Rand Paul on gay marriage

[wizardwatson]

Several of you make the same point, so I won't quote, but you know who you are ...

The marketplace is established, protected, empowered, and yes regulated by society through government. It would not exist otherwise, and those who would use it (i.e. businesses) must comply with those regulations. And that compliance (since the Civil Rights Acts) includes being open to the WHOLE public; people cannot be excluded arbitrarily because of their race. That is the argument Rachel Maddow should have made to Rand Paul in THE INTERVIEW (she disappointed me, frankly, with her lack of substance).

And the gay rights movement wants those same protections, and in my mind should get them. Some of you may disagree, but the tides of history are washing you away.

As for me being a statist - have I ever denied it? I chose this username specifically so there would be no hint of subterfuge. I am probably what would be called around here a "left libertarian," though not a libertarian socialist because I still believe in capitalism as far as possible.

And as for the idea that religious services, churches, etc. will be required to admit gays - since when? There is still a 1st Amendment.

The "tides of history". Ah, progress. The ever-improving wisdom of the masses.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

So, on this forum where issues of truth and life and death matters are debated your message to those who disagree is "the tides of history are washing you away."? I wasn't aware that truth was subject to the tides of history and the prevailing opinion of the masses.

A lot of things have changed around here in the last 8 years.


EDIT: didn't notice your username. maybe I get it now

 

[brandon]

I guess then you would also like him to drop out of the GOP primary.

Edit: Seriously, that would destroy his chances of winning the nomination faster than saying "9/11 is an inside job."

Nonsense...

Jeb breaking Bush of all people has a completely tolerant and accepting position on gay marriage. So have many others in the past.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

The "tides of history". Ah, progress. The ever-improving wisdom of the masses.



So, on this forum where issues of truth and life and death matters are debated your message to those who disagree is "the tides of history are washing you away."? I wasn't aware that truth was subject to the tides of history and the prevailing opinion of the masses.

A lot of things have changed around here in the last 8 years.


EDIT: didn't notice your username. maybe I get it now

Personally. I find it ridiculous beyond measure that a handful of ignorant, mistranslated bronze-agers two thousand years ago are the final arbiters of truth. And I believe an awful lot of libertarians would agree, including many of the posters here, even over the course of the last eight years.

 

[brandon]

We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law," Bush said. "I hope that we can also show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue -- including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty

-Jeb Bush.

I wish Rand would sound more like Jeb Bush on this issue. How bout that?

 

[jmdrake]

Several of you make the same point, so I won't quote, but you know who you are ...

The marketplace is established, protected, empowered, and yes regulated by society through government. It would not exist otherwise, and those who would use it (i.e. businesses) must comply with those regulations. And that compliance (since the Civil Rights Acts) includes being open to the WHOLE public; people cannot be excluded arbitrarily because of their race. That is the argument Rachel Maddow should have made to Rand Paul in THE INTERVIEW (she disappointed me, frankly, with her lack of substance).

And the gay rights movement wants those same protections, and in my mind should get them. Some of you may disagree, but the tides of history are washing you away.

And as for the idea that religious services, churches, etc. will be required to admit gays - since when? There is still a 1st Amendment.

As for me being a statist - have I ever denied it? I chose this username specifically so there would be no hint of subterfuge. I am probably what would be called around here a "left libertarian," though not a libertarian socialist because I still believe in capitalism as far as possible.

