Print

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

[John Edward Mercier]

More to the point... its in direct opposition of Christ's teaching for anyone to condemn or judge the sin of another.
So doing so would actually be anti-Christian.

As for the one woman - one man marriage... that isn't biblical, its papal doctrine.

I can't even remember a quote attributed to Christ on homosexual behaviour.

[Andvari]

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.

In the end, it doesnt matter anyway. 99.9% of the laws and rules Govt comes up with suck, so whats another crappy law. It aint  like anyone's gonna change their mind about the issue, unless you're a drone who believes what the State decrees. One overlooked thing is that there will be increased benefits in social programs (more tax theft), funny how the so called anarchists never mention this.

[MaineShark]

One overlooked thing is that there will be increased benefits in social programs (more tax theft), funny how the so called anarchists never mention this.

Actually, a number of individuals have made that point, as it is yet one more reason to support gay marriage: those who are getting "assistance" will get less as a married couple than as two separate individuals, so it further reduces the thieving...

Joe

[dalebert]

One overlooked thing is that there will be increased benefits in social programs (more tax theft), funny how the so called anarchists never mention this.

This is an incredibly simplistic take on a very complicated subject, and unfortunately, there's no short and simple way to explain why it makes no sense.  I brush the surface of it here and thoroughly debunk this fallacious view, but you probably won't read it.  The misconception is tied to an oversimplification of the myriad ways that government intrudes into our lives and the way that intrusion is affected by contracts between individuals.

The short answer is that for government to intervene and ban what should be a personal contract between consenting adults is an intrusion of government.  Libertarians are big on consensual contracts.  If they stop banning contracts between consenting adults, that's a retraction of government size and intrusiveness and clearly a step in a more libertarian direction.  The phrase "get government out of marriage" is tossed around flippantly without thinking about all that would entail and what it will really take to get there (practically an end to most if not all of what governments do-- taxation, border control, the entire welfare state), as much as I want to get there too.

Actually, a number of individuals have made that point, as it is yet one more reason to support gay marriage: those who are getting "assistance" will get less as a married couple than as two separate individuals, so it further reduces the thieving...

It usually increases taxes for most because for most couples, both partners work.  And since that's the case for most modern couples (and likely at least as much so for same-sex couples), you're right.  It would generally mean they'd pay more taxes than singles.

[Russell Kanning]

Somehow it got complicated, but I've always understood bigotry to be intolerance for people who are different. 

Are you asking us to not tolerate those that are intolerant to those that are different.
Are you and I supposed to tolerate Fluff and stuff when he gets drunk and stupid, or when he is intolerant of you?

[Russell Kanning]

I don't think it is very complicated. I don't want to be involved in other people's contracts, so I don't support a government doing it.
Some contracts that people make I will support others I will not. I will just have to decide how to react to each one of them. No reaction would involve force, so I shouldn't be hurting anyone too badly, if I am wrong.

[Alex Libman]

Dalebert is one smart cookie...

As I've criticized gay culture to pieces, he found the perfect balance between indulging me and then ignoring me.

Yes...  I've been out-trolled.   

And I think that's a win-win situation for both of us.

[dalebert]

Somehow it got complicated, but I've always understood bigotry to be intolerance for people who are different. 

Are you asking us to not tolerate those that are intolerant to those that are different.  Are you and I supposed to tolerate Fluff and stuff when he gets drunk and stupid, or when he is intolerant of you?

Tolerate as in not do violence to?  Yes.  Tolerate as in carry on as if there is no problem?  I don't recommend it.  Keith and I are no longer friends.  However, I'm not demanding anything from others.  I haven't dissociated from people who still associate with him.

Don't put words in my mouth.  I haven't asked people to DO anything.  I have been using Socratic method to get people to examine their choices for logic and consistency.

[Russell Kanning]

I was guessing that you wanted the FSP (and I guess a bunch of us in it) to not put up with certain behaviors.
I agree that if someone is doing something wrong and won't change, we should do something about it.

[dalebert]

I was guessing that you wanted the FSP (and I guess a bunch of us in it) to not put up with certain behaviors.

