Libertarian Party endorses GAY MARRIAGE

[Ranger29860]

Really? Including pedophilia, incest, ....?

Holy hell get a new argument already. You say the same damn thing every time. You know they don't mean pedophilia and seem to be just trolling for responses on this issue every time.

 

[jtstellar]

Really? Including pedophilia, incest, ....?

uh ya where in the constitution does federal government have any say in social issues? those are state and local issues. just like gay marriage. way to go, glass-half-fulls on both sides of the argument--both sides arguing for a federal government overreach, one to ban it all, one to force-accept it all. how about some diversity as it was intended to be, letting state and locals decide? your other half-glass of water is spilling all over the floor.

 

[jmdrake]

He said it's not his business what you do with your junk, not that it's not his business what you do with kids' junk. Also, incest between consenting adults (while gross and bad) doesn't actually harm anyone. It increases the risk of birth defects, but does any increase in the risk constitute a crime? What exact percent risk is acceptable? Do we genetically test everyone before letting them have sex to make sure their particular mix of genes won't have too high a risk for birth defects?

And the fight over gay marriage has nothing to do with criminalizing what someone does with his/her "junk". That was decided in the Lawrence v Texas case. States that "ban" gay marriage aren't criminalizing gay behavior. In fact they aren't even criminalizing gay marriage.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Holy hell get a new argument already. You say the same damn thing every time. You know they don't mean pedophilia and seem to be just trolling for responses on this issue every time.

Interesting response, as I don't ever recall saying this. But, it was the middle of the night and yes, it was kind of a joke. But, he also really should be more specific in what he says.

Way to overreact though, Ranger.

 

[LibertyEagle]

uh ya where in the constitution does federal government have any say in social issues? those are state and local issues. just like gay marriage. way to go, glass-half-fulls on both sides of the argument--both sides arguing for a federal government overreach, one to ban it all, one to force-accept it all. how about some diversity as it was intended to be, letting state and locals decide? your other half-glass of water is spilling all over the floor.

Who is arguing that it is a federal issue? Certainly not I. Marriage shouldn't be either.

 

[Ranger29860]

Interesting response, as I don't ever recall saying this. But, it was the middle of the night and yes, it was kind of a joke. But, he also really should be more specific in what he says.

Way to overreact though, Ranger.

lol if it was a joke then it was a joke and nothing I said applies. But there are seriously people on this forum that use that as there main arguing points every freaking time. Since you have been posting in most of those discussion I probably confused you with someone else..probably don lapre

 

[tfurrh]

I'm so sick of this issue.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He said it's not his business what you do with your junk, not that it's not his business what you do with kids' junk. Also, incest between consenting adults (while gross and bad) doesn't actually harm anyone. It increases the risk of birth defects, but does any increase in the risk constitute a crime? What exact percent risk is acceptable? Do we genetically test everyone before letting them have sex to make sure their particular mix of genes won't have too high a risk for birth defects?

That's kind of how I feel about homosexuality (gross and bad but doesn't actually harm anyone except the increased risk of STDs), but oh hey, it's not okay to feel that way about homosexuality now. If you think anything is abnormal, you will be called a hater, bigot, intolerant, etc. Even with this opinion on homosexuality, I still don't hate anyone for it, I don't judge anyone for it, and I don't support any laws that ban that type of behavior. What I want to know is why it is so bad for somebody to have this opinion. If someone is going to be tolerant, doesn't that mean they should tolerate other people's disdain of their practices? Fer chrissakes it's a different set of beliefs than what you (not you personally) have, so get over it.

They say it is not our business who you choose to do that with, so why is it all of a sudden your business when I say I don't think it's right? The gay "rights" advocates around here act like we need to rid the world of different beliefs on the subject so that everyone thinks it's okay. Hey, I'm tolerating you, so why are you pressuring me into telling that what you do is perfectly normal? I don't think that and that should be fine with you.

Again, not a direct response to you, just kind of expanding on your point about incest.