Oh I really wish Rachel Madcow had made a gay rights argument when talking about the CRA. Then most black people would have immediately understood why his position isn't at all racist. That said, we are talking apples and oranges here. Gays aren't barred from restaurants or hotels or forced to sit on the back of the bus or barred from white only hospitals or schools. The only thing that is happening is that some people don't want to participate in a particular ceremony. If an atheist or a Muslim felt uncomfortable at a bar mitzphah should he/she half to participate just because of ownership in a catering business? That said, contrary to Ms. Madcow's mistaken belief, the CRA didn't end all racial discrimination by private business and private businesses were already caving to public pressure anyway. The Nashville lunch counters, for instance, had already desegregated. That makes Madcow look especially stupid because more recently she did a rant against Rand that showed those very lunch counters and claimed they had been desegregated by the CRA. And, right now, you can open your own trendy restaurant and segregate by race as much as you want and not have to worry about the CRA as long as you are far enough away from an interstate highway and you buy all of your food locally. Also country clubs can discriminate. (Think Shoal Creek). The Shoal Creek Country Club fiasco is a perfect example. They barred blacks until the PGA tour. Then they desegregated not because of a federal lawsuit. The CRA didn't apply. The desegregated because they didn't want the PGA sponsors to lose money from a boycott and then pull out.

 

[TheGrinch]

And as for the idea that religious services, churches, etc. will be required to admit gays - since when? There is still a 1st Amendment.

I don't believe anyone said that. When I said "participating in a service" I was referring to the florists and bakers. Does their freedom of religion not count? The church can decide which weddings to take part in, but the individual can't?

Since I know I will not change your mind on the CRA, a key difference there is that the bakers and florists are not necessarily doing so because of "discrimination", but because of their religious beliefs that it goes against. In your own words, the latter goes against 1st amendment protections.

And again, even though I'm not in favor of forced compliance like the CRA, that was at least a bit more understandable that it was in response to a long history of systematic persecution. The world has changed quite a bit since then. There is nothing systematic about it anymore, just a few who let you know that they don't want your business that someone else will gladly take instead.

The advancements we've made in tolerance are not due to regulation, things like the CRA were in response to the changing views of society. Similarly, acceptance of gay people (even though many disagree with their lifestyle) have not been due to legislation. Legislation only causes resentment, just as it did with the CRA.

Plus it's a fucking cake and flowers vs someone's religious freedom. Boo freaking hoo if not having a flower display or cake at your wedding means that you don't get to trample and force someone to go against their religious beliefs. The latter is far more offensive. Equal rights means equal rights for ALL.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

I don't believe anyone said that. When I said "participating in a service" I was referring to the florists and bakers. Does their freedom of religion not count? The church can decide which weddings to take part in, but the individual can't?

Not you, but ...

... But not just that. You're planning a Christian marriage retreat and James Dobson is the speaker? You have to open it up to gay couples...

.............................

Since I know I will not change your mind on the CRA, a key difference there is that the bakers and florists are not necessarily doing so because of "discrimination", but because of their religious beliefs that it goes against. In your own words, the latter goes against 1st amendment protections.

And again, even though I'm not in favor of forced compliance like the CRA, that was at least a bit more understandable that it was in response to a long history of systematic persecution. The world has changed quite a bit since then. There is nothing systematic about it anymore, just a few who let you know that they don't want your business that someone else will gladly take instead.

Plus it's a fucking cake and flowers vs someone's religious freedom. Boo freaking hoo if not having a flower display or cake at your wedding means that you don't get to trample and force someone to go against their religious beliefs. The latter is far more offensive. Equal rights means equal rights for ALL.

"Boo freaking hoo" if catering a gay wedding means you'll have to pray for forgiveness for touching ickiness.

 

[TheGrinch]

Not you, but ...




.............................




"Boo freaking hoo" if catering a gay wedding means you'll have to pray for forgiveness for touching ickiness.

That you ignored everything else jmdrake and I said, and jumped on the one part you could cherry pick(like I knew you would) shows you have no interest in serious debate.

It is not up to you or me to decide which people's religious beliefs we think are right or wrong, and they should be forced to perform actions against. If they are not impeding on your freedom to conduct whatever private ceremony you wish to conduct, you are not allowed to make them participate.

 

[wizardwatson]

Personally. I find it ridiculous beyond measure that a handful of ignorant, mistranslated bronze-agers two thousand years ago are the final arbiters of truth. And I believe an awful lot of libertarians would agree, including many of the posters here, even over the course of the last eight years.

What is truth?

