The coming pandemic of “gay marriage”

[Burrows14]

Fail.

Tolerance my friend.

I do tolerate everyone, as long as they are respecting the rights of others and not engaging in immoral behavior. I do not, however, tolerate homosexuality.

 

[Burrows14]

When you say that a gov't has a role to play in morality, whose morality?

Biblical morality, divine and natural law.

And when you say that such behavior shouldn't be tolerated by gov't and citizens, what do you see as the ideal response to it?

Things such as murder (including abortion), rape, theft, fraud, indecent exposure, selling drugs to kids, selling pornography, publicly engaging in homosexuality, etc should be dealt with with incarceration, community service, and in extreme cases the death penalty (for crimes such as murder and rape of a child). Citizens should ostracize immoral and repulsive behavior such as premarital sex, cohabitation, atheism, dishonestly, etc.

And how do you give them the tools to make sure that no citizens are violating these laws without breaking privacy laws?

The Constitution does not guarantee a "right to privacy" as spelled out in ruling such as Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade, so homosexuality can and should be criminalizes. For investigation of all crimes the 4th amendment shoud be followed. If there is probable cause, then a search warrant should be asked for from a judge if the police wishes to violate the privacy of someone's home, car, or papers.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I do tolerate everyone, as long as they are respecting the rights of others and not engaging in immoral behavior. I do not, however, tolerate homosexuality.

tol·er·ance   

noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

So if two men or two women consent to getting married; who are they hurting? Why do they deserve to be locked in a cage?

How is their union immoral?

 

[Burrows14]

tol·er·ance   

noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

So if two men or two women consent to getting married; who are they hurting? Why do they deserve to be locked in a cage?

How is their union immoral?

Two men or two women cannot get married. That just doesn't make sense. Marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm glad to know that if Obama wins gays will be able to marry in our national FEMA camp and if Romney wins they'll still be in the camp but unable to marry.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Two men or two women cannot get married. That just doesn't make sense. Marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

You didn't answer my question.

What if they don't believe in God?

Oh right, lock the atheists up next?

 

[PierzStyx]

If it bothers you so much. Just say that you are biblically married.

And refer to it as biblical marriage.

Biblical marriage? You mean like Abraham, Israel, Moses, Solomon, David, Samuel's mothers, and others? Well then....

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Two men or two women cannot get married. That just doesn't make sense. Marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

Then let God be the judge, not you, nor the State. Thus, we come to the fact that Christians have little faith in their own edicts and commandments, and in the omniscience of God. It is not for you to judge, that is God's job, and this is your own damn religion which apparently you know little of. As far as 'marriage' most arguments boil down to language or linguistics. Let's discuss the aspects of this arrangement which are disbarred from contractual agreements between two or more parties.

How about we start with Next of Kin arrangements which gay couples are banned from entering into? Should the Government restrict two or more voluntary parties entering into such a contract as to give each other Next of Kin privileges?

 

[zach]

again....

 

[Burrows14]

Biblical marriage? You mean like Abraham, Israel, Moses, Solomon, David, Samuel's mothers, and others? Well then...

No, I'm not a fundamentalist Mormon and I don't consider Mormonism to be true Christianity. But that's besides the point, I do consider practicing Mormons, for the most part, to be good, honest, moral people, even if I don't see eye to eye with them theologically.

I believe in the Biblical marriage presented in the New Testament and in th story of Adam and Eve. One man and one woman joined for life.

 

[Burrows14]

You didn't answer my question.

What if they don't believe in God?

Oh right, lock the atheists up next?

That's up to them. There is no law in the world that will make someone give their life to Jesus Christ. That comes from the heart. If someone wants to be an atheist but live an honest, moral life I have no right to interfere with that, nor can I really.

That doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the government has the right to legalize, condone or endorse unnatural, immoral and unethical behavior.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, I'm not a fundamentalist Mormon and I don't consider Mormonism to be true Christianity. But that's besides the point, I do consider practicing Mormons, for the most part, to be good, honest, moral people, even if I don't see eye to eye with them theologically.

I believe in the Biblical marriage presented in the New Testament and in th story of Adam and Eve. One man and one woman joined for life.

Thus is your prerogative, but I don't see the jump from there to outlawing voluntary contractual privileges and rights. No one says you have to condone the use of one's rights in their personal lives, but there absolutely must be respect and an understanding of the nature of our rights (first axioms -- self-ownership (property right as source of all our rights)). You have no right to restrict or ban the voluntary non-coercive contracts people enter into as long as they do not violate a non-contractual parties rights (e.g. a murder contract is invalid and wrong).

 

[Burrows14]

Then let God be the judge, not you, nor the State. Thus, we come to the fact that Christians have little faith in their own edicts and commandments, and in the omniscience of God. It is not for you to judge, that is God's job, and this is your own damn religion which apparently you know little of. As far as 'marriage' most arguments boil down to language or linguistics. Let's discuss the aspects of this arrangement which are disbarred from contractual agreements between two or more parties.

How about we start with Next of Kin arrangements which gay couples are banned from entering into? Should the Government restrict two or more voluntary parties entering into such a contract as to give each other Next of Kin privileges?

There is a difference between judging and condemning someone, and judging and condemning a sin. St. Paul many times condemns sexual immorality such as homosexuality. I believe it is our role as Christians to condemn sins, to educate people against sinning and the Bible clearly gives civil authorities the right to punish against immoral behavior.

Two homosexuals can enter into any contact they want. But I don't ever have to recognize them as marriage because marriage between people of the same sex cannot exist. They can make their own contracts between each other calling themselves husband and he-wife, but if they think I'll recognize that contract, they're sorely mistaken.

 

[Burrows14]

Thus is your prerogative, but I don't see the jump from there to outlawing voluntary contractual privileges and rights. No one says you have to condone the use of one's rights in their personal lives, but there absolutely must be respect and an understanding of the nature of our rights (first axioms -- self-ownership (property right as source of all our rights)). You have no right to restrict or ban the voluntary non-coercive contracts people enter into as long as they do not violate a non-contractual parties rights (e.g. a murder contract is invalid and wrong).

I won't restrict anyone from entering into any contract they want. However, I would not and I don't want the state to recognize such contracts. I would bar the state from recognizing any contract related to marriage, as marriage is solely a religious matter.

 

[Vessol]

There is a difference between judging and condemning someone, and judging and condemning a sin. St. Paul many times condemns sexual immorality such as homosexuality. I believe it is our role as Christians to condemn sins, to educate people against sinning and the Bible clearly gives civil authorities the right to punish against immoral behavior.

Two homosexuals can enter into any contact they want. But I don't ever have to recognize them as marriage because marriage between people of the same sex cannot exist. They can make their own contracts between each other calling themselves husband and he-wife, but if they think I'll recognize that contract, they're sorely mistaken.

Why would you ever be called to recognize someone elses contract? Unless you are an adjudicator or something?

I think you misunderstand the Libertarian stance on marriage. There is no stance on marriage. We are for Stateless marriages. Marriage licenses are a recent thing and were created by the government in order to stop mixed race marriages. The Libertarian generally doesn't want the State involved in marriage at all. Whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

I won't restrict anyone from entering into any contract they want. However, I would not and I don't want the state to recognize such contracts. I would bar the state from recognizing any contract related to marriage, as marriage is solely a religious matter.

You just contradicted yourself there. How is marriage solely a religious matter when you also want the State involved in marriage? Thus, it's a government and religious matter by definition.

 

[ProIndividual]

For God's Sake, just admit the history of marriage is dominated by non-consentual property aggreements where women were property, and where polygamy was the norm.

Marriage is not historically dominated by voluntary or monogamous relationships.

This whole myth of the moral marriage is BS.

If you want to be married, have at it. And if others want to be married, that's fine to. But please stop repeating the nonsense meme "for thousands of years marriage has been one man and one woman"...this is factually untrue. Also stop asserting the state has any right whatsoever to ban or sanction any type of marriage (beyond banning historical marriage which amounts to feminine slavery, because it was against the female(s) will).

Is this really an issue where libertarians should be promoting discrimination and tyranny? Is there EVER an issue we should be promoting discrimination and tyranny?

I swear, sometimes I want to support gay marriage just to piss off religious bigots and homophobes!

 

[Burrows14]

Why would you ever be called to recognize someone elses contract? Unless you are an adjudicator or something?

I think you misunderstand the Libertarian stance on marriage. There is no stance on marriage. We are for Stateless marriages. Marriage licenses are a recent thing and were created by the government in order to stop mixed race marriages. The Libertarian generally doesn't want the State involved in marriage at all. Whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

State laws dictate that hospitals, employers, the state, etc have to recognize certain contracts.

I agree with the liberterian perspective that government shouldn't be involved in marriage. I don't agree with libertarians that government has no role enforcing morality.

 

[Kluge]

Biblical morality, divine and natural law.



Things such as murder (including abortion), rape, theft, fraud, indecent exposure, selling drugs to kids, selling pornography, publicly engaging in homosexuality, etc should be dealt with with incarceration, community service, and in extreme cases the death penalty (for crimes such as murder and rape of a child). Citizens should ostracize immoral and repulsive behavior such as premarital sex, cohabitation, atheism, dishonestly, etc.



The Constitution does not guarantee a "right to privacy" as spelled out in ruling such as Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade, so homosexuality can and should be criminalizes. For investigation of all crimes the 4th amendment shoud be followed. If there is probable cause, then a search warrant should be asked for from a judge if the police wishes to violate the privacy of someone's home, car, or papers.

A camera in everyone's bedroom. Yours first, and we all get to watch, since you're suspect.

What if your fellow citizens choose not to ostracize premarital sex, cohabitation, atheism, etc? And is every woman who miscarries suspect? Do you and the gov't investigate her uterus when she miscarries? How do you and the gov't know she's pregnant?

And whose bible do you use? Koran? Talmud? New Testament? The Book of Mormon? The Principia Discordia?

 

[Vessol]

I don't agree with libertarians that government has no role enforcing morality.

Is the government, by definition, a moral institute? I'd hope that if you feel that a institute should be enforcing morality, that it is moral itself.

 

[KingNothing]

That doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the government has the right to legalize, condone or endorse unnatural, immoral and unethical behavior.

And yet you like Burrows.