 

[jay_dub]

Who is arguing that it is a federal issue? Certainly not I. Marriage shouldn't be either.

It is a Federal issue only in the assigning of Federal benefits. The whole 'gay marriage' issue is kind of a red herring as it serves to divide us when really the heart of the matter is that the Federal Gov't gets to have control over what should be your money.

For anyone that dies early and doesn't leave a surviving spouse or dependent children, any earned Federal benefits are kept by the government. THAT is the issue and is the reason why the Federal Gov't will not endorse gay marriage. That would open up the Pandora's box of whose money is it anyway and the Gov't will have none of that.

Now, if the gay activists would see the real issue, they may find allies in unexpected places. While I think the outcome would be the same, it would force the Gov't to admit that they are stealing from us. Now that's no real secret, but it's something the Gov't doesn't want to be in the position of having to own up to.

 

[mczerone]

Who is arguing that it is a federal issue? Certainly not I. Marriage shouldn't be either.

But it is. We can advocate that it shouldn't be a federal issue, or that it shouldn't even be a state issue. But while the state (local and federal) is claiming domain over the issue, the only "freedom" based stance is one that doesn't discriminate, that allows marriage based on the consent of the parties, and nothing else.

 

[angelatc]

Holy hell get a new argument already. You say the same damn thing every time. You know they don't mean pedophilia and seem to be just trolling for responses on this issue every time.

I can't speak for LE, but personally I tend to abandon arguments when they're shot down.

 

[angelatc]

It is a Federal issue only in the assigning of Federal benefits. The whole 'gay marriage' issue is kind of a red herring as it serves to divide us when really the heart of the matter is that the Federal Gov't gets to have control over what should be your money.

For anyone that dies early and doesn't leave a surviving spouse or dependent children, any earned Federal benefits are kept by the government. THAT is the issue and is the reason why the Federal Gov't will not endorse gay marriage. That would open up the Pandora's box of whose money is it anyway and the Gov't will have none of that.

Now, if the gay activists would see the real issue, they may find allies in unexpected places. While I think the outcome would be the same, it would force the Gov't to admit that they are stealing from us. Now that's no real secret, but it's something the Gov't doesn't want to be in the position of having to own up to.

You just outlined the reason I don't want the government to recognize gay marriage. You're here advocating expanding the entitlement base? WTF?

The idea that we've somehow "earned" Federal benefits makes me sick to my stomach when I see it in the young libertarians, because it's a testament to the success of the liberal brainwashing. What you're actually advocating is that the working class get enslaved by yet another subset of people.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

You just outlined the reason I don't want the government to recognize gay marriage. You're here advocating expanding the entitlement base? WTF?

The idea that we've somehow "earned" Federal benefits makes me sick to my stomach when I see it in the young libertarians, because it's a testament to the success of the liberal brainwashing. What you're actually advocating is that the working class get enslaved by yet another subset of people.

Are you married?

 

[Sola_Fide]

It is a Federal issue only in the assigning of Federal benefits. The whole 'gay marriage' issue is kind of a red herring as it serves to divide us when really the heart of the matter is that the Federal Gov't gets to have control over what should be your money.

For anyone that dies early and doesn't leave a surviving spouse or dependent children, any earned Federal benefits are kept by the government. THAT is the issue and is the reason why the Federal Gov't will not endorse gay marriage. That would open up the Pandora's box of whose money is it anyway and the Gov't will have none of that.

Now, if the gay activists would see the real issue, they may find allies in unexpected places. While I think the outcome would be the same, it would force the Gov't to admit that they are stealing from us. Now that's no real secret, but it's something the Gov't doesn't want to be in the position of having to own up to.

Is this ^^^supposed to be a libertarian point of view??? Help me out here folks...I am completely confused by this...

To me, it is a simple concept: government should not coerce behavior by giving benefits to any lifestyle. If so-called libertarians can't agree on this, then I don't know where to begin.

 

[jay_dub]

You just outlined the reason I don't want the government to recognize gay marriage. You're here advocating expanding the entitlement base? WTF?

