NY passes gay marriage

[specsaregood]

Reports from who?

From whoM?

 

[Brett85]

By the same token, weren't homosexuals forced to subsidize heterosexual marriage?

Probably so. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the tax benefits. Abolish the income tax, and that will solve the tax issue. Phase out Social Security, and there won't be any SS benefits. Etc.

 

[RP Supporter]

Bottom line, I have misgivings about this decision because it once again makes the government out to be the "giver" of rights. Gays are now going to point out that the government says they have aright to get married. Philosophically I have a huge problem with that almost worshiping of government power.

Pragmatically I'm in favor of the decision, because I know you'll not get government out of marriage for a long while, if ever. But it still unnerves me to see people rejoicing over government's power to "give" them rights.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Probably so. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the tax benefits. Abolish the income tax, and that will solve the tax issue. Phase out Social Security, and there won't be any SS benefits. Etc.

That ^^^

 

[idirtify]

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

Since licensed businesses get government benefits and privileges too, the analogy is a good one. And since free trade and free association are both natural rights, you are incorrect. While it’s true that neither businesses nor married couples should get said benefits, it is also a right that individuals are not discriminated against by their government. In fact, government is really the only thing legally prohibited from discriminating. And that is one of the GOOD prohibitions; because whenever the government discriminates less, individual liberty benefits.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Probably so. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the tax benefits. Abolish the income tax, and that will solve the tax issue. Phase out Social Security, and there won't be any SS benefits. Etc.

This: the direction of liberty^^^.

What New York did: not liberty-oriented.


It's kind of sad to read some of the responses here that are so confident in how this was a good decision for liberty somehow. The people who have been taken in by secularism and are pulling for all of these statist gay laws..... you guys need to think critically about Liberty. Stop letting your secularism distort your view of liberty.

Some of the responses in this thread are very troubling moving forward. If a sexual behavior is enough to make you lose your consistency in libertarianism, what else could make you lose it?

 

[amy31416]

This: the direction of liberty^^^.

What New York did: not liberty-oriented.


It's kind of sad to read some of the responses here that are so confident in how this was a good decision for liberty somehow. The people who have been taken in by secularism and are pulling for all of these statist gay laws..... you guys need to think critically about Liberty. Stop letting your secularism distort your view of liberty.

Some of the responses in this thread are very troubling moving forward. If a sexual behavior is enough to make you lose your consistency in libertarianism, what else could make you lose it?

Let me ask you this--

If the tax structure and social security never changes, and abolishing those programs/taxes is never going to be an option, do you think that it's okay for the government to discriminate and grant certain people privileges, but not others?

Because what I'm getting from the social conservatives here is that it's just fine for the government to pick and choose who they do or don't bestow benefits upon. If it's okay to restrict gays, well then it's also okay to restrict other groups, like Mormons, the Amish, fundamentalist Christians, etc.

While you guys are talking about an ideal situation that doesn't exist and may never exist, that is the crutch you're using to practice your fear(?) of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with libertarianism or statism or consistency.

I'll admit when I have a bias (so long as I'm aware of it), and the bias of social conservatives is incredibly obvious, especially when trying to shroud it in shaming people for not being perfect libertarians. Your argument is agenda-driven, not philosophically driven.

One of the reasons that I respect Ron Paul is that he doesn't engage in such techniques to "win" a debate, he stays (almost entirely) philosophically consistent EVEN WHEN his personal beliefs may be different.

 

[madfoot]

Says the guy who thinks that the government should mandate vacation time

1) I never said I supported it. I just said it didn't seem tyrannical.
2) It's not tyrannical.

 

[Theocrat]

Another Perspective

Let me ask you this--

If the tax structure and social security never changes, and abolishing those programs/taxes is never going to be an option, do you think that it's okay for the government to discriminate and grant certain people privileges, but not others?

Because what I'm getting from the social conservatives here is that it's just fine for the government to pick and choose who they do or don't bestow benefits upon. If it's okay to restrict gays, well then it's also okay to restrict other groups, like Mormons, the Amish, fundamentalist Christians, etc.

