Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rossby]

I have read every one of these posts in this entire thread so you can go ahaed and apologize fo ryour false accusation.  Maybe you could point to some of those definitions?  a link will do. 

If you've read the thread (and the one that came before it too) you will find I've done that at least 3 times.

[MaineShark]

I agree but you need to remember that most "christian types" would fall under the catholic or protestant headers...these groups think that "the church" (aka "their church") should be in charge of the govt and think that others should be forced to obey their specifics.

And...?  The point was not what sort of dogma they ascribe to, but that they formerly opposed us, and now are talking about supporting the liberty position on this issue.

Joe

[John Edward Mercier]

Yes it is ironic that the guy who started this thread by whinning and tattling on his EX-friend for being a "bigot" is the same guy calling for me to be banned becuase I think homosexuality is a disgusting, evil act that God spoke very clearly on in His Word.

You have yet to give a definition of what a bigot is, although it is retty easy to see what you think.  anyone who doesnt agree with you is a bigot.

It's refreshing to see the irony of this discussion is not lost on most.

Whether it's over their nature or their behavior which harms no one, a segment of society is being insulted, disrespected, and condescended to, some are even openly advocating discrimination by governments, a few people are trying to make the question about whether saying that's intolerant is actually intolerant.   That's the question?  Srsly? 

Actually as I posted... its not quite the clarity that your presenting. The OT describes it as wrong... but the NT describes your judgement of such wrong. Creating the paradox.

[John Edward Mercier]

That doesnt make any sense.  AND how does that apply to the how the term is used by the moderators and rules and regs for this site? 

Bigotry would only apply to discrimination of State privilege.

Bigotry:
Synonyms
1.  narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

I would guess if you oppose it for some, but support it for others... it would.

You would need to ask a moderator.

[John Edward Mercier]

Bigotry would only apply to discrimination of State privilege.

Then, you cant exclude it from anybody. Period. And however one wants to define marriage must have access to this so-called state privilege. So if a 50 year old wants to marry a 13 yr old, they cant be denied. If a father wants to marry his daughter, ditto. If you want 20 wives or husbands... And on and on. Im sure there are some wackojobs out there that would wanna extend this 'privilege' to marrying animals too, beastiality is quite the popular hobby.

And if you oppose any of this, you are a bigot. Remember, you cant discriminate against anyone LoL !

Obviously, this is all beyond absurd.

Getting the State out of marriage is the only solution. Giving them MORE power, no matter how 'fair' it might seem on the surface, is never a good thing. It only creates more problems down the road.

If all parties wish to be bound, and have the power to consent, then yes.
I'm Catholic, so I'm pretty much stuck with the Augustinian/Gregorian viewpoint. Which isn't 100% biblic.

[Russell Kanning]

those legal definitions were really funny BD Ross


I guess the answer is that many fsp members care about bigotry.

I am surprised how worked up some people get about the government doing gay marriage. I was listening to a Christian radio station last week and thought the world was going to end because obama wasn't going to enforce some marriage law.

[dalebert]

It's almost as if she read this thread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p68-k_fiiaQ

[Dreepa]

It's almost as if she read this thread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p68-k_fiiaQ

I got 30 seconds of her voice...then stopped.

[dalebert]

I got 30 seconds of her voice...then stopped.

Yeah, I know.  That's unfortunate.  It's a shame because she had some good points to make in that droning, monotone voice.

[rossby]

those legal definitions were really funny BD Ross

Just pulled 'em out of a dictionary. And gave my own. ... I don't think there is a "legal" definition of bigotry.

[Argentum]

"Q: What kind of people are not welcome as members of the Free State Project?

A: Anyone who promotes violence, racial hatred, or bigotry is not welcome."

It seems to me that libertarianism is only about when it is proper to use force.  It doesn't have an answer for racial hatred or bigotry.  I can understand why the FSP's founders want to exclude those who promote racial hatred.  It's bad for business to have Stormfront types associated with the FSP.  But bigotry is not as precise a word as the length of this thread has shown.  Theoretically, once can be a bigot, however defined, and still be a libertarian.

I don't think it is bigotry if a Christian condemns or judges gays or any other sinners. 

I definitely feel that the libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of it.  I guess as long as there is a government, it would still be involved as it relates to contract enforcement.  I think the whole idea of "the gov't shouldn't be involved, but as long as it is" is a very dangerous can of worms.  The goal should be to eliminate privilege, not equalize it.  That is not to say that libertarians shouldn't use the political fact that States may get involved further to their advantage in recruiting normally pro-State Christians to our side.


