Gay marriage is NOT AN ISSUE!

[Icymudpuppy]

That's right. No-one is being killed, maimed, stolen from, indentured, or imprisoned by gay marriage.

Now, can we get back to important issues like how much theft the government engaged in against hardworking small business people this week to use in their murder sprees overseas?

[trey4sports]

the fact that people are denied potentially life-saving medical insurance based on the fact that they cannot get "married" is an issue....

[Brian4Liberty]

It is too an issue! It's smelly! It's red! Here it is! Chase it! Come on, boy, you know you want it!

You can't resist!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LXxSHtFuqSo/TFe5yKgzbAI/AAAAAAAAANw/3HtNLHPCYo4/s1600/RedHerring.jpg

[Icymudpuppy]

the fact that people are denied potentially life-saving medical insurance based on the fact that they cannot get "married" is an issue....

This is not a marriage issue. It is an insurance access issue.

[trey4sports]

This is not a marriage issue. It is an insurance access issue.


potato, potatoe, man.

[angelatc]

the fact that people are denied potentially life-saving medical insurance based on the fact that they cannot get "married" is an issue....

Seriously? You are here lobbying for the government to mandate who the insurance companies choose to insure?

WTF?

Because there are lots of companies that offer benefits to domestic partnerships.

Seriously, I'm speechless.

[trey4sports]

Seriously? You are here lobbying for the government to mandate who the insurance companies choose to insure?

WTF?

Because there are lots of companies that offer benefits to domestic partnerships.

Seriously, I'm speechless.

no, i'm saying that gay marriage is an issue even though the OP is trying to claim it is not.

also, i've never heard of an insurance company offering domestic partnership benefits.

[JK/SEA]

Can we make this thread a sticky?

[Acala]

It's not an issue because the answer is a slam dunk - get government out of the business of marriage.

It's not an issue because it has nothing to do with the multiple problems that are going to crush this country very soon.

It's not an issue, it's a deliberate distraction.

[Nickels]

the fact that people are denied potentially life-saving medical insurance based on the fact that they cannot get "married" is an issue....

the fact people are allowed life saving procedures just because they are married as a privilege IS an issue.

[jmdrake]

no, i'm saying that gay marriage is an issue even though the OP is trying to claim it is not.

also, i've never heard of an insurance company offering domestic partnership benefits.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=domestic+partner+health+benefits

Seriously. That was why right wingers boycotted Disney back in the 90s. (Mad over Disney offering domestic partner benefits long before any "state" recognized domestic partnerships). That was just as stupid as the left's "Chick-fil-a" boycott. The problem is that the federal tax system ties insurance to employment. It's the tax code that needs to change.

[jmdrake]

the fact people are allowed life saving procedures just because they are married as a privilege IS an issue.

:rolleyes: 1) Gay people can get health insurance. 2) People without insurance are not denied "life saving procedures". If you believe that they are then do you support Obamacare?

[brooks009]

We all agree that the government should be out of the business of MARRIAGE.

But where we don’t agree is what we should do in meantime(while trying to accomplish this goal). I think this is a question that should be answered for a lot of things and not just marriage.
Do we go for all or nothing ? Or do we get what we can in the meantime?

For example - We would like to see the wars ended and only started with a declaration of war by congress but if we could end just 1 war or one life even would that be a win?

[angelatc]

no, i'm saying that gay marriage is an issue even though the OP is trying to claim it is not.

also, i've never heard of an insurance company offering domestic partnership benefits.

No, what you said was that gay marriage is an issue because insurance companies have the right to refuse to cover domestic partners.

ALmost all entertainment companies offer domestic partnership benefits. Lots of universities do. Heck, the State Of Michigan used to, but they were eliminated when the Republicans started cutting spending.

But the free market isn't good enough for liberals. They are aiming for total control of the means of production.

