form than the structure of an orphanage.
Please also keep in mind how the state and its people benefit from higher adoption rates. More adopted children equals smaller and/or less orphanages and therefore less subsidies for them, a smaller government, and lower tax rates.

3. Not quite sure how minorities can become tyrants, especially in a democratic form of government.

4. The Democrat Party? Never heard of it. Sounds like a bunch of asses to me.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!