As a side note, the FSP welcomes military members and/or non-anarchists.  What's worse?  A non-bigoted Statist or a bigoted,hate filled anarchist?

[MaineShark]

I definitely feel that the libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of it.  I guess as long as there is a government, it would still be involved as it relates to contract enforcement.  I think the whole idea of "the gov't shouldn't be involved, but as long as it is" is a very dangerous can of worms.  The goal should be to eliminate privilege, not equalize it.

Yes, that's the point of passing gay marriage.  It eliminates the privilege that heterosexual couples had.  Then, if we can eliminate the numerical restriction, that will eliminate the privilege that couples have over larger groupings.  Et cetera.

Joe

[Argentum]

I definitely feel that the libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of it.  I guess as long as there is a government, it would still be involved as it relates to contract enforcement.  I think the whole idea of "the gov't shouldn't be involved, but as long as it is" is a very dangerous can of worms.  The goal should be to eliminate privilege, not equalize it.

Yes, that's the point of passing gay marriage.  It eliminates the privilege that heterosexual couples had.  Then, if we can eliminate the numerical restriction, that will eliminate the privilege that couples have over larger groupings.  Et cetera.

Joe

Joe,

Doesn't that increase the governments role in civil society.  Wouldn't it be better to get government out of heterosexual marriage?  This would also appeal to religious people because we can say to them that the government will not be using their tax dollars recognizing gay marriage qua gay marriage.  It would still, of course, be recognizing the underlying civil contract.  For the record and at the risk of appearing to be a bigot, I don't consider gay marriage to be a marriage in my book.  But it doesn't matter what I think..  Or at least not yet.

[MaineShark]

Doesn't that increase the governments role in civil society.  Wouldn't it be better to get government out of heterosexual marriage?  This would also appeal to religious people because we can say to them that the government will not be using their tax dollars recognizing gay marriage qua gay marriage.  It would still, of course, be recognizing the underlying civil contract.

Ideally, the government will go away, completely.  Not living in that ideal world, yet, we have to deal with what is.

The government's power is to prohibit.  Currently, in most places, they prohibit gay marriage (either directly, or by heavily penalizing gays who get married in various ways).  Passing gay marriage into law, removes their ability to prohibit it, thereby reducing their power.

The only way we will ever get the government out of marriage, is to end the special privileges.  As long as heterosexuals have a special privilege that others can't have, many of them will fight to defend the system that gives them their privilege.  Once that privilege is ended, they no longer support the government-controlled-marriage system as strongly.  This isn't just theory; we've been doing it, here in NH, and as civil unions and then gay marriage were passed, support for getting the government out of marriage has increased substantially.  Many of those who previously supported that system only to defend their own privileges, now support it less or not at all, because those special privileges are gone.

Privilege ("private law" - special legal "benefits" given to some group, but not others) needs to be ended, before many of those who are at the receiving end of that privilege will even consider opposing the system.  That's why the government is so keen to get so many on some sort of welfare, etc. - he will then defend them in order to maintain the privilege.  Other than bloody revolution, which any sane person would prefer to see as small as possible, or avoid completely, ending privilege is the only way to shrink the government's power.

Joe

[dalebert]

I don't think it is bigotry if a Christian condemns or judges gays or any other sinners. 

Somehow it got complicated, but I've always understood bigotry to be intolerance for people who are different.  That's certainly what it has always meant to me.  In my book, if you insult, condemn, condescend to people for their nature, or their choices or behavior that don't harm you in any way, that's bigotry.  That's how I always understood the word.  So in my book, you described a bigot and religion is just presented as a justification for it.  If their religion prescribes bigotry, it seems like people ought to re-examine their faith.

I keep wondering what the FSP means by it in the context in which it's used.  That's what it ultimately comes down to.  That was kind of the point of this thread.  They made a point of specifically mentioning racial hatred but then followed it with the broader term of "bigotry".  So what did they mean by their use of it and what actions would they consider in response to it?

If this is unknown, then maybe it's time to think about that.  I gave analogies for the sake of a thought experiment.  Someone comes here from Stormfront and suggests inter-racial marriages are bad and should be discouraged (but not outlawed, no force so still technically libertarian) and used derogatory terms to describe certain races of people.  How would the FSP respond to that?  Okay, so someone shows up and very publicly uses derogatory terms to describe homosexuals or Muslims or Mormons.  Now what?  Is there concern about the image of the FSP by not dissociating to some degree or another?