Ron Paul Condems Obama’s Decision to Abandon DOMA

[Feeding the Abscess]

I disagree. I'm a social conservative who supports Ron's foreign policy views, and there's a lot of other young people like myself who are the same way.

I personally know dozens of people who are 6'4" or taller (including myself). Therefore, it is impossible that only 1% of the world's population is of similar height.

Selection bias.

Who says that you need to be a consenting adult to enter into a contract? That's just a rule that society as made up, and what if I think that's an unjust and discriminatory rule?

Why can't I just walk up to a woman and rape her? I mean, I'm bigger and stronger, and I want to do it. Why isn't that cool?

 

[TonySutton]

But that IS a limited government position. It doesn't need to be masked with anything. If you want more people to get more government benefits, then you're for expanding the government. Those of us who don't want to expand the government are against that.

It is a hypocritical position.

 

[Brett85]

Why can't I just walk up to a woman and rape her? I mean, I'm bigger and stronger, and I want to do it. Why isn't that cool?

So you at least realize that there has to be laws in this country. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Brett85]

It is a hypocritical position.

It's hypocritical for people to say that they're libertarians and then say that the government should become even more involved in marriage then it is already. I at least said that married couples shouldn't get special tax breaks, which is a smaller government position than those who advocate subsidizing gay marriages.

 

[TonySutton]

It's hypocritical for people to say that they're libertarians and then say that the government should become even more involved in marriage then it is already. I at least said that married couples shouldn't get special tax breaks, which is a smaller government position than those who advocate subsidizing gay marriages.

If you take away the tax breaks what reason does government have for being involved in marriage?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

So you at least realize that there has to be laws in this country. Thanks for pointing that out.

I've mentioned upholding contracts several times in the last two pages. I've already pointed it out.

It's hypocritical for people to say that they're libertarians and then say that the government should become even more involved in marriage then it is already. I at least said that married couples shouldn't get special tax breaks, which is a smaller government position than those who advocate subsidizing gay marriages.

I haven't seen anyone advocating subsidization of all marriages. We're merely pointing out that there are three options:

1. Keep special tax breaks for straight married couples
2. Apply tax breaks for all married couples
3. No married couples get special tax breaks

Benefits/contract enforcement is a slightly different issue, but largely works with examples 1 and 2.

 

[erowe1]

It is a hypocritical position.

Yeah, I get it. That's the same old statist line we've all heard 1,000 times. If you want to eliminate entitlements, but you don't refuse to collect them yourself, while they're still around, you're a hypocrite. If you're against having the government monopolize law enforcement, but you call the police when you're house gets broken into, you're a hypocrite. If you're for privatizing the roads, but you still drive on government-owned roads, you're a hypocrite. If you're for eliminating benefits for married couples, but you still file jointly as a married couple so you can give the government less money, you're a hypocrite. And on and on.

I'm not going to rehearse again why all those silly lines are nonsense. The only reason you use them is because you want to go on holding your statist ideology and this is how you take the moral highground.

 

[erowe1]

If you take away the tax breaks what reason does government have for being involved in marriage?

I can think of two reasons:
1) To regulate interracial marriages.
2) To engineer society to become more accepting of homosexuality.

Marriage licenses were originally developed as a tool for the former, and they're rapidly turning into a tool for the latter.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I can think of two reasons:
1) To regulate interracial marriages.
2) To engineer society to become more accepting of homosexuality.

Marriage licenses were originally developed as a tool for the former, and they're rapidly turning into a tool for the latter.

/end thread.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I can think of two reasons:
1) To regulate interracial marriages.
2) To engineer society to become more accepting of homosexuality.

Marriage licenses were originally developed as a tool for the former, and they're rapidly turning into a tool for the latter.

Neither of which is legitimate, not to mention no libertarian anywhere would advocate the government pursuing those goals.

Yeah, I get it. That's the same old statist line we've all heard 1,000 times. If you want to eliminate entitlements, but you don't refuse to collect them yourself, while they're still around, you're a hypocrite. If you're against having the government monopolize law enforcement, but you call the police when you're house gets broken into, you're a hypocrite. If you're for privatizing the roads, but you still drive on government-owned roads, you're a hypocrite. If you're for eliminating benefits for married couples, but you still file jointly as a married couple so you can give the government less money, you're a hypocrite. And on and on.

That's not at all what is being argued. We're arguing against giving benefits to one group while denying those same benefits to another, not against people receiving services that they have put money toward during their lifetimes.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Erowe1 already ended this thread.

