Libertarian position on gay marriage

[PaulConventionWV]

This is simplistic. When you get married, you become family. That person becomes your next of kin, with all of the legal rights and obligations. You are also creating one household, with legal rights over the productivity of the household and legal recognition and protection of any children within the marriage. Marriage isn't about getting something from the government -- it is about protecting the legal rights over the fruit of your marriage (be that monetary or children) you have as a spouse. Most people here agree that a person has the right to the fruit of his labor. Marriage creates a unique contract in which your spouse also has a right to the fruits of your labor because you agree to work together for the common good of yourselves and your children. Often this will require one or both of the spouses spending part of their time caring for children, household needs, or other things that create value but don't earn money. Also, you each automatically get 100% rights over all children issued from the marriage. This is necessary, but also different than non-married people who usually have only 1 person with primary custody.

I love to hear people say "I love her, we don't need a piece of paper". Then, for example one case we had at work, a guy's girlfriend is in a tragic accident and coma, and he wonders why her bank account and custody of their kids go to her parents (who of course hate him).

It is possible to achieve most of the same legal rights as a marriage with legal contracts, but it requires a lot of effort and expense. The exception is the tax protections. Within a marriage, you are treated as one unit and can pass money and things back and forth freely without incurring any kind of gift or income taxes. Once one spouse dies, you also aren't subject to any estate taxes. No other relationship is treated the same way for obvious reasons. So in order to abolish marriage, we would also first need a libertarian utopia where all of those taxes were gone.

Why do you think we need the governmen to tell us who our next of kin is? Contracts can still be made regardless of what the government definition is. All the government has to do is recognize those contracts.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Actually for most of human hisotry marriage was a property arrangement for sale of chattle...women. Most of the history of marriage was dominated by one man marrying many women. They were nothing but property. This is the REAL history of marriage, not the revisionist nonsense religious people like to fantasize about. Marriage is neither monogamous nor voluntary for most of its history.

What is required to prevent two people from getting married today is TYRANNY. Force. Aggression via the state. Statism!

If you can find a preacher/imam/rabbi/whatever to marry you, you should be free to be married w/o state tyranny stopping it. Even if the church worships a toaster oven, and married 5 people to each other, that is legitmate because they are all adults and consent. It takes tyranny to prevent it.

Libertarian 101.



Says you and your interpretation of a myth book.

The state does not prevent anyone from getting married. It simply withholds itself as a member in the contract from homosexual couples. I say get the government out of heterosexual couple marraiges, too, not add them as a factor in gay people's lives, too. What you say about marriage, I think, is a very one-sided view of history. I don't think you can speak in such absolute terms about any historical tradition like you do.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Apparently you don't care if you sound homophobic either.

What does homophobic even mean? Apparently "not caring" now fits in the category of "homophobic." What a dumb word.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Problem is, hetero marriage is pushed on everyone (non-hetero couples, polyamorous relationships and single individuals of all stripes), so that doesn't really fly. There are two logical outcomes: everyone wanting to enter a contract can get government goodies, or nobody wanting to enter a contract can get goodies. Sure, first option still involves theft, and it shouldn't be your bargaining position, but it's better than being both immoral and granting rights to groups.

Government goodies are not rights. That is your first mistake. Your second mistake is assuming that it is better to enforce theft equally than to simply be against theft. If you are against theft, then you will not endorse the government licensing marriage of any kind. Why not just be against theft and stop pretending like it is somehow more practical to add government control in the name of fairness? It doesn't achieve anything. The view that the government should make things fair is nothing but liberal propaganda. You can't have it both ways. You can't be against marriage licenses and then tell me that the government should have more power in the name of fairness. It doesn't make any sense. Fairness would not be an issue if we just got the government out of it altogether. Why argue for more government involvement when you can argue for less to reach the same ends.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So the answer is push for more theft in order to make it "equal"? I believe the only logical conclusion is to push in the opposite direction and concentrate on disentangling the government from marriage. That's compatible with our goals and should be something we can agree on.

Edit: And for the issues of hospitals and "family", gays can already fix those "problems" through contract. Insurance (health insurance specifically) is the big ugly 200 lbs gorilla. Health insurance tax benefits should be given to the individual instead of the employer for a variety of reasons.

An anorexic or starved gorilla is 200 lbs. In fact, I doubt if it would be alive at that weight. It might be ugly, but by no means is it big.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Right, the desired outcome is zero government involvement in marriage. But if there are to be handouts, everyone should be able to get them. Everyone

No theft no granting of rights > theft > theft and granting of rights

You are not listening. This argument does NOT involve RIGHTS. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO GET MARRIED. Nobody's freedom is being violated by the fact that government refrains from being a party in your marital contract or civil union.