[Bosco Warden]

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/404065_448657478489579_114367097_n.jpg

[Ender]

We all agree that the government should be out of the business of MARRIAGE.

But where we don’t agree is what we should do in meantime(while trying to accomplish this goal). I think this is a question that should be answered for a lot of things and not just marriage.
Do we go for all or nothing ? Or do we get what we can in the meantime?

For example - We would like to see the wars ended and only started with a declaration of war by congress but if we could end just 1 war or one life even would that be a win?

Two different issues and both are worth fighting for- not one in place of the other.

Government does not belong in marriage- ANY MARRIGE. When you get a gov marriage license you have a partnership of three- you, your partner, and the government.

Getting the gov out of marriage is very important, as are all unconstitutional laws. THIS is what all parties should be fighting together for, not hating and fighting each other.

[jmdrake]

We all agree that the government should be out of the business of MARRIAGE.

But where we don’t agree is what we should do in meantime(while trying to accomplish this goal). I think this is a question that should be answered for a lot of things and not just marriage.
Do we go for all or nothing ? Or do we get what we can in the meantime?

For example - We would like to see the wars ended and only started with a declaration of war by congress but if we could end just 1 war or one life even would that be a win?

I'll play with your analogy. How about someone who says "Hey. Let's stop wars by making sure that only the U.N. can declare war." Really, that's the democratic position. John Kerry pushed for the "international test". Panetta said that Obama can go to war if and only if NATO says so. Does that do anything to end war? Or is it going in the wrong direction? Some folks here (including myself) honestly believe that federal gay marriage would push the country further in the wrong direction. If gays can win the battle in their own state ballot initiatives, more power to them.

However if this is about inheritance, making medical decisions, visiting sick loved ones in the hospital etc., that can be accomplished right now without any government involvement at all. If it's about taxes, well for many gays taxes will go up if the federal government recognizes their marriage. If it's about health insurance....well we need to be pushing to decouple insurance from employment anyway. Same for Social Security.

[Nickels]

:rolleyes: 1) Gay people can get health insurance.


Yes, they can. Just not as easily as those who can free ride on their spouse if they happen to not have the money for it.



2) People without insurance are not denied "life saving procedures". If you believe that they are then do you support Obamacare?

I think you mean, nobody is denied emergency procedures, but many operations and procedures are life saving and life changing, without being emergency and immediate life threatening. I don't support Obamacare.

[Nickels]

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/404065_448657478489579_114367097_n.jpg

sorry, but in 40 years we'll be lucky if we maintain the quality of life today. sure, we'll still look stupid for arguing small issues, but it won't be because we've overcome and settle it.

[Acala]

We all agree that the government should be out of the business of MARRIAGE.

But where we don’t agree is what we should do in meantime(while trying to accomplish this goal). I think this is a question that should be answered for a lot of things and not just marriage.
Do we go for all or nothing ? Or do we get what we can in the meantime?



Government cannot solve this problem EXCEPT by getting out of the way. Anything else will only shift the problem around and increase government power by keeping the people divided. So there is NOTHING to do about it other than working to eliminate government involvement.

[LibertyEagle]

What's your point? I still don't agree with the government FORCING integration, either. I still believe it should be up to each of us where we send our children to school, to choose for ourselves who we want to be around, and to run our private businesses as we see fit. This is a part of individual liberty. Or, don't you believe in that?

I happen to agree that gay marriage is not the issue that we want to be leading with in our movement. But, I'm also not going to sit here while you twist libertarianism into something that goes against its very basis of individual liberty and private property rights.


http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/404065_448657478489579_114367097_n.jpg

[jmdrake]

Yes, they can. Just not as easily as those who can free ride on their spouse if they happen to not have the money for it.

If the company they work for offers domestic partner benefits they can. If said company is so against gays that it wouldn't consider DP benefits, what makes you think it will then hire gays once gay marriage is federalized?



I think you mean, nobody is denied emergency procedures, but many operations and procedures are life saving and life changing, without being emergency and immediate life threatening. I don't support Obamacare.

