Anti-gay libertarians...

[Mr. Somebody]

@ the comments in this thread.


Libertarians(myself being one) aren't' for gay marriage because it represents more government involvement in peoples lives.
We would prefer gays campaign for government to get out of marriage altogether and remove all "rights"/"privileges" attached to it.
Let marriage be a personal choice between two people, and two people alone.

Spoiler

and there is no such thing as marriage inequality.

Homosexuals require government intervention and protection because without it they will be forced back into the shadows by the natural order of set forth by heterosexual males.

 

[88m3]

@ the comments in this thread.


Libertarians(myself being one) aren't' for gay marriage because it represents more government involvement in peoples lives.
We would prefer gays campaign for government to get out of marriage altogether and remove all "rights"/"privileges" attached to it.
Let marriage be a personal choice between two people, and two people alone.

Spoiler

and there is no such thing as marriage inequality.

So you support loosing your tax status?


interesting...

 

[DEAD7]

So you support loosing your tax status?


interesting...

You should read up on libertarian positions on theft... er i mean taxes.

Homosexuals require government intervention and protection because without it they will be forced back into the shadows by the natural order of set forth by heterosexual males.

The problem with this argument is that most self-identified libertarians never campaign for this. Instead, like our friend Meta Reign, they want to leave it to the states, which everyone knows would result in a continuation of marriage inequality (the unequal access of couples to legal entitlements, which is the status quo.)

I should note, though, that the US Libertarian Party's official stance is pro-gay marriage, as was Gary Johnson's. They recognize that marriage inequality actually exists, unlike you.

"Marriage inequality" is a misleading term. Gay men have the right to marry a women same as hetero men do, and hetero men do not have the right to marry men, the same as homosexual men. What they are asking for is a new law that permits everyone to marry some one of the same sex if they choose. Its not a "he can marry a man, but i can't' scenario as implied by the "we want same right to marry that straight people have" chants...

The access to the "rights" is "equal".

But that's neither here nor there, the problem is government involvement in civil unions.

There should be none.

Spoiler

I don't care who marries who, and voted for same sex marriage here in CA.

Spoiler

I do get tired of gays playing both sides of the field though.

 

[Meta Reign]

Problem is they are already involved. If all citizens deserve equal rights, why shouldn't gay people get the same federal marriage rights as everyone else? Or do you advocate stripping hetero couples of their marriage rights?



Marriage in the eyes of the law has absolutely nothing to do with religion. People fighting for marriage rights are not fighting for religious rights. The federal goverment promotes and rewards marriage for heterosexual people, should gay people not be eligible for those rewards due to their sexual orientation?

Okay. Any "rewards" ("rewards" usually involve giving you back your own hard earned money after they rob you for it, sad) whether tax-wise, insurance, medical, retirement etc. The federal government should have ZERO involvment in, whether we're talking married or single folks. So to answer your question, those hetero couples should have their "rights" (which are in actuality are nothing but federal burdens), taken away from them. Get it?

 

[The Real]

"Marriage inequality" is a misleading term. Gay men have the right to marry a women same as hetero men do, and hetero men do not have the right to marry men, the same as homosexual men. What they are asking for is a new law that permits everyone to marry some one of the same sex if they choose. Its not a "he can marry a man, but i can't' scenario as implied by the "we want same right to marry that straight people have" chants...

The access to the "rights" is "equal".

This isn't a good argument. This is exactly what people said about interracial marriage back in the segregation era. "All people have the right to marry within their race, so all people have equal rights." In fact, Nazi apologists made the same arguments, too- "No one is allowed to display symbols of Jewishness openly, so everyone has equal rights because it applies to all people." Surely you can see why that makes no logical sense as a matter of substantive right. (Note that I'm not comparing the struggles here, only the situations which used similar arguments to mask what was an actual inequality.)

And not all states have it explicit that marriage is defined as heterosexual in the first place, so that argument isn't really applicable to the discussion in general, only to the cases of specific states. That's what Prop 8 was about- changing the state laws in order to ban gay marriage where it wasn't explicitly banned before.

 

[88m3]

Okay. Any "rewards" ("rewards" usually involve giving you back your own hard earned money after they rob you for it, sad) whether tax-wise, insurance, medical, retirement etc. The federal government should have ZERO involvment in, whether we're talking married or single folks. So to answer your question, those hetero couples should have their "rights" (which are in actuality are nothing but federal burdens), taken away from them. Get it?

taxes = theft because you're not being provided any services

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

This isn't a good argument. This is exactly what people said about interracial marriage back in the segregation era. "All people have the right to marry within their race, so all people have equal rights." In fact, Nazi apologists made the same arguments, too- "No one is allowed to display symbols of Jewishness openly, so everyone has equal rights because it applies to all people." Surely you can see why that makes no sense.