I think your slippery slope approach to restrictions applies the other way around, too. If not only heterosexuals and homosexuals are allowed to enjoy state-granted privileges in marriage, then how about pedophiles? Polygamists? Bestialists? Where does the line stop where a state says two parties cannot be married and enjoy those privileges?

 

[madfoot]

RP endorses fascists?

WTF?

This argument is stupid.

No government marriage control, period.

Just because they're called the Constitution Party doesn't mean they're actually constitutionalists. They're theocrats.

The Constitution Party is a far-right paleoconservative political party in the United States. It was founded as the U.S. Taxpayers' Party by Howard Philips in 1991.[3] Phillips was the party's candidate in the 1992, 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. The party's official name was changed to the Constitution Party in 1999; however, some state affiliate parties are known under different names. The party's goal as stated in its own words is "to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations." [4] The party puts a large focus on immigration, calling for stricter penalties towards illegal immigrants and a moratorium on legal immigration until all federal subsidies to immigrants are discontinued.[5] The party absorbed the American Independent Party, originally founded for George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign. The American Independent Party of California has been an affiliate of the Constitution Party since its founding; however, current party leadership is disputed and the issue is in court to resolve this conflict. It has some substantial support from the Christian Right and in 2010 achieved major party status in Colorado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)

I was not aware Ron Paul ever endorsed the CP. If that's true, I don't agree with him there.

I think your slippery slope approach to restrictions applies the other way around, too. If not only heterosexuals and homosexuals are allowed to enjoy state-granted privileges in marriage, then how about pedophiles? Polygamists? Bestialists? Where does the line stop where a state says two parties cannot be married and enjoy those privileges?

Children and animals can't consent to a sexual relationship. As for polygamy, there's no ethical reason it shouldn't be legally recognized eventually, although that would require a hefty reworking of marriage law in a way gay marriage doesn't.

 

[Brett85]

Just because they're called the Constitution Party doesn't mean they're actually constitutionalists. They're theocrats.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)

I was not aware Ron Paul ever endorsed the CP. If that's true, I don't agree with him there.

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin is awesome. He's basically a theocratic anarchist.

 

[amy31416]

I think your slippery slope approach to restrictions applies the other way around, too. If not only heterosexuals and homosexuals are allowed to enjoy state-granted privileges in marriage, then how about pedophiles? Polygamists? Bestialists? Where does the line stop where a state says two parties cannot be married and enjoy those privileges?

There is the very strong argument that only those who can give consent can enter into a contract, which would render the "concern" about pedophiles and bestiality afficionados a non-issue. As far as polygamists go, it's not for me, and I'd probably scoff at it, but if the folks who wanted that were all consenting adults, it's none of my business.

So there's your line--it stops at anything beyond consenting adults. And our government has not always been too great at that, considering this country's history with inter-racial marriage.

 

[amy31416]

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin is awesome. He's basically a theocratic anarchist.

I have much respect for Chuck. Hope things work out well for him in Montana--he'll probably have better chances than in Florida.

 

[Theocrat]

Consent or Not, The Issue is How Do We Define Marriage

There is the very strong argument that only those who can give consent can enter into a contract, which would render the "concern" about pedophiles and bestiality afficionados a non-issue. As far as polygamists go, it's not for me, and I'd probably scoff at it, but if the folks who wanted that were all consenting adults, it's none of my business.

So there's your line--it stops at anything beyond consenting adults. And our government has not always been too great at that, considering this country's history with inter-racial marriage.

Children can be taught to consent to the terms of the contract, if they are wanting to be married to an adult (as sick as that sounds). Since animals belong to their owners, there may be an exception or waiver for them to be in a contract, though. My point is if marriage can be whatever the state deems the people want, then there could come a time where unions based on things like pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are accepted by the state, and the appropriate tax-incentives are given to those civil unions.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Children can be taught to consent to the terms of the contract, if they are wanting to be married to an adult (as sick as that sounds). Since animals belong to their owners, there may be an exception or waiver for them to be in a contract, though. My point is if marriage can be whatever the state deems the people want, then there could come a time where unions based on things like pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are accepted by the state, and the appropriate tax-incentives are given to those civil unions.

People might do unruly things with their 1st Amendment rights. Let's take away the 1st Amendment to make sure we aren't offended.

People might harm someone else with a firearm. Let's do away with the 2nd Amendment to protect the children.

People might be hiding criminal activity from law enforcement. Let's do away with the 4th Amendment.

Should I continue? Marriage = consenting adults, all tax breaks and benefits should be applied equally, or none at all (which is preferable, as even that system discriminates against non-married persons).

Also, +rep to Amy for pointing out that any group could be singled out for discrimination using the logic against gay marriage.

 

[amy31416]

Children can be taught to consent to the terms of the contract, if they are wanting to be married to an adult (as sick as that sounds). Since animals belong to their owners, there may be an exception or waiver for them to be in a contract, though. My point is if marriage can be whatever the state deems the people want, then there could come a time where unions based on things like pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are accepted by the state, and the appropriate tax-incentives are given to those civil unions.

Well okay then. You win, because it's very, very likely that the state will start giving out licenses (and tax breaks!) so folks can marry their llama, aunt mom and 4-year-olds.

But hey, it's a great way to use an argument appealing to emotion, rather than principles.

 

[madfoot]

Children can be taught to consent to the terms of the contract, if they are wanting to be married to an adult (as sick as that sounds). Since animals belong to their owners, there may be an exception or waiver for them to be in a contract, though. My point is if marriage can be whatever the state deems the people want, then there could come a time where unions based on things like pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality are accepted by the state, and the appropriate tax-incentives are given to those civil unions.

Children and animals can't legally consent. Period. I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Let me ask you this--

If the tax structure and social security never changes, and abolishing those programs/taxes is never going to be an option, do you think that it's okay for the government to discriminate and grant certain people privileges, but not others?

Because what I'm getting from the social conservatives here is that it's just fine for the government to pick and choose who they do or don't bestow benefits upon. If it's okay to restrict gays, well then it's also okay to restrict other groups, like Mormons, the Amish, fundamentalist Christians, etc.

While you guys are talking about an ideal situation that doesn't exist and may never exist, that is the crutch you're using to practice your fear(?) of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with libertarianism or statism or consistency.

I'll admit when I have a bias (so long as I'm aware of it), and the bias of social conservatives is incredibly obvious, especially when trying to shroud it in shaming people for not being perfect libertarians. Your argument is agenda-driven, not philosophically driven.

One of the reasons that I respect Ron Paul is that he doesn't engage in such techniques to "win" a debate, he stays (almost entirely) philosophically consistent EVEN WHEN his personal beliefs may be different.

I'm just saying the consistent libertarian position is to not have a manipulative federal tax/spend system. Expanding the manipulation or making it "fair" may seem noble, but it is not consistent with liberty. It is just another step into the spider web of statism.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm just saying the consistent libertarian position is to not have a manipulative federal tax/spend system. Expanding the manipulation or making it "fair" may seem noble, but it is not consistent with liberty. It is just another step into the spider web of statism.

Obviously, but that is a strawman, as we aren't arguing against that.

The argument is as follows:

In a non-libertarian arrangement, the most libertarian position is one that discriminates least.

Hell, many of Ron's votes are of that variety. Example: tax policy vote, December of 2010.

Also, the implication that the using of force by the State to bestow benefits on certain groups of persons while excluding others is a position of greater liberty than removing that power is humorous at best.

 

[amy31416]

I'm just saying the consistent libertarian position is to not have a manipulative federal tax/spend system. Expanding the manipulation or making it "fair" may seem noble, but it is not consistent with liberty. It is just another step into the spider web of statism.

And your argument has absolutely nothing to do with your own personal, socially conservative outlook? Especially the points that you're trying to make which are "shaming" people for not being pure libertarians? I'm willing to wager that you wouldn't be making a "you're not a pure libertarian" argument on an issue that you don't feel strongly about. For instance, I was completely against the repeal of DADT, not because of a principled stance, but because I want young men to have a way out of the military, should there be a draft. That's me applying my agenda.

Ask yourself honestly if you'd make the same argument if it were Christians who were denied the "right" to marry whomever they choose. If the government can grant special privileges to one group of people and deny others, it can certainly come back to bite you in the ass.