You're supporting Obamacare logic.

[angelatc]

I'm not stupid. You're stupid.

(Sinking to the intellectual level of the opposition. Well, not quite. I at least managed to speak in words instead of pointing to a picture.)

[AuH20]

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/404065_448657478489579_114367097_n.jpg

The human species is much wiser than the myopic libertarian party I'm sorry to say. Do you think any of these so-called "trends" occurred in a vacuum?? A series of trial and error over hundreds of years.

[angelatc]

Yes, they can. Just not as easily as those who can free ride on their spouse if they happen to not have the money for it.





Even that depends on the employer. Most of the companies I've worked for made the employee pay for the family's insurance coverage even if they paid for a portion the employee. And it was hardly free.

[Nickels]

Even that depends on the employer. Most of the companies I've worked for made the employee pay for the family's insurance coverage even if they paid for a portion the employee. And it was hardly free.

still easier to qualify and obtain than without the option at all, isn't it?

[angelatc]

still easier to qualify and obtain than without the option at all, isn't it?

No idea. I've never been big on trying to force people to give me things they didn't want to give me. As far as I know, getting insurance is simply a matter of signing a paper and passing over a check.

It's the second part that people seem to get all upset about.

[Icymudpuppy]

While you guys argued about how marriage affects insurance, the USA used appx 30million of stolen money to kill or imprison about 500 people.

[jmdrake]

While you guys argued about how marriage affects insurance, the USA used appx 30million of stolen money to kill or imprison about 500 people.

+rep.

[Acala]

While you guys argued about how marriage affects insurance, the USA used appx 30million of stolen money to kill or imprison about 500 people.

Could not + rep, though richly deserved for this.

[QueenB4Liberty]

While you guys argued about how marriage affects insurance, the USA used appx 30million of stolen money to kill or imprison about 500 people.

+rep you too! </endthread>

It isn't an issue, it's only a distraction.

[Brian Coulter]

It isn't an issue, it's only a distraction.

A manufactured one at that. You'd think RPFers would be savy enough not to get hooked through the eye.

[TheTexan]

Government cannot solve this problem EXCEPT by getting out of the way. Anything else will only shift the problem around and increase government power by keeping the people divided. So there is NOTHING to do about it other than working to eliminate government involvement.

This

[pochy1776]

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/404065_448657478489579_114367097_n.jpg
I actually supported segregation on a local level. I even opposed the civil rights act (only one title of course.) Also the "unearned moral superiority" earned by the activists of gay marriage and black rights ended up making both groups protected minorities. If anything, while gays are slightly better off today. Black unemployment and Black prosperity has been at its worst in 60 years. You probably know that from reading Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. 2 AWESOME black libertarians.

[pochy1776]

sorry, but in 40 years we'll be lucky if we maintain the quality of life today. sure, we'll still look stupid for arguing small issues, but it won't be because we've overcome and settle it.
I hope 1950s america comes back. Even with homophobia. And this is coming from a self hating bisexual

[Southron]

I hope 1950s america comes back. Even with homophobia. And this is coming from a self hating bisexual

I don't think the 1950's will come back anytime soon or at least not in our lifetimes. Things seems to go in circles, but over long periods of time.

[Nickels]

I don't think the 1950's will come back anytime soon or at least not in our lifetimes. Things seems to go in circles, but over long periods of time.

I agree. Cultural Marxism has won big time.

[PierzStyx]

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/404065_448657478489579_114367097_n.jpg

See this is why I'm against teh LP. It supports such statist big government issues as government regulating and controlling social and religious institutions like marriage.

[pochy1776]

I don't think the 1950's will come back anytime soon or at least not in our lifetimes. Things seems to go in circles, but over long periods of time.

Nobody seems to be angry at me when i said i hated the civil rights act as well as calling gays and blacks the oppressors.