The idea that we've somehow "earned" Federal benefits makes me sick to my stomach when I see it in the young libertarians, because it's a testament to the success of the liberal brainwashing. What you're actually advocating is that the working class get enslaved by yet another subset of people.

Is this ^^^supposed to be a libertarian point of view??? Help me out here folks...I am completely confused by this...

To me, it is a simple concept: government should not coerce behavior by giving benefits to any lifestyle. If so-called libertarians can't agree on this, then I don't know where to begin.

First off, I'm not a 'young' anything. Secondly, don't tell me that the money pulled from my paycheck for 40 years is not somehow 'earned'.

And no, I'm not advocating expanding the entitlement base. I'm only pointing out that it's a much larger group than just gays that are getting financially screwed by the government. I fail to see how wanting the money that I've paid in to be actually 'mine' is wrong.

As to how this is supposed to be a 'Libertarian' view; it is an issue of property. My property (money) is mine and not the government's to do with as it pleases.

I never once in my post advocated for gay marriage. I said gay marriage is a red herring issue. What gay activists are wanting is to be able to assign their government benefits to the person of their choosing. They may call it something else, but money is the real issue.

Once the SS system is done away with, and it will be, this whole thing becomes a non-issue. Except for money the Federal Gov't takes from us, all other matters of property can be handled through other means.

However, the fact is that, for now, the government is already taking money from all of us for SS. To the degree we, or a designated person of our choosing, does not get it back is theft. I seem to remember a little sign on Ron Paul's desk. I believe the point I was making is encompassed in that sign.

 

[angelatc]

Are you married?

Sure. But more importantly, I have kids.

 

[angelatc]

First off, I'm not a 'young' anything. Secondly, don't tell me that the money pulled from my paycheck for 40 years is not somehow 'earned'.

The money pulled out of your paycheck has already been spent.

The Supreme Court ruled that having the money withheld does not equate to an entitlement. And even if we put that aside, what you are saying is that you have the right to enslave the next generation because you allowed yourself to be enslaved.

If you are advocating for increased spending as a means to crashing the system, then I understand the position. But that does not jive with the concept of being entitled to it.

 

[WhistlinDave]

I think we can all rest easy. This "Freedom to Marry" act referenced in the Libertarian endorsement appears to decrease the amount of government restriction & government intrusion into people's lives, not not increase it.

If I'm reading this correctly, this seeks to overturn a Constitutional amendment that was passed that puts restrictions on who is allowed to get married. So, this is essentially nullifying an amendment to a state Constitution that removes freedom from some people.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/ohio

Is it expanding the number of times the state will be involved in marriages? Sure. Is that a bad thing in and of itself, when they are already involved in marriages? I don't see why. Should we still work toward getting the government out of marriage entirely? Of course. Does allowing gay people to get married too in the meantime actually harm anyone or anything? Of course not.

I think it's a good first step. Until we can get government out of marriage entirely, we shouldn't be telling some people "You can only get married if you do it the way my religion says you can." I think removing said Constitutional amendment is the right thing to do. Constitutions should be about limiting government, not limiting people's freedoms.

 

[libertariantexas]

The libertarian party is screwed up.

As opposed to, say, the Republican Party?

Johnson didn't say he endorsed government sanctioned gay marriage. The article says "Governor Johnson and I believe the right to marry who we choose is a constitutionally protected right."

I agree.

Moreover, while I don't believe government sanctioning is necessary, as long as the government DOES sanction marriage, it should do so in a fair and equal manner. I don't believe the government should be involved in many of the things it gets involved in, but as long as it is, it should be free of discrimination.

So I've got no problem with what Gary Johnson said. It may not be perfect, but it's a Hell of a lot better than the Republican alternative which states that government should be in he marriage business AND should discriminate as well.

 

[DamianTV]

Really? Including pedophilia, incest, ....?

Im talking about a Concentual Marriage, not rape or interspecies erotica or any of that crap...