Chick-fil-A Vandalized in Torrance, CA ("Tastes Like Hate")

[PaulConventionWV]

To be honest I'm undecided.

On the one hand, I would love to see government entirely out of marriage.

On the other hand, if that takes ten or twenty years to accomplish, is it right that gay people and their families should be denied the same thing the rest of us have?

I don't really know. I kind of lean toward saying, as long as the law recognizes marriage as a legal contract with tax benefits and other privileges, then everybody has to have equal treatment under the law. But the problem with that is, if we do that, then some people (myself included) might become complacent and not work toward the real goal of less government, getting government out of the equation entirely.

So I don't know if I can really decide. Given the time I think it would take to do the really right thing (many many years), neither option seems right.

And most people outside of this forum advocating against gay marriage are NOT doing it because they want less government. I think if half the people on this board using that argument were honest, they would admit that isn't their main reason for wanting to keep it illegal either, but it is a very convenient argument to use since it's the correct Libertarian position.

Just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. So I guess I don't have a good answer for you.

Complacency is a very big problem, but it's not the only one. If we allow more government power to license marriages, then we have to do it for all groups to achieve equality, not just gays. Next, the bestialists and polygamists as well as others will start a public outcry and, in principle, we would have to grant it to them if we truly wanted equality. Gay marriage licenses doesn't achieve equality, it only achieves more inequality for other groups and results in more government power. Adding government power will never achieve a goal of less government power. It is completely contradictory.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Complacency is a very big problem, but it's not the only one. If we allow more government power to license marriages, then we have to do it for all groups to achieve equality, not just gays. Next, the bestialists and polygamists as well as others will start a public outcry and, in principle, we would have to grant it to them if we truly wanted equality. Gay marriage licenses doesn't achieve equality, it only achieves more inequality for other groups and results in more government power. Adding government power will never achieve a goal of less government power. It is completely contradictory.

I disagree on the bestiality. If everyone can agree that marriage is only valid between consenting adults (or since the age of consent varies state to state let's say "consenting parties"), that rules out animals. An animal cannot legally express consent and therefore cannot enter into a marriage. I don't think you'll find anybody advocating for gay marriage who would disagree.

On polygamy though, you're probably right. And I personally don't have any moral problem with polygamy if all parties are consenting adults and there isn't any of that weird Warren Jeffs stuff going on with marrying kids. Should the government tell three or four or five people they can't all be married together if that's what they all agree together and they are all adults capable of making their own decisions?

And, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, if we can get government out of marriage entirely, then what will prevent polygamists from doing what they please? And what will prevent someone who is into bestiality from marrying their horse? I think it will result in the same thing, only without having to add more laws to give them that equality... Just saying.

 

[pochy1776]

Pretty good list, although I'm not sure what you mean by "out" lifetime. Of course everyone's lifetime needs liberty, no matter who they are.

Sorry Our Lifetime. I hate being a conservative with libertarian strings. I don't care whether gays are married just don't kiss or hold hands in front of me. To me I am already married to my imaginary girlfriend susan. She now lives in NYC and is an Awesome person in general. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But today, Marriage means any individual as long as human and of consenting age. I'll let them get "married", as long as they don't enforce their values on me by state power (this goes to my social conservative brothers and sisters)
May America be delivered from tyranny and shitty culture and back to strict "kosher" americana and constitutionalism. If more Orthodox Jewish people were constitutionalist, i would elect all of them. (We need "Kosher" americans)

Sorry Our Lifetime. I hate being a conservative with libertarian strings. I don't care whether gays are married just don't kiss or hold hands in front of me. To me I am already married to my imaginary girlfriend susan. She now lives in NYC and is an Awesome person in general. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But today, Marriage means any individual as long as human and of consenting age. I'll let them get "married", as long as they don't enforce their values on me by state power (this goes to my social conservative brothers and sisters)
May America be delivered from tyranny and shitty culture and back to strict "kosher" americana and constitutionalism. If more Orthodox Jewish people were constitutionalist, i would elect all of them. (We need "Kosher" americans)

 

[pochy1776]

Do you really know how Christmas started? I'll give you a hint. All of these "holidays" with their fictional characters, such as easter (also purportedly a "Christian" holiday) and Halloween, started as pagan traditions. Christmas was never about Christ's birth. That's an excuse for Christians to celebrate it. Think about it, where in the Bible does Christ value His own birth so much? His death was a way more monumental thing to celebrate. Also, does anyone really know what Christ's birthday was? Who decided it would be December 25th?