[pochy1776]

I agree. Cultural Marxism has won big time.
At least in the 50s, there was real food and kids were not doped on ritalin. Huh, Anti-Psychiatry..... makes the libertarian movement look bad.

[pochy1776]

http://objflicks.com/TakeMeBackToTheFifties.htm

[Sola_Fide]

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/404065_448657478489579_114367097_n.jpg

This is garbage! Wrong on so many levels...

This is one of the reasons I despise the Libertarian party at the national level.

[Brett85]

I think there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters/libertarian leaning people like myself who are with libertarians on about 90% of the issues. We agree on ending the wars, opposing unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, opposing tax increases, opposing government involvement in healthcare, energy, housing, welfare, education, etc. However, we disagree on some of the social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and immigration. It seems as though the gay marriage issue seems to be a deal breaker for some of the hardcore libertarians, even though we agree on all these other issues. It seems as though a lot of people here couldn't even support someone like Chuck Baldwin if he ran for Congress, simply because of the gay marriage issue. I have to wonder why it seems like so many libertarians seem to have a litmus test on this issue, even though we agree on so many other major issues. I personally could vote in favor of someone who supports gay marriage, even though I don't agree with that position.

[angelatc]

I personally could vote in favor of someone who supports gay marriage, even though I don't agree with that position.

Sure. But I'd rather vote for someone who will use it as a bargaining chip rather than someone who just hands the cry baby liberals yet another one sided victory.

[Nickels]

At least in the 50s, there was real food and kids were not doped on ritalin. Huh, Anti-Psychiatry..... makes the libertarian movement look bad.

real food didn't disappear, nobody is forcing anybody to eat GMO or fast food or whatever people are complaining about. more choices does not mean the original choice is gone.

[pochy1776]

real food didn't disappear, nobody is forcing anybody to eat GMO or fast food or whatever people are complaining about. more choices does not mean the original choice is gone.
I know, I know. But you don't see the old ivy league clothing anymore.

[Sola_Fide]

I think there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters/libertarian leaning people like myself who are with libertarians on about 90% of the issues. We agree on ending the wars, opposing unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, opposing tax increases, opposing government involvement in healthcare, energy, housing, welfare, education, etc. However, we disagree on some of the social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and immigration. It seems as though the gay marriage issue seems to be a deal breaker for some of the hardcore libertarians, even though we agree on all these other issues. It seems as though a lot of people here couldn't even support someone like Chuck Baldwin if he ran for Congress, simply because of the gay marriage issue. I have to wonder why it seems like so many libertarians seem to have a litmus test on this issue, even though we agree on so many other major issues. I personally could vote in favor of someone who supports gay marriage, even though I don't agree with that position..

It is because homosexual propagandists have convinced large numbers of people that sexual behavior is a civil rights issue. It's bizarre.

[pochy1776]

It is because homosexual propagandists have convinced large numbers of people that sexual behavior is a civil rights issue. It's bizarre.

Civil Rights- Harmful Racism (violence) The right to vote, Due process ETC All the lawyer stuff. Civil rights today means coddling and wanting everything your way.

[TheTexan]

It seems as though the gay marriage issue seems to be a deal breaker for some of the hardcore libertarians, even though we agree on all these other issues. It seems as though a lot of people here couldn't even support someone like Chuck Baldwin if he ran for Congress, simply because of the gay marriage issue.

I haven't seen that. Most people on RPF don't seem to give a shit really. Some people are rabidly against gay marriage, but I don't think there's many here that are rabid supporters of gay marriage.

Except for the gay people who actually have a vested interest, I'd say "not giving a shit" is the only rational libertarian position.

The people here who are rabidly against gay marriage... most of them are bigots. The libertarian approach would be to make sure their church doesn't marry gay people. The bigot approach is to make sure no church marries gay people.

Similarly, the people who are rabidly for gay marriage... aside from gay people who I think are entitled to their (wrong) opinion, are the aforementioned "fucking liberals."