How about you arbitrate. Or do you need to make sure "an awful lot of libertarians" agree with you first?

Truth is established. It can only be followed, it cannot be intellectually grasped or acquired, it is a living thing. It catches you, you don't catch it. But it won't catch you if you're not following it.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

That you ignored everything else jmdrake and I said, and jumped on the one part you could cherry pick(like I knew you would) shows you have no interest in serious debate.

It is not up to you or me to decide which people's religious beliefs we think are right or wrong, and they should be forced to perform actions against. If they are not impeding on your freedom to conduct whatever private ceremony you wish to conduct, you are not allowed to make them participate.

I'm not sure what there is to debate. I think I've made it clear that I don't think someone's religious beliefs entitle them to discriminate in the marketplace (the fact is that racial segregation, non-miscegenation, even slavery, were always accompanied by religious justifications; google it).

And your own words "boo freaking hoo" are obviously intended to minimize the feelings of exclusion felt by those discriminated against; the only suitable response is to equally minimize the feelings of compulsion felt by those who would discriminate.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

... contrary to Ms. Madcow's mistaken belief, the CRA didn't end all racial discrimination by private business etc. ...

Most states have enacted more civil rights laws, often constitutional amendments, which go well beyond the federal CRAs. It is these laws and their lofty words about equality that are mainly being relied upon by courts to throw out discrimination against gay marriage. Ironic, huh?

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

What is truth?

How about you arbitrate. Or do you need to make sure "an awful lot of libertarians" agree with you first?

We just have to grope around in the darkness and do the best we can. And we ALL get to do that. That's the human experience.

How much simpler if Sky Daddy would just tell us from on high. It would certainly be more comfortable; we would never have to come out of our swaddling clothes.

 

[TheGrinch]

I'm not sure what there is to debate. I think I've made it clear that I don't think someone's religious beliefs entitle them to discriminate in the marketplace (the fact is that racial segregation, non-miscegenation, even slavery, were always accompanied by religious justifications; google it).

And your own words "boo freaking hoo" are obviously intended to minimize the feelings of exclusion felt by those discriminated against; the only suitable response is to equally minimize the feelings of compulsion felt by those who would discriminate.

No, boo freaking hoo is to say that you not being able to find a florist or baker (which is not something that is a real systematic problem btw, in this day and age, the vast majority in those professions will happily cater to anyone that pays them), if that's the consequence, it certainly isn't worth setting a precedent of demanding people perform work that goes against their religious beliefs. The level of "discrimination" is nowhere near the of forced persecution of one's beliefs.

Now stop being a troll, and go back and read the actual substance of what jmdrake and I said. Laws are not what has changed views on discrimination, laws do the opposite of tolerance, they create resentment and get us no closer to equality.

Systematic discrimination does not exist anymore to where you can make any sensible argument in favor of protected classes. There are many, many options you have for having a private ceremony where someone will happily bake you a cake.

If for some reason you happen to live in an area where no one will, then get some friends to buy and arrange flowers and bake your own cake, because I'm not going to trample on others constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom so you can claim some right to amenities. Should we also then fight for the rights of people who live in rural areas where florists and wedding cake bakers don't exist? Since you seem to think that this is such an atrocity that someone would be denied these commodities that they could easily obtain by finding them in a town of any sort of population.

 

[AuH20]

I wonder if people ever sat down & logically deduced why homosexuality was deemed taboo and driven underground? Forget about biblical verse for second. If you have a budding civilization or village that is dependent on manpower & stability, wouldn't it be beneficial to center your civilization around heterosexual relationships? Obviously, as we move towards digital currency, advanced robotics, and designer babies this former fulcrum is becoming less important, but you truly wonder if this so-called 'gleaming' future will be all it is cracked to be.

Now with this commentary, I'm not deriding individuals who are homosexuals, that happen to be some of the most creative people on the planet. They shouldn't be unfairly targeted nor denied rights, but where the gay special interests are ultimately going with this is no benefit to humanity.