Not saying that's an unreasonable conclusion.  Essentially, what I've been bringing up over and over is, how does the FSP choose to react to overt racism and then asking whether they consistently apply such standards to other forms of bigotry.  If not, why not?  What are their motivations for how they deal with people who demonstrate overt racist behavior and whether the same reasoning would support dealing with other forms of bigotry similarly.  I've also been attempting to give some very clear analogies to provide some objectivity in figuring out what bigotry is.

I think most important of all is not necessarily strong action as much as avoiding the appearance of sanctioning bigotry.  Sometimes that just takes the right public statement and having the right public policy.  It's all about PR and how the FSP is perceived.

I don't feel there's a safe way to ride the fence and be completely "big tent".  I think you have to make a choice.  You either have to turn off bigots or you have to turn off the people who are turned off by (overt) bigotry.  The more tactful bigots are almost certainly around and mixing here and there.  Those don't affect the PR of the FSP so much.

[dalebert]

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/proud-to-be-a-bigot-and-intolerant/msg639800/#msg639800

I am a bigot and very intolerant. I am intolerant of the view that the state taking my money at the point of a gun is somehow different from theft. I am bigoted because I believe that people own their bodies.

That sounds like the only thing you're intolerant of is actual intolerance.  Statism is fueled by intolerance and a desire to control others.  Being tolerant only makes sense if you actually stop at tolerating intolerance.  Otherwise it is paradoxical.  Statists have no problem with paradoxes and inconsistencies in general.  They have elaborate mechanisms for dealing with cognitive dissonance.

I doubt you're a bigot either.  If you're like most libertarians (small-l), then you took a lot of convincing to get there.  If you seem to be, it might just be because you're not hearing any good, logical points that might change your views.  Even after becoming a libertarian, I'm still constantly looking at things from a new perspective when such perspectives are effectively presented.

I think a bigot better describes someone who's stuck in a particular viewpoint, maybe due to arbitrary faith or taboos that are well integrated into their personalities from long-term conditioning, and blocks out any logical arguments that might create cognitive dissonance for them, obstinantly failing to even consider new perspectives, even when presented logically and backed by substantial evidence.

[HRearden]

I am bigoted against people who reject logic and the scientific method. Should I be kicked out of NH?

No. I would not describe myself as a bigot against religious believers and theists eventhough I am an Atheist and rational thinker.

                                           $ Freethinker

[HRearden]

I was guessing that you wanted the FSP (and I guess a bunch of us in it) to not put up with certain behaviors.

Not saying that's an unreasonable conclusion.  Essentially, what I've been bringing up over and over is, how does the FSP choose to react to overt racism and then asking whether they consistently apply such standards to other forms of bigotry.  If not, why not?  What are their motivations for how they deal with people who demonstrate overt racist behavior and whether the same reasoning would support dealing with other forms of bigotry similarly.  I've also been attempting to give some very clear analogies to provide some objectivity in figuring out what bigotry is.

I think most important of all is not necessarily strong action as much as avoiding the appearance of sanctioning bigotry.  Sometimes that just takes the right public statement and having the right public policy.  It's all about PR and how the FSP is perceived.

I don't feel there's a safe way to ride the fence and be completely "big tent".  I think you have to make a choice.  You either have to turn off bigots or you have to turn off the people who are turned off by (overt) bigotry.  The more tactful bigots are almost certainly around and mixing here and there.  Those don't affect the PR of the FSP so much.

Members of the FSP can choose to react but the FSP can not speack for all of the FSP members.

                                                $

[Uncle Walt]

I can't even remember a quote attributed to Christ on homosexual behaviour.

What most people think of a Biblical statement against homosexuality is the story of the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, because of the sinful ways of the people in those cities.  And when the angels come to rescue Lot & family, they are threatened with homosexual rape.  So, many people think homosexuality is the "sin" the cities were condemned for.  However, I think it would be rape, whether homosexual or not, that was an example of the "sin".  Rape being a physical initiation of force to violate one of the 10 Commandments ("Do not covet").

[Uncle Walt]

As for the one woman - one man marriage... that isn't biblical, its papal doctrine.

“For this reason a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Of course, the Old Testament is also full of stories of the Patriarchs having multiple wives or concubines.