[Brett85]

The bigot approach is to make sure no church marries gay people."

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are no laws that forbid a church from marrying a gay couple now. A church isn't going to receive criminal penalties for performing a gay marriage ceremony.

[phill4paul]

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are no laws that forbid a church from marrying a gay couple now. A church isn't going to receive criminal penalties for performing a gay marriage ceremony.

TC, have you started any initiative in your town, county or state to end the governmental licensing of a holy sacrament?

[TheTexan]

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are no laws that forbid a church from marrying a gay couple now. A church isn't going to receive criminal penalties for performing a gay marriage ceremony.

Technicality, but you're right, that was poorly worded. It's more accurate to say, that most people here who are rabidly against gay people getting marriage certificates, isn't because they don't want an expansion of the state, but rather because they just don't want gay people to get marriage certificates.

The expansion of the state by allowing gay marriage is negligible at best. It's even arguable that it reduces the state. In either case, it should be a non-issue. Once you start caring about it, that indicates either a) bigotry, b) liberal, or rarely c) zealotry against regulation on some quixotic philosophical level

[Pericles]

It is too an issue! It's smelly! It's red! Here it is! Chase it! Come on, boy, you know you want it!

You can't resist!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LXxSHtFuqSo/TFe5yKgzbAI/AAAAAAAAANw/3HtNLHPCYo4/s1600/RedHerring.jpg

Woof! Woof!

http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p524/halidaygeorge/puppies/dogrunning.jpg

[kathy88]

real food didn't disappear, nobody is forcing anybody to eat GMO or fast food or whatever people are complaining about. more choices does not mean the original choice is gone.Really. Try to get a big gulp in New York. How about some raw milk?

[Nickels]

Really. Try to get a big gulp in New York. How about some raw milk?

There are still 30 states where raw milk is legal, human breast milk can be sold too. http://www.onlythebreast.com/ So yes, while there are more regulations today, there are still ore choices, not less.

[KingNothing]

A manufactured one at that. You'd think RPFers would be savy enough not to get hooked through the eye.




Has anyone here said that we should forget about other problems and only discuss this one?.

No.

In fact no one here has said that any government involvement is good. We all want less government. Our disagreement arises when we discuss the general perception of homosexuality. I and others advocate that we view gay folks as equals, many of te Chick Fil A supporters you can find do not believe that. This is not a government issue, it is an ideas issue.

[KingNothing]

This is garbage! Wrong on so many levels...

This is one of the reasons I despise the Libertarian party at the national level.


They think prejudice is stupid?

[Ender]

Technicality, but you're right, that was poorly worded. It's more accurate to say, that most people here who are rabidly against gay people getting marriage certificates, isn't because they don't want an expansion of the state, but rather because they just don't want gay people to get marriage certificates.

The expansion of the state by allowing gay marriage is negligible at best. It's even arguable that it reduces the state. In either case, it should be a non-issue. Once you start caring about it, that indicates either a) bigotry, b) liberal, or rarely c) zealotry against regulation on some quixotic philosophical level

One more time:

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN MARRIAGE.

Just because you've been in The Matrix all your life does not mean this is a non-issue. Gay. Straight. It doesn't matter- it is one more personal decision that is co-opted by the Great Nanny. You should care about government intervention into private lives as much as you care about illegal wars, as they are one and the same thing.

[TheTexan]

One more time:

[B]THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN MARRIAGE.

Government involvement in marriage is an issue. Government involvement in gay marriage is not an issue.

[Ender]

Government involvement in marriage is an issue. Government involvement in gay marriage is not an issue.

That is like saying:

Government involvement in rice is an issue. Government involvement in brown rice is not an issue.

[TheTexan]

That is like saying:

Government involvement in rice is an issue. Government involvement in brown rice is not an issue.