You achieve the same amount of fairness by giving no government privileges to married individuals as you do by giving them to all, so WHY would we want to move in the direction of MORE government theft? It doesn't make sense to add government involvement when you can have less and achieve the same amount of fairness.

 

[Jovan Galtic]

What does homophobic even mean? Apparently "not caring" now fits in the category of "homophobic." What a dumb word.

It is just a form of "ad hominem" attack.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It is just a form of "ad hominem" attack.

My sentiment exactly.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Period.

That however will take a long time to accomplish. I don't blame any gay person who wants to get married.

 

[ProIndividual]

Your rant is secularist social liberalism using libertarian rhetoric 101, exhibit A. It takes tyranny AND coercive revisionism on your part to use court decrees and other state instruments to impose acceptance of gay marriage upon a society full of adults who do not consent to it. If adulterers politically mobilized to get the government to make adulterous couples to be treated by all the same as married couples, the result would be just as absurd. In fact, it is their exact point to so impose, when non-state contractual methods of getting the union benefits exist, since what they really desire is the moral legitimacy conferred by the term marriage. When the social left does this it is being authoritarian, period.

Everything I said was historically correct. Most of history marriage was not voluntary or monogamous. I'm also not an athiest, I'm a Deist (what the Founders called Christian Deism).

The fact you think libertarianism is socially liberal shows the black and white fallacy your mind is operating under.

Try proving me wrong with logic and reason, not your religious BS made up morals of tyranny and the state.

No one is suggesting churches be FORCED to marry anyone...what we're suggesting is the state not FORCE them to only marry who they say it's okay to marry based on what other churches want.

If you read what I said you'd know that.

All adults should be able to marry any (and as many) other adullt(s) as they like. Nothing but tyranny of the state can stop these VOLUNTARY associations.

See that's logic...try it now.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Government goodies are not rights. That is your first mistake. Your second mistake is assuming that it is better to enforce theft equally than to simply be against theft. If you are against theft, then you will not endorse the government licensing marriage of any kind. Why not just be against theft and stop pretending like it is somehow more practical to add government control in the name of fairness? It doesn't achieve anything. The view that the government should make things fair is nothing but liberal propaganda. You can't have it both ways. You can't be against marriage licenses and then tell me that the government should have more power in the name of fairness. It doesn't make any sense. Fairness would not be an issue if we just got the government out of it altogether. Why argue for more government involvement when you can argue for less to reach the same ends.

Never said government goodies are natural rights, never said it is better to enforce theft equally than simply oppose theft (in fact, I said it shouldn't be your bargaining position to be for enforcing theft), never said it was practical to add more theft and aggression in the name of fairness, never said government should have more power to ensure fairness, never said the government should be more involved in the issue.

Here's the rub: as long as libertarians and paleocons will either tacitly or expressly agree with Republicans in opposing gay marriage - regardless of the reasoning why - nothing will ever change. Worse, as this generation and the following come into power, gay marriage will be granted and more power ceded to the State. If we give two options:

Anyone and everyone, including polygamist and incestuous relationships, can have access to government handouts and marriage licenses

Nobody receives any benefits or licensing from government for their relationships

Which option will opponents of gay marriage choose? It's time to stop giving them an out. Instead of banging our head against a brick wall and hoping that the next strike will bring it down, we need to walk around the damn wall and build a new one, letting Republicans and supporters of State-sanctioned marriage derp against the wall.

 

[Ranger29860]

What does homophobic even mean? Apparently "not caring" now fits in the category of "homophobic." What a dumb word.

Homophobia is just like the word racist now in days. When used in the right context it does fit and is not ad hominid. But most people don't know what homophobia really is. Having someone actively seek out ways to persecute you just based on your personal choices in private (I'm not talking about those people who say its icky) like people actively trying to kick you out of the community or throwing bricks through your windows because they think your a pedophile (a lot of people in the south still believe homosexuality leads to pedophilia) is homophobia. Or people who get VIOLENT once they find out your GLBT and assault you or murder you. I can make a 30 page thread on different news stories where gays where killed or assaulted nearly everyday a decade back. Not so much today with the exception of transgender individuals who are still constantly killed sometimes even in public and in bars just because individuals they had just met and were talking to found out they were trans. Until you see this first hand I really don't think you can understand what homophobia truly is. I have seen very few if any individuals on these boards that I would classify as homophobic, hell I don't THINK that I have ever called anyone it on here.

Trying to sell blatant lies to others about the consequences of your lifestyle or that you have "alternate motives" are bigots.
This is where the majority of those I have issue with on these boards are. But even this group is maybe a handful on the forums and only one I would say that applies to has posted in this thread.

