The REAL gay marriage issue
Posted by LeoRizzuti 12 years, 3 months ago to Culture
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.
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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 10.
who are you?? way to come in and insult everyone here except one person and have 0 points to your name. I'd at least like to build a little cred first
Fredick Douglas on point 1857:
"It may, however, be asked, if the Constitution were so framed that the rights of all the people were naturally protected by it, how happens it that a large part of the people have been held in slavery ever since its adoption? Have the people mistaken the requirements of their own Constitution?
The answer is ready. The Constitution is one thing, its administration is another, and, in this instance, a very different and opposite thing. I am here to vindicate the law, not the administration of the law. It is the written Constitution, not the unwritten Constitution, that is now before us. If, in the whole range of the Constitution, you can find no warrant for slavery, then we may properly claim it for liberty.
Good and wholesome laws are often found dead on the statute book. We may condemn the practice under them and against them, but never the law itself. To condemn the good law with the wicked practice, is to weaken, not to strengthen our testimony."
with the self-appointed guardians of the status quo.
I am "partnered" and I agree with Mitch, that insisting on using a word (A neurological placeholder to represent an abstraction) that has a traditional meaning is, well -stupid. I know Mitch didn't say that but i know how he feels.
If I tell you I am partnered and you can tell I am a guy (hopefully) then you can safely assume I am partnered with a guy or vice versa for women.
For me it would be like changing the meaning of physics or incorporating the concept and equating it to comedy. If someone is talking about physics i want to know they aren't joking. LOL
Oh, both Ovomit and Hillary Clinton are devout followers of Saul Alinsky. You can do your homework and find out who that piece of crap was.
The commies are EVERYWHERE. Whether you like it or not.
Load more comments...