The REAL gay marriage issue

Posted by LeoRizzuti 12 years, 3 months ago to Culture
264 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Libertarians need to clarify their stance on gay marriage to be more consistent with their other stances. It is not that Libertarians should be for government sanctioning of gay marriage, but that government should have no say so in who marries whom. It is a private contract between two individuals and should be seen as such. Of course, if you go back to the militant gay marriage proponents with that they will not support it, because to them it is not really about being free to marry whomever you would like, but to be able to derive government benefits from your relationship. Not a Libertarian ideal at all.

I support the idea of homosexual people (or any other people for that matter) being free to marry whomever they want. Why should I care as long as their choices do not affect me? But that is the whole point, it should NOT AFFECT ME. Marriage should not be an avenue to gaining more government benefits, or else it becomes something that the taxpayers should have a voice in. If you truly want the freedom to marry whomever you want, then fight to get the government out if the whole thing. Otherwise you appear to simply be looking for another way to suck on the government teat.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    it is not about whether something happens to you personally. have you read read Rand Paul's latest book? do you realize that what we put with is 10 times worse or more than what started the American Revolution? have you tried to start a business lately? and if you have, do you know that it would have been exponentially easier in 1985? huge changes have happened over my lifetime. all lost freedom. you disregard those facts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostinaforest 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So in your view, the vast majority of the inhabitants of this planet are slaves, and those who aren't are slave owners... right?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by Eudaimonia 12 years, 3 months ago
    In Connecticut, the Catholic Advocacy group The Family Institute tried to strike a deal with the Pro Gay Marriage people.
    They offered to drop all resistance to a proposed CT law recognizing gay marriage if that law also included provisions that established religions would be legally protected from lawsuit for not recognizing or performing gay marriages.
    The Pro Gay Marriage forces refused.
    Take from that what you will.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is a contemporary philosopher who makes the slavery argument, calling people cattle, but I am blanking on his name, It's a French name,..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I can keep more than 50% of the wages I earn." Exactly! The just-less-than 50% of your wages you can't keep...makes you the slave. Just because you're not whipped and chained and worse doesn't make the fact that your work/efforts/production isn't being stolen from you to support those who aren't. You're the wagon puller, my disillusioned friend. Pull a little faster would ya...and try not to hit so many bumps, the riders are trying to take a nap!! But if this makes you feel free...not much we can say.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The current government is a mishmash of a representative republic and an oligarchy.

    I am 30. If you are going to disregard me for that fact, that demonstrates more about you than it does me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    On the path means the fight is on. All the rhetoric I am replying to is using PAST TENSE. ie "They HAVE WON."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LeoRizzuti 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your horse cannot consent. The 10 year old is not old enough to enter into a contractual obligation. Your horse-headed sister, though tragically blighted and cursed with looking like Sarah Jessica Parker, probably can consent, though if she looks like you (re: Sarah Jessica Parker) may not be interested in being wedded to such a goat faced troll.

    Morality lies, ultimately and as always, with the individual.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostinaforest 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So you are saying that any departure from your ideal is slavery? You are saying that income tax is slavery? That the welfare state is slavery? That socialised medicine is slavery?

    Do you not see the glaring differences between North Korea and Australia?

    I can choose what profession I work in. I can choose to be a street sweeper, an entrepreneur, a concert violinist, a barber, or a carpenter. I can keep more than 50% of the wages I earn. I can choose to attend a sporting match, of nearly any sport I can imagine, featuring privately sponsored contestants, and largely unregulated by the government. I can attend a concert---anything from Shostakovich to Britney Spears. I can go to the cinema and choose from a wide variety of films---even ones that criticise the government. I can write a book criticising my government, publish it, and keep a large percentage of the profits. I can buy a plane ticket and fly to far corners of the world at my leisure. If this is what you call slavery, then it's a rather strange definition.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LeoRizzuti 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have no idea what you are even talking about. Pretty much sure that all I was saying was that this is a rare site in that people actually discuss things instead of simply seeing them and ignoring them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by XenokRoy 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As I said in my previous post, it could be witnesses, a notary would be a witness. I am making no assumption that the government would be the best place, my assumption is only that it is the current place.

    I would first like to see the separation of religious unions and civil unions. This makes providing the appropriate rights rights to all simple. Once you separate it the religious union no longer has any bearing other than on those who enter it, and the civil union can then be removed from the government preview and left simply as a contract with witnesses, whomever a person prefer those witnesses be.

    My defense is only that the civil union portion has to have some way of being recognized by government services, your place of work... and currently that's with the government. Anything beyond the civil union part; the religious part, the sex part and the relationship part is really nobodies business but the two or more people involved.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    on govt benes I am not in favor of creating another problem to solve an existing problem. get rid of SS. there. problem solved.
    on hospital visitations(again the govt involvement, litigious issues), inheritance, etc. can all be solved contractually- medical powers of attorney, . I do not see these as big hurdles overall. on adoption, depending on state I will agree this hurdle seems onerous. I am just not for band aiding the problem. it seems to be about recognition more than onerous circumstances
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And if YOU promote YOUR lifestyle than you're intolerant and a hater. There does seem to be a double standard in the tolerance of others department.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo