Sarah Palin Gives Thumbs Up To Chick-fil-A

[KingNothing]

If that's what it's about, I don't know what gay marriage proponents think the problem is. There's no place in America that two members of the same sex can't love and commit themselves to each other. And they don't need my approval or anyone else's to do it.

You really don't see the difference? By your definition, there is no reason to have the state involved in marriage, even for straight people. But the state is involved. Why?

And, for what it's worth, I think a rather large percentage of woman would have a problem with their long-term boyfriend never proposing to them and getting legally married. Even though the state shouldn't be involved in marriage.

 

[jmdrake]

You know how when you watched basically every Republican other than Ron Paul talk about race during the presidential debates, you could just feel elitism and racism oozing from them?

Ummmm.....no I didn't.

They may have paid lip service to equality under the law, and equality in general, but you knew that deep down, they held collectivist views of minorities? (which made it ironic that Paul was the one chided for "racism" - he was the only guy who seemed sincere in his regard for the Individual.)

What we see in this thread is people who seem to be paying lip-service to the idea that gay people are equal (in some cases, in others they've been described as morally inferior in so many words) and deserve equal treatment under the law, while refusing to acknowledge that gay people should be allowed to wed. The answer, clearly, is to get marriage out of the State's purview but in lieu of that, matrimonial bliss should be open to gay folks as well. It shouldn't be a difficult thing to people in our movement to embrace.

And yet Ron Paul hasn't endorsed gay marriage. You must think he's a bigot. The position that those you are disagreeing with is in line with Ron Paul. Rather than having the federal government try to make everybody "equal", work to reduce the inequality created by the federal government. Here's a concrete example of the difference. Under one view businesses must be forced to let gay partners have marriage health insurance benefits whether the business agrees with it or not. Under a liberty view, instead work to decouple employment from health insurance. You typically don't go through your employer to buy car insurance. You often don't go through your employer to by life insurance. Why go through your employer to buy health insurance? The answer is because of a stupid federal policy. Well change the freaking policy. Some of us feel that every step this movement should take, as a movement, should be towards reducing the size and scope of government. Expanding the definition of marriage, by definition, expands the size and scope of government. That doesn't mean that people can't be part of this movement who in some areas want to increase the size and scope of government. There are a few, for example, who really believe in man made global warming and that the government should do something about that. That's fine for them I suppose.

 

[AuH20]

I guess I'm just more tolerant of others and willing to grant them that they wouldn't voluntarily expose themselves to such deep hatred and prejudice. I see no reason to hate someone for living a live that, for one reason or another, they're obligated to live

I'm tolerant as well. I think gays and LBGT should be allowed to raise children! But if someone came by and put a gun to my head, and asked "Do you think this is normal?" I would say no.

 

[erowe1]

You really don't see the difference? By your definition, there is no reason to have the state involved in marriage, even for straight people. But the state is involved. Why?

Correct, there is no good reason.

The reason the state got involved was to be able to regulate interracial marriages. We don't need to have the state involved in straight marriages, and while it is, we certainly don't need to expand the state's role by involving it in gay marriages too.

 

[KingNothing]

Yes, jmdrake. I am ALL FOR getting the state out of marriage. I've said that at least a dozen times in this thread.

If you don't see the need to also become more tolerant and accepting of homosexuals -and a few people in this thread DEFINITELY look down on individuals within that group- you're a sad excuse for a human being.

 

[jmdrake]

You really don't see the difference? By your definition, there is no reason to have the state involved in marriage, even for straight people. But the state is involved. Why?

Initially to keep blacks and whites from getting married. Then the federal government got involved by monkeying with the tax code in ways that have hurt (and somewhat helped) married couples.

And, for what it's worth, I think a rather large percentage of woman would have a problem with their long-term boyfriend never proposing to them and getting legally married. Even though the state shouldn't be involved in marriage.

Yep. Of course gay people can get married in any Unitarian Universalist church in any state in the union. It's just not state recognized. Straights can do the same thing. But most are psychologically wedded (no pun intended) to the current state sponsored marriage without even consciously thinking about it. Get rid of the federal involvement in marriage and it will become easier for people to throw of the state shackles attached to marriage as well.

 

[TonySutton]

If that's what it's about, I don't know what gay marriage proponents think the problem is. There's no place in America that two members of the same sex can't love and commit themselves to each other. And they don't need my approval or anyone else's to do it. Freedom to live how they want isn't what they're after, what they're after is societal approval. And that's why something as innocuous as the words of the owner of Chic-Fil-A are so intolerable to them.

You are wrong. They want government to treat their relationship just like everyone else who makes the commitment, without second class status. Sure there are the rabid activists who are fighting thought wars, same as the rabid activist Christians on the other side but the majority of gay people just want to live their life without obstruction or having to jump through hoops. Unfortunately the same activists on both sides love using government to fight their battles while the majority are stuck in the middle and just want to be left alone to live a happy life.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, jmdrake. I am ALL FOR getting the state out of marriage. I've said that at least a dozen times in this thread.

If you don't see the need to also become more tolerant and accepting of homosexuals -and a few people in this thread DEFINITELY look down on individuals within that group- you're a sad excuse for a human being.

If you feel the need to push your views of "tolerance" on others than you are no libertarian. And if you are judging others then you are a a sad excuse for a human being. Ron Paul would not approve. I certainly don't. I was happy to see the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. But if you think I'm still a "sad excuse for a human being" because I disagree with your nonsense, then maybe I should work to have it overturned. Maybe Christians should really become intolerant just so that word won't be misused the way you are misusing it.

 

[KingNothing]

I'm tolerant as well. I think gays and LBGT should be allowed to raise children!

Maybe I pegged you incorrectly, then.

