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 5.
  • Posted by itisntluck 12 years, 3 months ago
    Same guy from a few weeks ago, different screen name. They just can'r stay the fuch out of your face.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your comments on age don't represent my lack of a sufficient perspective, but your elitism and need to rationalize why you think you're so wise.

    (And you didn't know my age. You asked hopefully and backwards applied the answer I gave you to make yourself look clever.)

    Your definitions of socialism and totalitarianism are far too lax.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am well aware of the differences between society now and then. I am just not going to oversimply them as a communist conspiracy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That Hobbesian perspective on life is exactly the one that collectivists use to get power. If it's us against them, then it's so much better to be in the us, so join us!

    Attempting to make this position work with Objectivism is attempting to reconcile a contradiction which is ultimately only a blank out.

    (Disclaimer: Lostinaforest, I know you aren't advocating the position you asked about. I replied to your post because you worded it so well.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am aware of the opportunities and achievements and successes that I have had. I earned them. They didn't present themselves...I made them happen. I found them, they didn't find me. I choose to find them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostinaforest 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I know what you mean, and completely agree that a great deal depends on what we do with the opportunities that present themselves to us. But there are also some things we do not choose, e.g., which opportunities actually do present themselves to us. Lamenting the opportunities we (or others) never had achieves nothing, but it doesn't hurt to be aware of those we have had.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LeoRizzuti 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The word is "promote", not "protect. To promote means to foster, and "the general welfare" is not talking about a government program, but welfare in the sense of well being and prosperity. In other words, the Constitution is saying that we are establishing a government to act in such a manner as to foster a general sense of freedom and well being among the citizens. In the Founding Fathers' view, that would be to have as little government interference as possible (which is why they included the 10th Amendment, which was supposed to indicate that the Federal government was highly restricted).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by itisntluck 12 years, 3 months ago
    What? This again? We had this same issue a few weeks back and the similarities are uncanny. Most likely it's the same person trying to get validation. Been there, done that. Adios to this thread!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostinaforest 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've been called worse ;-)

    And no, I'm merely saying that you should always stand up for what's right, but not lose sight of how lucky you are in the process.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Pgord 12 years, 3 months ago
    Perhaps the answer is to address a solution. The Fed believes they own us. Fine. Use their dogma against them. Contracts between 2 or more people can be formed legally and tax advantageous, be it a marriage or otherwise, as an LLC.
    Beat them at their own game.

    CPA in multi states.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 3 months ago
    well lost, I'm gonna call you glass half full from now on. :) again, you're higher on the economic freedom scale than we are. are you trying to mollify us into submitting to fewer freedoms than we should?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    not sure I understand. I am whole. I am divided by what the state wants, not what I want.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostinaforest 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that absolute freedom is an unrealistic expectation, and I think that every liberty counts.

    I think that the liberty of smoking a cigarette would be meaningful to a prisoner in a concentration camp, and I think the liberty to eat half a moldy turnip would be meaningful to a starving North Korean.

    And when I compare what I have with what history shows me I might reasonably expect, then I think I am extraordinarily lucky.

    Reply | Permalink  
    • khalling replied 12 years, 3 months ago
    • davidkachel replied 12 years, 3 months ago
  • Posted by lostinaforest 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand your point, and largely agree with you (I think). I certainly agree that one needn't necessarily agree with everything that happens in the world in order to be happy.

    Let me put it this way....

    A good friend of mine says that the happiness of an individual is defined by a simple formula:

    happiness = what one has / what one wants

    I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that :-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How high does the tax rate have to get for you to think your individual liberty is utterly meaningless? 51%, 95% 120%?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    just like in AS, an individual will do what is in his rational self interest. happiness is necessary. however, one can still be sad about how stuff has been lost. and many will fight for those lost freedoms. in your country, you're not feeling it as acutely as the producers in the US are
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lostinaforest 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That doesn't strike me as a very useful definition of slavery.

    Essentially you seem to be arguing that individual liberty is utterly meaningless the moment it is restricted in any way whatsoever.... no?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.

  • Comment hidden. Undo