And not all states have it explicit that marriage is defined as heterosexual in the first place, so that argument isn't really applicable to the discussion in general, only to the cases of specific states.

aw shyt doggie, you done did it now. don't you dare compare these fakkits to the black struggle for equal rights! :blakeface:

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Okay. Any "rewards" ("rewards" usually involve giving you back your own hard earned money after they rob you for it, sad) whether tax-wise, insurance, medical, retirement etc. The federal government should have ZERO involvment in, whether we're talking married or single folks. So to answer your question, those hetero couples should have their "rights" (which are in actuality are nothing but federal burdens), taken away from them. Get it?

So should the federal goverment remove all "rewards" from all people for all reasons?

If not, why marriage?

And if so what is your idea of the federal goverments role?

 

[Meta Reign]

The problem with this argument is that most self-identified libertarians never campaign for this. Instead, like our friend Meta Reign, they want to leave it to the states, which everyone knows would result in a continuation of marriage inequality (the unequal access of couples to legal entitlements, which is the status quo.)

I should note, though, that the US Libertarian Party's official stance is pro-gay marriage, as was Gary Johnson's. They recognize that marriage inequality actually exists, unlike you.

In that same post I also said that ideally, the government shouldn't be involved at all.

 

[The Real]

In that same post I also said that ideally, the government shouldn't be involved at all.

Fair enough, and my fault for leaving that out, but those two would produce radically different outcomes (provided you leave civil unions intact,) so, assuming that scenario, I'm not sure how you can support both at once.

 

[DEAD7]

Okay. Any "rewards" ("rewards" usually involve giving you back your own hard earned money after they rob you for it, sad) whether tax-wise, insurance, medical, retirement etc. The federal government should have ZERO involvment in, whether we're talking married or single folks. So to answer your question, those hetero couples should have their "rights" (which are in actuality are nothing but federal burdens), taken away from them. Get it?

They should taking a small flat consumption tax at most to begin with...

and do you pay taxes? or do they take it from you before you see it?

This isn't a good argument. This is exactly what people said about interracial marriage back in the segregation era. "All people have the right to marry within their race, so all people have equal rights." In fact, Nazi apologists made the same arguments, too- "No one is allowed to display symbols of Jewishness openly, so everyone has equal rights because it applies to all people." Surely you can see why that makes no sense.

And not all states have it explicit that marriage is defined as heterosexual in the first place, so that argument isn't really applicable to the discussion in general, only to the cases of specific states.

I'm not gonna get into debate over how ones ethnicity is different from ones behavior. if you think they are the same, I'll just concede that you are right,and keep it movin.

On another note, I support leaving it up to the states.

taxes = theft because you're not being provided any services

So when the mob shakes down a spot in their territory claiming they are providing a service, its legit?
Can you opt out of these services?
Do I voluntarily pay this? or is it taken?

lol, its cool I'm not gonna go full retard, but taxes are waaaaaaaay out of hand and in dire need of real reform.

 

[DEAD7]

I really wish the state would come clean, and just admit that they don't give who the f*ck loves who. And that the incentives/privileges, represent a vested interest in the offspring such unions will produce.

It would make things so much clearer, and show religion isnt the huge factor everyone thinks it is.

 

[The Real]

I'm not gonna get into debate over how ones ethnicity is different from ones behavior. if you think they are the same, I'll just concede that you are right,and keep it movin.

On another note, I support leaving it up to the states.

I specified that I wasn't comparing the two. I'm comparing the formal structure of the situations. In both, the inequality is hidden poorly by the language of equal rights. Also, if you are a true libertarian, you shouldn't see any distinction between sexual orientation and ethnicity with regard to rights. That is an established, true libertarian position.

Also, when you say you're for leaving it up to the states, do you mean just gay marriage, or marriage in general? Should heterosexual marriage also be left up to the states, so that some states can ban/not recognize them?

 

[Meta Reign]

They should taking a small flat consumption tax at most to begin with...

and do you pay taxes? or do they take it from you before you see it?



I'm not gonna get into debate over how ones ethnicity is different from ones behavior. if you think they are the same, I'll just concede that you are right,and keep it movin.

On another note, I support leaving it up to the states.



So when the mob shakes down a spot in their territory claiming they are providing a service, its legit?
Can you opt out of these services?
Do I voluntarily pay this? or is it taken?

lol, its cool I'm not gonna go full retard, but taxes are waaaaaaaay out of hand and in dire need of real reform.

I don't pay taxes, the government robs me for it before I see it. A small consumption tax on certain goods, I'm actually ok with.

 

[DEAD7]

I specified that I wasn't comparing the two. I'm comparing the formal structure of the situations. In both, the inequality is hidden poorly by the language of equal rights. Also, if you are a true libertarian, you shouldn't see any distinction between sexual orientation and ethnicity with regard to rights. That is an established, true libertarian position.

Also, when you say you're for leaving it up to the states, do you mean just gay marriage, or marriage in general? Should heterosexual marriage also be left up to the states, so that some states can ban/not recognize them?

Marriage in general.


As I stated earlier, government should have no involvement with marriage.

Spoiler

I begin wavering on the distinction when homosexuals rejected equal rights under the name 'civil unions', which made me think they may have more an agenda other than equality.If its about rights, why does it need to be called marriage?