Sorry.

 

[georgiaboy]

That's not at all what is being argued. We're arguing against giving benefits to one group while denying those same benefits to another, not against people receiving services that they have put money toward during their lifetimes.

So if the end goal is eliminating the benefits to all the groups, wouldn't it be more pragmatic to not grow the benefit pool while working toward the end goal?

 

[Kludge]

So if the end goal is eliminating the benefits to all the groups, wouldn't it be more pragmatic to not grow the benefit pool while working toward the end goal?

Not necessarily.....

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

So if the end goal is eliminating the benefits to all the groups, wouldn't it be more pragmatic to not grow the benefit pool while working toward the end goal?

Perhaps. But if the goal is equality under the law, the opposite is true. When weighed together, the option becomes to eliminate heterosexual benefits.

 

[erowe1]

That's not at all what is being argued. We're arguing against giving benefits to one group while denying those same benefits to another.

No you're not. You still advocate giving benefits to one group (the married), while denying those same benefits to another group (the unmarried). You merely want the boundaries between those groups to be different than they are today, so that the group receiving the benefits would be larger.

Furthermore, the reason I wrote what you're replying to here was in response to Tony's claim that I'm being hypocritical when I enjoy government marriage benefits, while at the same time claiming to be against them. The point is that that's not any more hypocritical than those other things, none of which are hypocritical, despite statists' frequent claims that they are.

 

[TonySutton]

Yeah, I get it. That's the same old statist line we've all heard 1,000 times. If you want to eliminate entitlements, but you don't refuse to collect them yourself, while they're still around, you're a hypocrite. If you're against having the government monopolize law enforcement, but you call the police when you're house gets broken into, you're a hypocrite. If you're for privatizing the roads, but you still drive on government-owned roads, you're a hypocrite. If you're for eliminating benefits for married couples, but you still file jointly as a married couple so you can give the government less money, you're a hypocrite. And on and on.

I'm not going to rehearse again why all those silly lines are nonsense. The only reason you use them is because you want to go on holding your statist ideology and this is how you take the moral highground.

I am not saying do not take the tax breaks afforded to you in the system as it currently stands rather I am advocating that people acknowledge that government should be out of marriage and work to remove it. Things will not change unless we voice this opinion and work towards removing government from it.

 

[sailingaway]

So if the end goal is eliminating the benefits to all the groups, wouldn't it be more pragmatic to not grow the benefit pool while working toward the end goal?

You know, this bill doesn't really have bearing on whether govt interferes. Either way, govt interferes. So that isn't the choice Ron had. I still have to read the bill.

BUT this really is a different argument than the nonsense liberals use saying 'oh, you got yours, now you don't care about anyone else' on things like entitlements. Because assuming the tax breaks aren't your main concern here (and I could see where they might not be on EITHER side), this still denies something whether you agree with it or not. If having government out altogether were truly an option, I'd say that has to be the liberty way to go. People who have religious convictions would be free to use their own definition and people who think marriage is based on relationship other than gender would be free, with churches that agree, to use theirs.

With benefits they'd be TAKING from someone else. In this case nothing is taken from others. That smells a lot more like a 'right' to me. But so is freedom of religion.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

No you're not. You still advocate giving benefits to one group (the married), while denying those same benefits to another group (the unmarried).

To start, the discussion is marriage benefits. As such, I'm advocating for all married persons being treated equally under the law.

Secondly, I'm against giving married persons benefits that are unavailable to non-married persons.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, the reason I wrote what you're replying to here was in response to Tony's claim that I'm being hypocritical when I enjoy government marriage benefits, while at the same time claiming to be against them. The point is that that's not any more hypocritical than those other things, none of which are hypocritical, despite statists' frequent claims that they are.

I am talking about the married heterosexuals who relish in their government granted benefits while mixing government force and their religious beliefs to keep others from enjoying the same benefits.

That was what you responded to. That's not analogous to your other examples. The government doesn't decide which groups of people get to use public roads, etc.

 

[Brett85]

Perhaps. But if the goal is equality under the law, the opposite is true. When weighed together, the option becomes to eliminate heterosexual benefits.

There already is equality under the law. Every single adult has the right to government recognized marriage as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

[erowe1]

Pardon the change of course of the discussion here, but an idea just struck me. I'm signed up on some tea party/912-ish meetup groups, which have a lot of political discussion in their emails. I'm going to post this story to them. It's the type of thing they would like, and it will help correct some of the misunderstandings a lot of them have about Ron Paul.