 Author
|
Topic: Am I the only Free Stater opposed to the Same-sex marriage bill? (Read 17767 times)
|
TEBON
Guest
|
still waiting to hear from one of those "freedom" representatives as to why they won't let gay people be as chained up as everyone else if they so choose.
Can't people CHOOSE to wear the shackles of government? Should people who support freedom not allow them the freedom to be enslaved? The argument that someone is against all marriages is fine with me, and I would agree to a point. That point comes when one group of people is blatantly denying other people the right to do the things they wish because of stupid religious and society fueled bigotry.
nah, the reason that most people are against gay marriage is because they don't like gay people or they don't want gay people to be able to be married and happy with each other. Some straight people say that the word 'marriage' is just for straight people. Those people used to be right, but now the definition has changed. Why? Because I said so.
It was a good enough reason to turn the word "libertarian" into something that had nothing to do with any sort of principled stance. I used to get angry when people said that "Libertarian" meant "republican that smokes weed". . . . it's pretty much true now. . . since the term has been overtaken by douche bag conservative assholes. Kinda like the ones that want to deny others their right to do what they want in life.
I'm sure many free staters were against other people having freedom. It's becoming less and less of a surprise to see people within a "freedom" movement like this work to deny others because they want to suck up to the lowest common denominator.
Still, it's quite disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Denis Goddard
|
still waiting to hear from one of those "freedom" representatives as to why they won't let gay people be as chained up as everyone else if they so choose.
People here know I respect NH State Rep. Dan Itse and I agree with him on ~95% of issues. However, I disagree with him completely on the same-sex marriage bill. (to Dan's credit, I think he'll be submitting legislation next year to get the State out of marriage entirely, which is the one stance we can ALL agree on) Anyway, he'll likely be at PorcFest. You can needle him then  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
still waiting to hear from one of those "freedom" representatives as to why they won't let gay people be as chained up as everyone else if they so choose.
You are not going to get a response as they rarely post here. But one reason might be because it will increase taxes for everyone in NH. Right now, the NH economy is the worst it has been since the early 90s recession and many of the pro-freedom Republicans are doing everything they can to not only not increase spending, but to actually reduce it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
still waiting to hear from one of those "freedom" representatives as to why they won't let gay people be as chained up as everyone else if they so choose. You are not going to get a response as they rarely post here. But one reason might be because it will increase taxes for everyone in NH. Right now, the NH economy is the worst it has been since the early 90s recession and many of the pro-freedom Republicans are doing everything they can to not only not increase spending, but to actually reduce it. Really? In what way will it increase others' taxes? Please do tell... Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
TEBON
Guest
|
I would also like to know that as well Joe.
Darn those gay people for raising taxes. /sarcasm.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Really? In what way will it increase others' taxes? Please do tell...
Joe
One of the arguments goes that a greater pool of people will become eligible for government benefits, pensions, etc. Of course, that just couches the issue in absolute financial terms instead of the "relativeness" of discrimination. "Everybody is against higher taxes, so this must be bad." Of course, the 2-3% increase in those expenditures is being used to deny homosexual couples what heterosexual couples are entitled to receive (and already cost taxpayers many millions of dollars). For anyone to seriously claim that while not discriminating against homosexuals, they'd really need to support eliminating all government benefits. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 02:09:46 pm by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
adirondeau
|
So maybe the better thing is to work with the gay and lesbian groups to support a bill that would eliminate governments interference in marriage?
Would this not work for us and them (if they aren't FSP members, and of course we would recruit)?
Team up to accomplish a common goal?
We might have a lot more support from people overall if that was the case, and you might get more publicity than, oh yeah another state passes gay marriage....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you do what you have always done, you'll get what you've always got...
A man's mind stretched to an new idea never goes back to its original dimension...
|
|
|
|
sonio
|
This marriage thing is an enigma for me.
Of course I am happy that rights provided for some and forbidden to others are a little less so, but then I remember that they are more or less rights to my income anyhow and why on earth should I be excited about that. Then I also remember those in other "non-traditional" relationships who are still being discriminated against.
What is boils down to is that any issues between any people in any living arrangement would be worked out just as well, and less invasivly, with an arbiter rather than the government and basically the only "benefit" to "legal" marriage is that when it is over you get a judge to tell you what is and isn't your as per the terms of your contract, but that could all be handled privately. Certainly it seems as though one gets rights with this "marriage" but frankly, if you respected my choice I don't have to worry about you letting my g/f decide to pull the plug or not, and my rights (that I already have to decide who calls the shots) would remain intact without having to provide money and a paper trail to an increasingly military state anyhow.
But that is just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – Charles A. Beard
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Really? In what way will it increase others' taxes? Please do tell... One of the arguments goes that a greater pool of people will become eligible for government benefits, pensions, etc. Of course, that just couches the issue in absolute financial terms instead of the "relativeness" of discrimination. "Everybody is against higher taxes, so this must be bad." Of course, the 2-3% increase in those expenditures is being used to deny homosexual couples what heterosexual couples are entitled to receive (and already cost taxpayers many millions of dollars). For anyone to seriously claim that while not discriminating against homosexuals, they'd really need to support eliminating all government benefits. An increase in spending is not the same as an increase in taxes. They could always just spend less, elsewhere. Maybe blow up a few less buildings overseas, or something. I'm sure the folks over there won't be getting their quota of bombs, but they don't vote here, so they'll just have to do without those bombs! Something tells me they won't complain, though... So maybe the better thing is to work with the gay and lesbian groups to support a bill that would eliminate governments interference in marriage? Nope, because the "social conservative" bloc has adamantly opposed that, as long as their system was enshrined in law, and they are a much bigger power bloc. Now that the social conservatives won't be giving up their special, government-granted privilege, they are much more willing to work with us on getting government out of marriage, because they don't lose their special privileges by doing so. This marriage thing is an enigma for me.
Of course I am happy that rights provided for some and forbidden to others are a little less so, but then I remember that they are more or less rights to my income anyhow and why on earth should I be excited about that. Then I also remember those in other "non-traditional" relationships who are still being discriminated against. It's a tactical win in a particular battle, not the victory in the overall war. Now that we've eliminated one class of privilege, those who were formerly privileged are not as inclined to work against us, and many of them will work with us. What is boils down to is that any issues between any people in any living arrangement would be worked out just as well, and less invasivly, with an arbiter rather than the government and basically the only "benefit" to "legal" marriage is that when it is over you get a judge to tell you what is and isn't your as per the terms of your contract, but that could all be handled privately. Certainly it seems as though one gets rights with this "marriage" but frankly, if you respected my choice I don't have to worry about you letting my g/f decide to pull the plug or not, and my rights (that I already have to decide who calls the shots) would remain intact without having to provide money and a paper trail to an increasingly military state anyhow. Regardless of the existence of gay marriage (on the law books), I'm sure not encouraging anyone to get one! Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
dalebert
|
Regardless of the existence of gay marriage (on the law books), I'm sure not encouraging anyone to get one!
This particular flaming homo ain't touchin' a gooberment marriage with a ten foot pole. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Regardless of the existence of gay marriage (on the law books), I'm sure not encouraging anyone to get one! This particular flaming homo ain't touchin' a gooberment marriage with a ten foot pole. Good. They'd probably try to charge you with arson, if you did! Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
adirondeau
|
So maybe the better thing is to work with the gay and lesbian groups to support a bill that would eliminate governments interference in marriage? Nope, because the "social conservative" bloc has adamantly opposed that, as long as their system was enshrined in law, and they are a much bigger power bloc. Now that the social conservatives won't be giving up their special, government-granted privilege, they are much more willing to work with us on getting government out of marriage, because they don't lose their special privileges by doing so. What? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you do what you have always done, you'll get what you've always got...
A man's mind stretched to an new idea never goes back to its original dimension...
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
So maybe the better thing is to work with the gay and lesbian groups to support a bill that would eliminate governments interference in marriage? Nope, because the "social conservative" bloc has adamantly opposed that, as long as their system was enshrined in law, and they are a much bigger power bloc. Now that the social conservatives won't be giving up their special, government-granted privilege, they are much more willing to work with us on getting government out of marriage, because they don't lose their special privileges by doing so. What? what? If you want a substantive answer, you'll need to ask a question that actually identifies the part you're having trouble understanding, so I can address that. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
So maybe the better thing is to work with the gay and lesbian groups to support a bill that would eliminate governments interference in marriage?
Would this not work for us and them (if they aren't FSP members, and of course we would recruit)?
Team up to accomplish a common goal?
We might have a lot more support from people overall if that was the case, and you might get more publicity than, oh yeah another state passes gay marriage....
There is a plan for just that in the next session or two. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
adirondeau
|
So maybe the better thing is to work with the gay and lesbian groups to support a bill that would eliminate governments interference in marriage? Nope, because the "social conservative" bloc has adamantly opposed that, as long as their system was enshrined in law, and they are a much bigger power bloc. Now that the social conservatives won't be giving up their special, government-granted privilege, they are much more willing to work with us on getting government out of marriage, because they don't lose their special privileges by doing so. What? what? If you want a substantive answer, you'll need to ask a question that actually identifies the part you're having trouble understanding, so I can address that. Joe The whole thing - therefore WHAT? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you do what you have always done, you'll get what you've always got...
A man's mind stretched to an new idea never goes back to its original dimension...
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