 

[juleswin]

I wonder if people ever sat down & logically deduced why homosexuality was deemed taboo and driven underground? Forget about biblical verse for second. If you have a budding civilization or village that is dependent on manpower & stability, wouldn't it be beneficial to center your civilization around heterosexual relationships? Obviously, as we move towards digital currency, advanced robotics, and designer babies this former fulcrum is becoming less important, but you truly wonder if this so-called 'gleaming' future will be all it is cracked to be.

In a more collectivist societies, activities that does not contribute to the well being and growth of society are rejected and ones that promote it are supported. This is why marriage and family were promoted and divorce, bachelor and spinsters were rejected. But thank god we no longer live in that world, technology and enlightenment have freed us from obligations demanded by society.

You can no live your life in the way you wish and not have to be worried about the village council banishing you.

 

[AuH20]

In a more collectivist societies, activities that does not contribute to the well being and growth of society are rejected and ones that promote it are supported. This is why marriage and family were promoted and divorce, bachelor and spinsters were rejected. But thank god we no longer live in that world, technology and enlightenment have freed us from obligations demanded by society.

You can no live your life in the way you wish and not have to be worried about the village council banishing you.

True, but there is a significant price to pay with that technology and so-called enlightenment. We see that today with the surveillance state and the bizarre cult of transhumanism (raise your hand if you don't want to integrate with an AI). I speculate the only way true freedom can be exercised on this planet is when your soul leaves to the astral plane.

 

[acptulsa]

So, you aren't turning your back on this solution to the problem for the reasons you stated (which don't stand up to scrutiny anyway) but because you want real people to suffer in their real lives a little longer while you fight the fight that you really want to fight. And in the same breath, you admit that it's pointless to do so, because the free market (yes, the free market) will wash these old fashioned holdouts away on the sands of time anyway.

Very sympathetic; very generous. So kind and enlightened of you to cause these people to continue to suffer from problems that could be quickly solved so you can shove your worldview down the throats of people who aren't yet ready for it.

Progs don't want to solve the problems of real people at all. That would give them nothing to be bitchy, bossy, and generally tyrannical about. Fortunately, a lot of people are figuring out what I have figured out, as reflected in progressive poll numbers.

And no, it isn't ironic that state laws are an improvement on federal laws. This is one of the main reasons most of us here stand firmly behind the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It's called competition, dear. It's what the European Union is lacking, which in turn is why Europe is suddenly stagnating. Only a person well brainwashed in the glories of the Federal Morass could possibly see that as ironic, when the facts indicate that it is the natural order of things. If you were truly more interested in making progress than in being superior and smug, and digging yourself a hole and claiming that down in that hole is the 'moral high ground', you'd have already figured that out.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Spoken as one who has the luxury of living in a society that HAS the Civil Rights Acts, and HAS slavery done away with by bloody war, etc., and is free to opine that those government interventions weren't necessary without ever having to reference a reality without them.

(And as for the 9th and 10th Amendments - Rand Paul is a firm believer in the 14th Amendment and judicial activism. Did you forget about that one?)

 

[acptulsa]

Spoken as one who has the luxury of living in a society that HAS the Civil Rights Acts, and HAS slavery done away with by bloody war, etc., and is free to opine that those government interventions weren't necessary without ever having to reference a reality without them.

No, spoken as someone who has lived long enough to have seen some of that take place, and has actually looked at what specific things moved us forward and what specific things were, in fact, obstacles to actual progress.

I don't care to ride a highway to hell routed through your meaningless detours and paved with your oft-disproven theories.

You stand on principle, even if it causes harm. I stand on the principle that preventing harm is what principles are there for, and if a principle causes harm you need to abandon it and find a better one.

Or is that too much like actual progress?

I know one thing that is not--giving more power to a batch of thieves off in Washington who have proven time and again that they will merely pass that power off to the highest corporate bidder.

 

[Brett85]

I'd like him to just say "any two adults can get married" end of story.

They already can. The government doesn't send in SWAT teams to arrest gay couples who get married.