BiBle: No where: the catholic church justb decided it. If anything, Real Christians are actually very liberal and progressive.

 

[pochy1776]

Since they support legislating morality, including criminalizing divorce and pornography. Since they support the FCC banning programs that are "inappropriate". They also fully support marriage amendments and throwing people in rape cages for ingesting the wrong plant. And they completely support our extremely anti-family values foreign policy - and worse, they use the bible to justify it. Wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross, indeed.





Oh, and surprise! They oppose the Muslim community center in New York.

They don't want less government. They worship the state, and want government that supports them and their causes and jails those who don't. FRC and their ilk are fucking disgusting.

http://www.frc.org/op-eds/marriage-protection
And The Gay Rights advocacy groups also want government power to stop discrimnation. when you read both of their dogma, they are of the same pathetic ilk.

 

[pochy1776]

To bad people wont go out of their way to bring our troops back home but will raise arms over chicken to show support of our constitution and the rights we are granted, but not when it comes to unconstitutional wars. Our priorities are really messed up.

REAL ISSUES
Liberty in our lifetime
a Kosher Constitutional interpretation of ONLY the bill of rights and Constitution itself.
Getting rid of amendments 16 and 17
how to prevent the inevitable American Apocalypse (by electing Ron Paul, we extend the republic for at least another 50 years)
How to make Susan Lewis real so that she can be my girlfriend (sarcasm)

 

[Southron]

If everyone can agree that marriage is only valid between consenting adults (or since the age of consent varies state to state let's say "consenting parties"), that rules out animals.

I doubt you can get everyone to agree on even this. Some would argue that animals and children can consent.

 

[Kluge]

I LOVE RON PAUL, although he is quite ignorant with islam, he is the best choice for president.

Just curious how he's "ignorant with Islam."

 

[RickyJ]

Complacency is a very big problem, but it's not the only one. If we allow more government power to license marriages, then we have to do it for all groups to achieve equality, not just gays. Next, the bestialists and polygamists as well as others will start a public outcry and, in principle, we would have to grant it to them if we truly wanted equality. Gay marriage licenses doesn't achieve equality, it only achieves more inequality for other groups and results in more government power. Adding government power will never achieve a goal of less government power. It is completely contradictory.

Governments shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. That being said, the only marriage recognized by the creator of marriage, God almighty, is a marriage between a man and a woman. If God does not recognize it, it does not matter who else recognizes it, and if God does recognize it, then it doesn't matter who doesn't recognize it.

 

[Dr.3D]

I disagree on the bestiality. If everyone can agree that marriage is only valid between consenting adults (or since the age of consent varies state to state let's say "consenting parties"), that rules out animals. An animal cannot legally express consent and therefore cannot enter into a marriage. I don't think you'll find anybody advocating for gay marriage who would disagree.

On polygamy though, you're probably right. And I personally don't have any moral problem with polygamy if all parties are consenting adults and there isn't any of that weird Warren Jeffs stuff going on with marrying kids. Should the government tell three or four or five people they can't all be married together if that's what they all agree together and they are all adults capable of making their own decisions?

And, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, if we can get government out of marriage entirely, then what will prevent polygamists from doing what they please? And what will prevent someone who is into bestiality from marrying their horse? I think it will result in the same thing, only without having to add more laws to give them that equality... Just saying.

Actually there is polygamy on a grand scale right now. Ever hear of one man having many babies from many different women? This is the same as polygamy except, these "men" won't take any responsibility for their offspring. Seems it would be better if polygamy were legalized so these men could take personal responsibility for their actions in getting women pregnant. As it is now, they just find em, f em and forget em.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I disagree on the bestiality. If everyone can agree that marriage is only valid between consenting adults (or since the age of consent varies state to state let's say "consenting parties"), that rules out animals. An animal cannot legally express consent and therefore cannot enter into a marriage. I don't think you'll find anybody advocating for gay marriage who would disagree.

On polygamy though, you're probably right. And I personally don't have any moral problem with polygamy if all parties are consenting adults and there isn't any of that weird Warren Jeffs stuff going on with marrying kids. Should the government tell three or four or five people they can't all be married together if that's what they all agree together and they are all adults capable of making their own decisions?

And, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, if we can get government out of marriage entirely, then what will prevent polygamists from doing what they please? And what will prevent someone who is into bestiality from marrying their horse? I think it will result in the same thing, only without having to add more laws to give them that equality... Just saying.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying in your last paragraph because that is exactly what I was saying. We don't disagree. I want polygamists to be able to do what they please, it's just that, if we grant marriage licenses to gays, then that doesn't solve the problem of inequality. There are more kinds of "marriage" that would have to be given licenses, too.

On bestiality, we kill animals without their consent, so why do we need their consent for anything else?

 

[phill4paul]

It would be neat if Christians got behind an initiative to end governmental licensing and benefits regarding marriage. The gauntlet is thrown. I don't think you would put half the energy as you would blocking gay marriage. In fact. I know it. You're quite happy with your shackles and your place in the masters house.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Governments shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. That being said, the only marriage recognized by the creator of marriage, God almighty, is a marriage between a man and a woman. If God does not recognize it, it does not matter who else recognizes it, and if God does recognize it, then it doesn't matter who doesn't recognize it.

I agree, but for the sake of argument, we have to let them call it marriage if they so wish. I don't think it's a valid or "real" marriage, but that's beside the point. If they want to call it such, that's fine, as long as government is not involved. That is our first and foremost top priority: no government in marriage, whatsoever.

Personally, and this is beside the point as well, but I don't see why any gays would want to be married if there were no government licenses. The only reason they want it now is for the government recognition and entitlements. If government doesn't grant licenses to anyone, then two gay people living together would achieve the same effect as if they were married.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually there is polygamy on a grand scale right now. Ever hear of one man having many babies from many different women? This is the same as polygamy except, these "men" won't take any responsibility for their offspring. Seems it would be better if polygamy were legalized so these men could take personal responsibility for their actions in getting women pregnant. As it is now, they just find em, f em and forget em.

That would be true, if fornication were the same thing as marriage.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It would be neat if Christians got behind an initiative to end governmental licensing and benefits regarding marriage. The gauntlet is thrown. I don't think you would put half the energy as you would blocking gay marriage. In fact. I know it. You're quite happy with your shackles and your place in the masters house.

You're wrong, because I would. Don't you think it's a little biased of you to assume we wouldn't?

In fact, ending governmental licensing and benefits is my ONLY priority. I don't care about "blocking gay marriage."

Don't believe me if you want, but you have no reason to think I'm lying. If you haven't noticed, effecting vast political change these days is very hard.

 

[cajuncocoa]

It would be neat if Christians got behind an initiative to end governmental licensing and benefits regarding marriage. The gauntlet is thrown. I don't think you would put half the energy as you would blocking gay marriage. In fact. I know it. You're quite happy with your shackles and your place in the masters house.

Who's you?

I am a Christian (Catholic) and I am putting exactly ZERO energy into blocking gay marriage. How much is half of ZERO?

Good grief, p4p.

 

[Dr.3D]

That would be true, if fornication were the same thing as marriage.

The difference is that with marriage, there is responsibility. Fornication is just that, fornication.
I'm still trying to figure out what responsibility two people can have when there is absolutely no way they can procreate. Thus if there is no need for responsibility, then there is no need for marriage.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Second Chick-fil-A vandalized by ‘no hate’ crowd in Missouri

 

[phill4paul]

You're wrong, because I would. Don't you think it's a little biased of you to assume we wouldn't?

In fact, ending governmental licensing and benefits is my ONLY priority. I don't care about "blocking gay marriage."

Don't believe me if you want, but you have no reason to think I'm lying. If you haven't noticed, effecting vast political change these days is very hard.

Sorry, I guess I got on a soap box and collectivized. But Truth be told. I've yet to hear of a Christian movement to put marriage out of governments hands. Zero.

Who's you?

I am a Christian (Catholic) and I am putting exactly ZERO energy into blocking gay marriage. How much is half of ZERO?

Good grief, p4p.

Again, apologies. I do wonder though...are you putting ANY effort into ending the governments licensing of marriage?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Sorry, I guess I got on a soap box and collectivized. But Truth be told. I've yet to hear of a Christian movement to put marriage out of governments hands. Zero.




Again, apologies. I do wonder though...are you putting ANY effort into ending the governments licensing of marriage?

Generally speaking, yes. I am part of the Liberty movement, the goal of which is to reduce the footprint of government in every aspect of our lives. What do you think?