The REAL gay marriage issue

Posted by LeoRizzuti 11 years, 4 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 2.
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then take your kids out of the schools that do this. That is why I choose to home school my kids. I do not choose to entrust my children to a government school where they are indoctrinated with things that are clearly in opposition to my beliefs or what I feel is the original intent of this nation. If you can't for whatever reason home school, then find a good private school for your kids. Stop making excuses.

    Oh, and before you throw the whole "sure, you can afford it, but I can't" argument around, know that my household income totals about $40,000 a year. We don't have a lot of luxuries so that I can instead make sure that my children are given a good education. They don't have PS3s and we don't have a lot of what others consider "needs", but they will be aware of what the history of this country is and they will be prepared to lead. Fair trade, I say.

    Take some responsibility.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because "Repent and Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" does not mean the same thing as "Repent and Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and force everyone else around you to believe exactly as you do. Or else," In English or any other language. Good Lord, I hate to continue this silliness with you, but You are either willfully or ignorantly refusing to comprehend (ironically, considering your handle). I am not forcing my views on anybody, I am voicing my OPINION. You are allowed to walk away. The crux of my OP is that we need to get the government out of marriage. Period. I support it by pointing out that if you suggest that to a liberal on the issue and they disagree, then they have told you that they aren't really interested in freedom, but in finding a government teat that they can suck on. And I defy you to find any instance where Christ forced his beliefs on anybody at any point. That should be our standard as Christians, If you choose to not receive His message, then you suffer the consequences. But they are yours to suffer, not mine. I'm going to feel really bad for you, but not enough to try and force my beliefs on you. The only religion out there right now that follows your mantra is Islam, perhaps you would be more comfortable there.

    Congratulations, you have people pulling out the "Bible thumper" criticism. You have effectively lost your opportunity to be an example to others (which is how Christ wanted us to teach), and made yourself out to look like a fool. Great marketing of yourself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by thrillingwonder 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Obama's own writings make it abundantly clear he is a socialist/communist."

    I hear this a lot, usually from people who wouldn't be caught dead carrying a copy of "The Audacity of Hope." Please cite something to back up your claim of sinister intent.
    thx
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And there we have the real issue. State and Church, of whatever faith a person professes, are entangled so tightly that extricating ourselves from the mess is going to be ugly. I just can't take much more of this bible thumping. My uncle does it, and now we have someone else in here who seems to have the sense that we all need to be healed. She/he needs to be disabused of this notion. It's getting old.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How right you are. And until the people elected get some stiffer spines, we will continue in the same rutted tracks we have been mired in, and eventually can't extricate ourselves from..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BeenThere 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    MOST IMPORTANT --- "Respect for the individual [and his/her rights as such] starts with recognition that that person IS an individual, not a unit within a group." The fundamental basis of Objectivism.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BeenThere 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you, kathy.........promote (which is what the Constitution says) is very different than protect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BeenThere 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A big difference between government laws and religious rules...........this fact has for too long been ignored in our culture......keep in mind the constitutional separation of church and state....church cannot (constitutionally) enforce their rules via laws of the state........sadly, this also has been violated for a long, long time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, not my intention. I do not believe you gave enough weight to my first sentence. I clearly stated that age is not a limiting factor. I am trying to relay my experience, that I find it more difficult to tolerate the the loss of liberty, become more cynical and jaded after fighting the good fight for so long and witnessing continued oppression. It wears on you, destroys your idealism and faith in leaders, in the future. Somewhere in between an old man's cynicism and young man's optimism is perhaps the ideal. I only wish I could get back to the place when I believed our nation was't being dominated, by Marxist's determined to "change" our nation to what I perceive as tyranny. I appreciate your perspective, and though I can't bring myself back to that place fully, it does help me to remember and sometimes temper my thoughts in recognition of my own cynical bias. I only ask that you consider the corollary. I am not attempting to dismiss your perspective or assert that mine is superior only to express why they differ in my opinion. How much weight you give it is your concern. I look forward to your challenging comments!
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by markadampeirano 11 years, 4 months ago
    Real Marriage seems to happen too seldom between one man and one woman, many pretend, but few understand what it is. When two men or two women attempt to pretend to do it, it just reflects that they too, like their hetero-sexual counterparts, are among the pretenders, too. WHEN a real marriage happens, no one truly knows or notices it until each person, or at least one person, within said marriage is dead and gone. Only until the 'death do us part' stage can any of us really judge anything as a real marriage. What the proponents of broadly defined marriage desire is validation, not love.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not holding out much luck, but a flat income tax that had no deductions and private health insurance not regulated by individual states or fed and whatever you put into social security you could invest privately-I think there is a way to sell those things to the paying people in our country. nobody tries hard enough
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mmmmrobb 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So you want to take away health care, social security, and income tax benefits for heterosexual married couples? Good luck with that one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Eh hem....the Bible study class is three doors down to the left....If you get to the AA meeting's door that means you've gone too far.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo