Oxymoron: Fiscally conservative, but socially moderate

[PaulConventionWV]

I think this is causing a fight where one does not need to exist.

Gays can have civil unions or something of that nature.

It's just a label.

True, but he seems to insist on calling it marriage. I'm just making the case that that's not what it is. What's more, many people here have expressed the view that, as long as we have the gov't involved in marriage, let's force people to accept our definition of marriage while violating the very concept of marriage. These people have no right to call themselves voluntarists.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You said it has nothing to do with government force and it has everything to do with it.

Yes, I said that, but there is no contradiction. Most liberals do happen to have a fascist view, but that doesn't mean the term liberal automatically denotes a position on the use of government force.

 

[LibertyEagle]

True, but he seems to insist on calling it marriage. I'm just making the case that that's not what it is. What's more, many people here have expressed the view that, as long as we have the gov't involved in marriage, let's force people to accept our definition of marriage while violating the very concept of marriage. These people have no right to call themselves voluntarists.

I would imagine that a lot of people consider marriage as a generic label covering any union of two consenting adults. So, when you say that no, they cannot be married, it sounds to them like you are saying that there cannot be any union at all.

It's kind of like if you told someone in Oklahoma that they couldn't have a coke. They would take that as you telling them that they couldn't have a soda, pop, or whatever you wanted to call it. When all the time, you were just telling them that you were out of Coca Cola.

 

[ssjevot]

You are using your own definition of marriage to mean something it is not. That's the only way you can say marriage predated Christianity. Did they call it "marriage" before Christiantiy? How about Judaism? If not, then how do you know it was marriage?

And in my opinion, no, you cannot get married. You can be together and call it marriage, but that doesn't mean that's what it is.

I'm so glad that in a free society your opinion of what marriage is or isn't has no bearing on me, because I'm free to live my own life independent from your judgments. If I wasn't allowed to be married than my fiance would be quite sad (she's atheist too). And yes the concept of marriage predates Judaism, and the English language, and the words used in early Judaism for marriage were used for the same concept in the predating pagan religions. I'm sorry, but just because you think your religion is the only right one and everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you can ignore history and force your beliefs on everyone else.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, I said that, but there is no contradiction. Most liberals do happen to have a fascist view, but that doesn't mean the term liberal automatically denotes a position on the use of government force.

You are chasing your own tail, Paul.

 

[Brett85]

Oh, posh. What an arbitrary standard you just came up with yourself. Give me a break.

Well, it's not a perfect definition, but it makes more sense than calling someone a "libertarian" who's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Because like I said, under that definition people like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton could be called "libertarians."

 

[Brett85]

Anyone who wants to use government to cram down their view of what someone does behind closed doors, that does not infringe on anyone else's liberty, is acting like a LEFTIST. They may not want to admit it, but it nonetheless is the truth.

Yeah, but most people who oppose gay marrige don't want to control "what people do behind closed doors." Gays can live together, sleep together, and do whatever they want to do without calling their relationship "marriage."

 

[ropo]

Yeah, but most people who oppose gay marrige don't want to control "what people do behind closed doors." Gays can live together, sleep together, and do whatever they want to do without calling their relationship "marriage."

What should happen if they do call it a marriage?

 

[Brett85]

What should happen if they do call it a marriage?

Nothing. Their relationship just shouldn't be recognized by the government.

 

[ropo]

Nothing. Their relationship just shouldn't be recognized by the government.

Ok. I agree.

 

[Matthanuf06]

Except marriage isn't just a "contract." It's not just the term you use to talk about two people who have decided to live together. "Marriage" is a covenant in the eyes of God. That's why gays automatically don't qualify for marriage. They can be together all they want and I'm not going to stop them, but I think it's wrong and it's definitely not marriage just because they want to be butt buddies.

Marriage: something done by a private institution that should have no legal bearing. Do it in your church in the eyes of God. If your church doesn't allow gays to marry there, then they can't marry there. They can go to a church or any private entity that is willing to marry them. It should have no legal standing.

Govt: should be enforcing contracts. Two, three, or 10 individuals should be able to write up the terms of their "marriage" contract, and the govt should enforce it. My "marriage" contract can be totally different than yours.

Essentially one should have nothing to do with another. I'm a libertarian Catholic. I believe gays should not be able to marry in the Catholic church. I do think gays should be able to enter into a contract with another gay that is protected by the govt.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

The two are not mutually exclusive. A homosexual union just doesn't qualify as marriage because that's not what marriage is. Gay marriage is another example of an oxymoron because by being gay, it inherently violates the very definition of marriage.

Yeah......

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Nothing. Their relationship just shouldn't be recognized by the government.

But if a man and a woman get married they now are treated special by the government and their relationship is recognized so why not for homosexuals? You also keep bringing up how nobody is trying to limit what they can do behind "closed doors" but then certain states have laws against "Homosexual Behavior". I just can't see eye to eye with people who are for denying two people who are in love the chance to be married and live their lives just like other married couples can and do. Marriage isn't some special religious ceremony like some think it is because it has already been tarnished again and again by heterosexuals (cheating, spousal abuse, divorce, multiple marriages, etc). Just let them get married and get over it. By saying that homosexuals can't get married it's like saying they aren't as good as heterosexual people and so you make up a separate ceremony for them instead (homosexual unions). What about the priests in certain states who are marrying homosexual couples? They don't seem to have a problem with it.

 

[Brett85]

You also keep bringing up how nobody is trying to limit what they can do behind "closed doors" but then certain states have laws against "Homosexual Behavior".

Those laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court decision in 2003 that declared that there's a Constitutional right to sodomy. I'm opposed to any law that criminalizes homosexual behavior. The government shouldn't have the right to throw anyone in prison unless they infringe on the rights of others. But the term "marriage" is a term that has always applied to a man and a woman. People don't have the "right" to change the definition of something; they simply have the right to live their lives free of government interference, which is why there should absolutely be no laws that imprison homosexuals for engaging in homosexual acts.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

Yeah, that's how I've heard it used too.

Ditto. I'm "socially liberal" because I don't want the government to involve themselves in mine or anyone's personal affairs. I consider myself to be a fiscally conservative socially liberal civil libertarian.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Those laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court decision in 2003 that declared that there's a Constitutional right to sodomy. I'm opposed to any law that criminalizes homosexual behavior. The government shouldn't have the right to throw anyone in prison unless they infringe on the rights of others. But the term "marriage" is a term that has always applied to a man and a woman. People don't have the "right" to change the definition of something; they simply have the right to live their lives free of government interference, which is why there should absolutely be no laws that imprison homosexuals for engaging in homosexual acts.

Like I've told you in two other threads they just changed the wording from sodomy to "Homosexual behavior" when they had that Supreme Court decision in 2003. Also nobody is changing the definition: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. Nothing about only a man and woman.

It's sad that countries that aren't as free as us allow (or are going to) homosexuals to marry.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, but most people who oppose gay marrige don't want to control "what people do behind closed doors." Gays can live together, sleep together, and do whatever they want to do without calling their relationship "marriage."

I don't think most gays care what you call it. They just want to have the same benefits as a married couple.

 

[Brett85]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. But, I'm tired of debating this issue. The fact is that there's a lot more important issues facing our country.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I don't think most gays care what you call it. They just want to have the same benefits as a married couple.

This. But "civil unions" don't offer the same benefits as marriage. Instead they represent separate status unequal to marriage and if they did the people who have civil unions in their state wouldn't be trying to get gay marriage legislation passed. I think government shouldn't be in marriage period but until that happens homosexuals deserve the same treatment as heterosexuals.

 

[Gravik]

I'm definitely a social moderate, because I don't think the fed should be involved in marriage, abortion, drug laws, etc.