A Libertarian's View of Gay Marriage

[Boltfan]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I lilke Stossel's libertarian thinking; but on this one he creates a strawman in Mr. Brown...cleaverly, Stossel does it to try to make some point which is "Not the governments job to interfere in private relationship contract" which I agree whole heartedly...

But that is NOT what is happening in real world politics and law....and so Stossel's position is fairyland.

So we should give up all positions we feel are more fair and correct because they are not currently in place now?

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The real issue is why does the Gay community demand the right to use the word marriage when some other word (union) will provide them the equal protections that they claim is so important...

And I think your position is rooted in hate because you think they do this because they have an agenda.

My uncle is gay, been with his partner going on a good 15 years I think. When gay marriage was temporarily allowed (it may be fully allowed now, I tend to get tired head reading about California's politics) they went to get married. My father, his brother, was against it and I thought I was too because it "hurt" marriage. But you know what, it didn't hurt shit. These guys are in love and committed. Whatever makes my Uncle happy should make my father and I happy because it isn't hurting us in the least bit. Why should the government determine who should and should not be allowed to create a social contract. Marriage licenses should be abolished and replaced by social licenses. Marriage can exist as a religious ceremony outside the scope of the government.

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

So Whirl why don't you label yourself as a "John" is it ok for people to call you a "John"? I am pretty sure most of your friends and family have no idea that you visit a whore board and pay for sex- so my point to you if the shit fits- wear it!!!!

Save it for the flame throwing posts you start. Don't bring that to my threads please.

[Whirlaway]

Absolutly not; but not all change is equal....and I am totally for gay rights as well...I just think that gay rights can be accomlished within the frame work of "civil Unions"....and I haven't heard an arguement why-not yet !

Boltfan; come on guy....everybody has an "agenda" but not everybody's ideas are rooted in hate... and the gay community absolutly has an agenda ! And to think otherwise is disingenous.

And I also had a gay uncle; he recently died of complications from aids, so, like most families in America, everybody knows someone who is on different sides of this isue. Because I think civil unions is a good accomodation doesn't mean I oppose gay rights !

Enough said on this subject.....

Thanks for hearing me out.

Originally Posted by Boltfan

So we should give up all positions we feel are more fair and correct because they are not currently in place now?



And I think your position is rooted in hate because you think they do this because they have an agenda.

My uncle is gay, been with his partner going on a good 15 years I think. When gay marriage was temporarily allowed (it may be fully allowed now, I tend to get tired head reading about California's politics) they went to get married. My father, his brother, was against it and I thought I was too because it "hurt" marriage. But you know what, it didn't hurt shit. These guys are in love and committed. Whatever makes my Uncle happy should make my father and I happy because it isn't hurting us in the least bit. Why should the government determine who should and should not be allowed to create a social contract. Marriage licenses should be abolished and replaced by social licenses. Marriage can exist as a religious ceremony outside the scope of the government.






Save it for the flame throwing posts you start. Don't bring that to my threads please.

[Boltfan]

Good debate.

I am sure some people have an agenda, but I believe most don't. Government support of one position over the other is really my issue. You can't tell a couple they can't get married for government reasons and not have it be viewed as some form of discrimination. And the government also can't call out a church for not wanting to perform marriage service for a gay/lesbian/alabama cousins because it is against their religious views. Stay out of it on both sides.

Again, good debate.

[pyramider]

Why shouldn't the gays be as miserable as the heteros?

The first lesbian couple that got married in Vermont have already gotten a divorce. Ain't marriage wonderful . . .

[Boltfan]

Exactly. When you can get married to goats we might need to let Jake know.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Why is the gay community so bent on being able to use the word "marriage" to describe their union?

Why can't they accept another phrase; that grants them all the legal rights but call it somthing else?

Why shouldn't they? Or, why should straights be able to use the word? Sorry, you simply can't be for small government and insist that it has a role in marriage at the same time.

I run afoul of religious conservatives on blogs all the time over this. Almost always one of them brings polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc. into the mix. It's pretty amazing how dark the minds of some so called "religious" people are.

Sorry, but if it's two (or more) consenting adults, the government shouldn't have a damned thing to say about it. Certainly no the federal government. Of course, it can be argued that the states and individuals might have to fight over the issues vis a vie the tenth amendment.

[Whirlaway]

Sorry...I don't subscribe to your rigid defiition of what a Libertarian is suppose to think on any given issue.....I also am a member of the NRA; but I don't agree with everything they propose/promote. But I still consider myself to be a staunch supporter of the NRA and the 2nd Ammendment...

Even Kerry, who campgained against same sex court decisons and laws, was going against the Democratic Platform at the time.......but I guess by your standards he couldn't possibly be a Democrat !




http://adjunct.diodon349.com/Attack_...an_agendas.htm

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Sorry, you simply can't be for small government and insist that it has a role in marriage at the same time.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Sorry...I don't subscribe to your rigid defiition of what a Libertarian is suppose to think on any given issue.....I also am a member of the NRA; but I don't agree with everything they propose/promote. But I still consider myself to be a staunch supporter of the NRA and the 2nd Ammendment...

Even Kerry, who campgained against same sex court decisons and laws, was going against the Democratic Platform at the time.......but I guess by your standards he couldn't possibly be a Democrat !




http://adjunct.diodon349.com/Attack_...an_agendas.htm

I didn't say anything about Libertarianism or it's definition, I just made a statement of fact, prima fascia, the idea of a less intrusive government is diametrically opposed to one that mandates acceptable marital behavior between consenting adults.

A rolled up piece of paper in a shoe box in a closet belonging to homosexuals does not, in any way, make your rolled up piece of paper in a shoe box in a closet worth less. It is, in my opinion, rediculous to argue about these peoples' right to make the huge mistake of getting married. Where they decide to stick their dick is no one's business but theirs and the stickee, certainly not the government's.