It's like arguing over whether or not we should allow medical psilocybin in addition to medical marijuana. Of course people should be allowed to use psilocybin, in whatever way they like. But arguing over whether or not people should be able to use psilocybin in the context of medicinal use is a complete waste of time and missing the point, just as is arguing over gay marriage.

Because if you want to argue for gay marriage in any consistent way, you also need to argue for polygamy, and a host of many other things, until eventually your argument is just "get government out of marriage."

[FreedomFighter1776]

The rights of all to contract as they wish for any purpose that is not illegal is not a red herring. It is not "not an issue". It is as much of an issue as any other.

Gay marriage is a divisive issue. If you support the government giving legal rights to one class of people and not the same rights to another class of people then you need to rethink the issue within the realm of property rights. It is not within the scope of the government to determine that a legal contract cannot be valid based upon the sex of the individuals contracting. If it is held that the sex of the individuals contracting is the deciding factor in rendering the contract void (or unable to be brought into existence) then it can be argued along the same line that the race or any other immaterial fact can be used to render the contract void.

If we were focusing on gay marriage to the exclusion of all else then I see where it would be a problem. That is currently not the case.

Stand with liberty, even the liberty for others to do what you might not choose to do.

[TheTexan]

Stand with liberty, even the liberty for others to do what you might not choose to do.

Aside from a few bigots, everyone is on the same page here.

I just don't have any special sympathy for gay people specifically. Not that I don't like gay people. I do not think their actions are immoral, I wish them all the best, and believe they have every right to be free from tyranny as we all do.

But polygamists deserve freedom just as much as gay people. When we talk about gay marriage specifically, and ignore the others, we're basically becoming a special interest group. You for example, didn't even mention polygamy. I know you support their freedoms as well, but my point is that as long as we focus on special interests instead of root causes, you're just playing whack a mole. Whack one mole and another will pop up.

I want everyone to have freedom. The way we do that is becoming champions of getting government the fuck out of everything, instead of becoming champions of special interests.

[TheTexan]

While you guys argued about how marriage affects insurance, the USA used appx 30million of stolen money to kill or imprison about 500 people.

This.

[Bosco Warden]

Damn, five people quoted this picture?

I Knew I should have cropped that before I posted it. I WAS AT WORK!! lol

The point I should have made clearer was that Govt likes to pick these bullshit issues for the masses to fight over, either one of these issues are not going to have an impact on the overall direction of the country, they are political footballs for the masses to play with, nothing more.

Someone even neg rep'ed me, that is just low! you bastard, I know where you LIVE! or not. :toady:

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/Americasforum/404065_448657478489579_114367097_n-1.jpg

[Nirvikalpa]

I hope 1950s america comes back. Even with homophobia. And this is coming from a self hating bisexual

I hope you imagine your hot imaginary MD girlfriend as a stay-at-home mom in a skirt baking cakes instead, then. :)

[Revolution9]

I hope you imagine your hot imaginary MD girlfriend as a stay-at-home mom in a skirt baking cakes instead, then. :)

She might be worth paying attention to as a possible wife if her personality is fine and she doesn't have a chip the size of a plywood sheet on her shoulder.. As stated before. You don't understand men at all. I think you may have been indoctrinated. I am surely a male pig for pointing this out.

Rev9

[pochy1776]

I hope you imagine your hot imaginary MD girlfriend as a stay-at-home mom in a skirt baking cakes instead, then. :)
There were female doctors in america during the fifties. Only they were not Hot, dressed like men and were probably Nazi Dykes (Weaver, I am Looking at you!)

[Nirvikalpa]

She might be worth paying attention to as a possible wife if her personality is fine and she doesn't have a chip the size of a plywood sheet on her shoulder.. As stated before. You don't understand men at all. I think you may have been indoctrinated. I am surely a male pig for pointing this out.

Rev9

No, just an idiot because it was a joke. Carry on.

[MelissaWV]

... too freaked out.