But if someone came by and put a gun to my head, and asked "Do you think this is normal?" I would say no.

Well... 10-percent of the population is gay, and that percentage holds true for other species as well.
How tall is someone in the tallest 10-percent of humanity? 6'5? Someone who is 6'5 isn't "normal" in the sense that "normal" is closer to the middle of the bell curve. Gay people are outliers, as are tall people, short people, blonde people, left-handed people, etc.

 

[erowe1]

If you don't see the need to also become more tolerant and accepting of homosexuals -and a few people in this thread DEFINITELY look down on individuals within that group- you're a sad excuse for a human being.

Do you think we have some kind of obligation to believe that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality?

 

[erowe1]

Well... 10-percent of the population is gay,

Hogwash.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...them-correctly/2011/04/07/AFDg9K4C_story.html

 

[Revolution9]

See, Spec. This is what I mean.

It is complete and total bat-shit insanity. It's bigotry.

No it isn't. Marriage everywhere in the world for millennia has been between man and woman and was for the purpose of raising offspring. It is bigoted to expect people to bow down and dismiss the true meanings of words to fit some temporal agenda. Particularly obtuse and hypocritical is calling good Christian folk bigots whilst complaining about homosexuals being referred to derogatorily. The latest agitpropped gambit from the homosexual agenda is to attack the commerce and attempt to get the businesses banned of a man who does not toe their line. Who is the bigot showing lack of tolerance in this situation. They are attempting to financially sanction a man who spoke his mind and are using government to do it. The whole thing stinks and every day I get more and more annoyed at these self centered pricks and their bogus agenda. If some dude wants to suck a mean penis and call it divine love go right ahead with the illusion..but keep my headspace out of it and stop invading others minds with your disgusting bedroom habits. Straight up..some of us find the whole mess nauseating. Wanna stomp and holler like a bloody hypocrite about that statement..go right ahead. It is built into me biologically and ergo your double standards are hanging out of your drawers and you need to pull them back up in public and tuck that puppy back in where it belongs.

Rev9

 

[KingNothing]

Do you think we have some kind of obligation to believe that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality?

Yes. Absolutely. Unequivocally. Just as there's nothing inherently wrong with being black, or blonde, or red-haired, or left-handed, or fat, or thin, or having curly hair, or having a bowl-cut, or wearing sneakers as opposed to boots.

Whether someone is gay or not is about as relevant as a person's choice in footwear or hairstyle. It's no reason to like or dislike someone.

I feel like this is the sort of thing your parents should have been telling you when you were two years old.

 

[KingNothing]

Hogwash.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...them-correctly/2011/04/07/AFDg9K4C_story.html

Ok? So a survey shows it's 4-percent, not 10. How does that change anything? It's fine and righteous to quietly hate that group of people without actually getting to know any of them, because there aren't a lot of them?

EDIT: " nearly 26 million (11 percent) report some same-sex sexual attraction" ...oh.

 

[brooks009]

Do you think we have some kind of obligation to believe that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality?

No, but we don't have any kind of obligation to believe that there's nothing wrong with you...

 

[KingNothing]

No, but we don't have any kind of obligation to believe that there's nothing wrong with you...

Eh, I don't understand why we can't work to become more understanding of people, more live-and-let-live, and lose the sort of prejudice on display here altogether.

I'm not asking for the state to act. I'm asking for people to change their personal behavior and attitudes to be more accommodating to those around them (regardless of what percentage of the population "those around them" constitutes.)

 

[brooks009]

No, but we don't have any kind of obligation to believe that there's nothing wrong with you...

Eh, I don't understand why we can't work to become more understanding of people, more live-and-let-live, and lose the sort of prejudice on display here altogether.

I'm not asking for the state to act. I'm asking for people to change their personal behavior and attitudes to be more accommodating to those around them (regardless of what percentage of the population "those around them" constitutes.)

My comment may have sounded like an attack but I was just pointing out we all have stuff "wrong" with us in someones view. But we should not use that view to take away freedom.

 

[jmdrake]

Eh, I don't understand why we can't work to become more understanding of people, more live-and-let-live, and lose the sort of prejudice on display here altogether.

Because that's not what you are asking people to do. I can "live and let live" without agreeing with someone else's lifestyle. And yes, I am intentional about using the word lifestyle. Gay is not a race or a gender no matter how you try to dress it up. It's a lifestyle. Might there be some genetic predisposition to being gay? While that hasn't been proven yet it's certainly possible. But there's likely genetic predispositions to a lot of things.

I'm not asking for the state to act. I'm asking for people to change their personal behavior and attitudes to be more accommodating to those around them (regardless of what percentage of the population "those around them" constitutes.)

You're trying to force your beliefs on others. Sorry, but I find that offensive. That's not "live and let live". The "live and let live" position is to reduce the state's influence and let people come to their own decisions. I don't agree with using drugs. But I don't think drugs should be criminalized either. I don't think that's helpful. Medical marijuana is one avenue to decriminalization I suppose. But if medical marijuana became state subsidized just so that people could say it's been "equalized under the law" with other drugs, well I would have a problem with that.

 

[TonySutton]

Let people act as they may and follow the NAP. Not sure why everyone is so adamant that we must all walk, talk and think the same. I prefer variety.

 

[brooks009]

You're trying to force your beliefs on others. Sorry, but I find that offensive. That's not "live and let live". The "live and let live" position is to reduce the state's influence and let people come to their own decisions. I don't agree with using drugs. But I don't think drugs should be criminalized either. I don't think that's helpful. Medical marijuana is one avenue to decriminalization I suppose. But if medical marijuana became state subsidized just so that people could say it's been "equalized under the law" with other drugs, well I would have a problem with that.

So we agree that government should not be involved in the business of marriage which would allow gay people to marry if they chose.