Everyone else here just has a different view on how it should be handled not necessarily that should not be allowed. I have not seen anyone claim that says gays should not be aloud to marry once the state gets out of marriage all together. From people who are not also bigoted.

If you don't lie about homosexuals but you don't want to allow them to get married once state involvement is gone, I don't know how I would classify you. But you are sure as hell not homophobic or bigoted. But that being said I am pretty sure your not for individual rights either.


TLDR;
Homophobia = Fear of gays (violent reaction)
Bigot = Hatred of gays (lies to get others to hate)

 

[papitosabe]

i think RP answered the very issue on the Kudlow report the othe day..he said he doesn't agree, but the federal gov't should stay out...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Never said government goodies are natural rights, never said it is better to enforce theft equally than simply oppose theft (in fact, I said it shouldn't be your bargaining position to be for enforcing theft), never said it was practical to add more theft and aggression in the name of fairness, never said government should have more power to ensure fairness, never said the government should be more involved in the issue.

Here's the rub: as long as libertarians and paleocons will either tacitly or expressly agree with Republicans in opposing gay marriage - regardless of the reasoning why - nothing will ever change. Worse, as this generation and the following come into power, gay marriage will be granted and more power ceded to the State. If we give two options:

Anyone and everyone, including polygamist and incestuous relationships, can have access to government handouts and marriage licenses

Nobody receives any benefits or licensing from government for their relationships

Which option will opponents of gay marriage choose? It's time to stop giving them an out. Instead of banging our head against a brick wall and hoping that the next strike will bring it down, we need to walk around the damn wall and build a new one, letting Republicans and supporters of State-sanctioned marriage derp against the wall.

Problem is, hetero marriage is pushed on everyone (non-hetero couples, polyamorous relationships and single individuals of all stripes), so that doesn't really fly. There are two logical outcomes: everyone wanting to enter a contract can get government goodies, or nobody wanting to enter a contract can get goodies. Sure, first option still involves theft, and it shouldn't be your bargaining position, but it's better than being both immoral and granting rights to groups.

If you don't believe government goodies are rights, then what "rights" are you referring to in this quote?

The problem with even recognizing the possibility that we could extend government goodies to gay couples is that it's the same argument for not ending the fed. It's not practical to end the fed, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. A better analogy, in fact, would be expanding the fed's powers because you don't believe it's practical to eliminate it, and you just want things to be "fair." I am not talking specifically about you, FTA, but that seems to be a prevailing opinion of many here.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Homophobia is just like the word racist now in days. When used in the right context it does fit and is not ad hominid. But most people don't know what homophobia really is. Having someone actively seek out ways to persecute you just based on your personal choices in private (I'm not talking about those people who say its icky) like people actively trying to kick you out of the community or throwing bricks through your windows because they think your a pedophile (a lot of people in the south still believe homosexuality leads to pedophilia) is homophobia. Or people who get VIOLENT once they find out your GLBT and assault you or murder you. I can make a 30 page thread on different news stories where gays where killed or assaulted nearly everyday a decade back. Not so much today with the exception of transgender individuals who are still constantly killed sometimes even in public and in bars just because individuals they had just met and were talking to found out they were trans. Until you see this first hand I really don't think you can understand what homophobia truly is. I have seen very few if any individuals on these boards that I would classify as homophobic, hell I don't THINK that I have ever called anyone it on here.

Trying to sell blatant lies to others about the consequences of your lifestyle or that you have "alternate motives" are bigots.
This is where the majority of those I have issue with on these boards are. But even this group is maybe a handful on the forums and only one I would say that applies to has posted in this thread.

Everyone else here just has a different view on how it should be handled not necessarily that should not be allowed. I have not seen anyone claim that says gays should not be aloud to marry once the state gets out of marriage all together. From people who are not also bigoted.

If you don't lie about homosexuals but you don't want to allow them to get married once state involvement is gone, I don't know how I would classify you. But you are sure as hell not homophobic or bigoted. But that being said I am pretty sure your not for individual rights either.


TLDR;
Homophobia = Fear of gays (violent reaction)
Bigot = Hatred of gays (lies to get others to hate)

From what I can tell, your definition certainly isn't the popular one. In fact, that is the first time I have heard it referred to like that. It is CONSTANTLY thrown around as being someone who questions the validity or moral uprightness of the gay movement. Just the mere question these days can get you labeled a homophobe.

 

[Ranger29860]

From what I can tell, your definition certainly isn't the popular one. In fact, that is the first time I have heard it referred to like that. It is CONSTANTLY thrown around as being someone who questions the validity or moral uprightness of the gay movement. Just the mere question these days can get you labeled a homophobe.

