NY passes gay marriage

[Brett85]

NY sucks, it's a socialist state with no freedom for anyone, unless you happen to be in an alternate marriage. Only in a rouge state can you be denied your Constitutional right to buy a gun without restrictions, yet legally marry with no problem if you're both the same sex. The state legislature can go to Hell. Seeing people support this here makes me want to seriously reconsider any connections to libertarians. The Constitution Party would never tolerate this.

Yep, not to mention that New York City won't allow you to eat salt at restaurants or allow you to smoke anywhere but your own house. But they're now a "libertarian" state since they support government benefits for gays.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's not great news for liberty, though it is for social liberalism. Individuals already have right of contract to enter into any agreement they wish---but they are not entitled to legislatively force the rest of us to accept that sunrise is sunset, or immorality as sacred. NY just expanded government privileges to a another group, and thereby further asserted government jurisdiction over marriage, which is globally and traditionally understood to be a private religious rite. This is not a victory for individual liberty.

Quoted for truth.

I owe you +rep.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Good for them. I used to be vehemently opposed to SSM, but my drift towards the Liberty Movement has very much changed that stance.

Huh?

Liberty does not equate to liberal.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Stopping the government from expanding marriage has nothing to do with "telling people how to live." Gays already have the right to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. But expanding government benefits is not a libertarian point of view. It's the liberals who support big government on this issue.

Be honest.

How large is the movement for ending marriage benefits.

Stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts for a special interest group.

The libertarian point of view is as follows:

Government should not be involved with marriage. If it is to be involved, it is not to be discriminatory.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Huh?

Liberty does not equate to liberal.

Liberty does not equal keeping benefits and tax cuts exclusive to a special interest group.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Liberty does not equal keeping benefits and tax cuts exclusive to a special interest group.

Then argue to get rid of that; not argue for more government.

Be honest.

How large is the movement for ending marriage benefits.

Stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts for a special interest group.

The libertarian point of view is as follows:

Government should not be involved with marriage. If it is to be involved, it is not to be discriminatory.

How does your stance differ from the Social Conservatives who are willing to increase the size of the federal government to have something done at the federal level for expediency's sake, rather than left up to the states and the people?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Then argue to get rid of that; not argue for more government.

I don't think many here would argue against getting rid of marriage benefits writ large. As it stands, stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts exclusive for a special interest group.

If the government is to be involved in marriage, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You are arguing for more government. As long as you understand that, ok.

 

[ronpaulitician]

The union between a man and woman is intrinsically different to that of a man and a man.

I take it the only time you have sex is with the specific purpose to procreate, and believe a man and a woman who adopt a child are intrinsically different to a man and a woman who give birth to a child.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't think many here would argue against getting rid of marriage benefits writ large. As it stands, stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts exclusive for a special interest group.

If the government is to be involved in marriage, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

Government is discriminatory. That is what government does...it discriminates based on greed and political expedience. That is why there needs to be less involvement in everything, including marriage.


Where have people's libertarianism gone? I'll tell you where it has gone: it has been sacrificed at the altar of secularism. You hate the Lord so much that, just like with public schools teaching evolution only, you will accept the socialization because you love the idol of your own mind --secularism.

This is why it is very plain to see that secularists cannot be principled libertarians.

 

[Don Lapre]

Anyone who thinks state sanctioning of fruit marriage is advancement of society in any way, shape, or form - is mentally ill.

 

[inibo]

Yawn.

 

[inibo]

This is why it is very plain to see that secularists cannot be principled libertarians.

Who made you the gatekeeper?

 

[jmdrake]

Liberty does not equal keeping benefits and tax cuts exclusive to a special interest group.

I don't think many here would argue against getting rid of marriage benefits writ large. As it stands, stopping gay marriage does nothing but keep benefits and tax cuts exclusive for a special interest group.

If the government is to be involved in marriage, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

This new policy is just as discriminatory as the old using your arguments. After all polygamist (Biblically sanction) get thrown in prison while sodomists get a benefit. Where is the "fairness" in that?

 

[inibo]

Anyone who thinks state sanctioning of fruit marriage is advancement of society in any way, shape, or form - is mentally ill.

If I want to marry and apple or an orange how does that injure you?

 

[amy31416]

If I want to marry and apple or an orange how does that injure you?

Doesn't injure me, but I feel bad for the orange after the relationship is consummated.

 

[Brett85]

Government should not be involved with marriage. If it is to be involved, it is not to be discriminatory.

Then you shouldn't want the government to discriminate against polygamists, animal lovers, NAMBLA types, etc.

 

[Brett85]

Liberty does not equal keeping benefits and tax cuts exclusive to a special interest group.

Just get rid of the income tax, and the tax issue would be solved.

 

[Cowlesy]

I live in NYC and have many gay friends some of which are Republicans, Conservatives or Libertarians. The thing about 99% of them is, their sexual orientation is a *personal* issue, not a *political* issue. I can say that many of them quietly supported the bill, and at least for the libertarians and conservatives, it caused me a bit of annoyance because they are advocating big government, and in support of my point about it being a personal issue, do not support gay-rights issues (social engineering of the left). However, they would argue to me, that all they wanted was equality under the law.

And even being a right-wing nut-job, I understand that. I very much oppose egalitarianism, except when it comes to treatment under the law.

What people should be mindful of, is that it was the left-wing, almost militant, homosexual agenda that is hard-line egalitarian and socialist that ultimately pushed this bill through. They have a strong hate for traditionalists or conservatives, and will only tolerate Republicans to the extent that they shut-up, or support their Agenda. They constantly push for education about homosexuality in school, demand protected class status and are skilled in playing the victim card. They are NO friends of liberty, and should be opposed at every step. If you make a point that they can find a way to take personally, they will shout you down with an abundance of hatred.

If it were not for having a major metropolitan/cosmopolitan city like NYC, NY State would never have supported the bill. The passage of the bill is a win for progressivism.

 

[inibo]

Then you shouldn't want the government to discriminate against polygamists, animal lovers, NAMBLA types, etc.

Polyamory I have no problem with. You can't marry an animal because an animal cannot enter into a contract. I wasn't even going to touch the NAMBLA dodge because sex with a child is a crime, if you believe in the rule of law, and children cannot enter into contracts or give informed consent--at least not as such consent is understood in our society. So the only one issue you "gotchas" that you brought up that has anything to do with marriage is polyamory. If I want to enter into a contract with two women, or a man and a woman or any other combination, how does that infringe on you or the state? The bible says I can have more than one wife, so who are you to say I can't?