Thats why I say its like the word racist. Unless you have experienced true homophobia you really have no clue what homophobia looks like in the real world. Someone simply saying gays are wrong morally is not a homophobe I would just refer to them and don't take this personally I would refer to them as an idiot or a very judgmental person and may even be a bigot if they are taking certain stances and regurgitating things they know is a lie.

Full disclosure here. I am a Transwomen and I have had to bolt out of certain area's even with friends because I have had to fear for my well being. Its just like true racism i'm talking deepsouth you go into a town and you will disappear racism. Not this pansy crap people complain about that you see on the news. I would think a black man or women that lived during the civil rights movement would know what I am talking about. Fear of homosexuals is usually a sign of lack of knowledge about the GLBT community. That fear tends to manifest itself as violence.

But that being said I came out in my community in an area that may not be the same as the west coast so there might be a difference of definitions in my area. But when someone refers to another as a homophobe down here its a clear sign that, that person is dangerous and you need to stay the hell away.

 

[ProIndividual]

i think RP answered the very issue on the Kudlow report the othe day..he said he doesn't agree, but the federal gov't should stay out...

State tyranny is almost as bad as federal tyranny...it's not a great position to take, honestly. But it is a step in the right direction (less centralized government intrusion), that's for sure. He is running a campaign in the gay-hater Party at that, so I guess it's sort of a no-brainer to take that approach.

 

[papitosabe]

State tyranny is almost as bad as federal tyranny...it's not a great position to take, honestly. But it is a step in the right direction (less centralized government intrusion), that's for sure. He is running a campaign in the gay-hater Party at that, so I guess it's sort of a no-brainer to take that approach.

honestly, i don't even know that he's said states should be involved...this may have been last year, but I think he's stated that marriage should be between a person and the church, and gov't should stay out altogether..not sure though..will see if i can find that clip

edit**that was quick..first video on youtube..

my god, I can't stand that carl cameron guy..even more than brett, hannity, oreilly..

 

[Mani]

Why are people against gay marriage anyway? Is it a religious issue? Because if it's a religious issue are we referring specifically to Christianity?

Dont most religions have a concept such as marriage, and if so, shouldn't this issue be looked at on a case by case basis of the gay couple's specific religion? Shouldn't it be, gay marriage is not allowed in this couple's religion...but there may be other religions or priest within certain religions that allow it.

If a specific religion allows for gay marriage and a couple gets married within the sanction of that religion isn't that the end of the story? They are married, IMO.


If someone of another religion says marriage is between only a man and a women and anything else is immoral, now isn't he or she pushing his different religious viewpoints on another person? If the gay couple has received permission from their faith now another person is of a differing faith is pushing his viewpoints onto the gay couple he's now preventing the gay couple from fully enjoying the right to practice and live within their own religous beliefs.

And if it's an issue within the same faith, shouldn't it stay within the realm of that faith and not interfere with anyone else's religious practices?

If a Christian is upset 2 Christian men are getting married in a Christian church shouldn't he complain to the church? Why the heck is he complaining to the government?

And if a Christian man is upset 2 Buddhist men are getting married in a Buddhist temple, shouldn't he shut the fuck up, because this is America and we have the freedom to practice our religion here?

This is under the assumption the reason people don't like gay marriage is because of a religious issue.
I'm sorry to use specific religions it is for illustration purposes only, no desire to offend anyone of any faith or nonfaith.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you don't believe government goodies are rights, then what "rights" are you referring to in this quote?

The problem with even recognizing the possibility that we could extend government goodies to gay couples is that it's the same argument for not ending the fed. It's not practical to end the fed, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. A better analogy, in fact, would be expanding the fed's powers because you don't believe it's practical to eliminate it, and you just want things to be "fair." I am not talking specifically about you, FTA, but that seems to be a prevailing opinion of many here.

I'm referring to positive rights.

I understand what you're saying, but gay marriage is going to happen. If you don't want to troll conservatives by saying you're for gay marriage and every other type of marriage, use it as a warning; inform them that our generation is going to enact gay marriage fairly soon, and that the only chance of preventing it from happening is to strip all marriage licenses everywhere immediately. Bonus points if you can use "this is God's domain, putting the government in charge of this is placing idols before the LORD" type of rhetoric, too.

The worst that can happen is what will happen anyway, and there's a small chance you might change someone's mind using that tactic. Agreeing with conservatives about keeping gay marriage away has no chance of going anywhere. Liberty won't be won by piecemeal, and this is a perfect example of that.