Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 53 of 53

Thread: The libertarian case against gay marriage

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    An alternate libertarian case: Is it peaceful? Is it voluntary? Is it between two consenting adults? Then it's none of my business. Have at it. Carry on.

    Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (pdf)
    My thoughts, exactly.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by maybemaybenot View Post
    to benefit his own political career
    Yep, that sounds just like something that Mr. Raimondo would do. He definitely has a long history of such actions. In fact, I'll go right now and dig up a few articles about them. Maybe this newfangled site called Wikipedia can help me...



    Update: Seems to support politicians as diverse ideologically as Buchanan, Nader, Kucinich, and Paul. Doesn't make sense if he's just trying to benefit his career that he would do that, but I'm sure there's a reason. I'll keep digging.


    Update: Worked actively to pass a law in the 90's in California that would have reduced financial incentives for illegal immigration. Starting to think he's not a big fan of expansive government involvement, but surely I'm just falling for his tricks.


    Update: Started working with Rothbard in the late 80's. Total sellout, for sure, right? Maybe?


    Update: Good news! Turns out he joined the Libertarian Party back in the 70's and even ran for political office as a Libertarian, so the delusion runs deep. I'm now convinced he has been actively planning to exchange his political ideology for career advancement for decades!



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    If "gay marriage" were just a state-granted license, I wouldn't care whatsoever, either way, because it really doesn't matter. But if "gay marriage" is also going to include forcing people to provide gay weddings under delusions of "equality", I will fight tooth and nail against them.

  6. #34
    That was pretty good. I and surprised to see lucidity issuing from one who could so easily have chosen the path of whiny victim.

    Nice job.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Sorry, Raimondo. THIS is the correct approach... End government regulation of marriage. Period.


    Hmmm... I expect the opinion in terms of basis, but injecting "God" into the argument runs problematic. His conclusion, however, is on the money in terms of getting government out of marriage, regardless of underpinning reasons.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    As an artificial construct fot purposes of the state, replace "marriage" with "defined household" and carry on. Make provision for any two adults to define themselves as a household with whatever benefits / rights seem appropriate.
    Why only two? Basis?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    No thanks, I'm not into that crap.


    Make up your mind already.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again.

    I think our resident troll just had his head explode. (No pun intended). Basically he's calling Justin a gay uncle Tom for being pro liberty. Ummmm....okay.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 10-20-2014 at 06:58 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by maybemaybenot View Post
    But he purposely writes an article for homohpobic conservatives, misleading them into thinking that he supports marriage as a whole, he's still playing ball with the homophobes to benefit his own political career.. 99% of ppl don't know that libertarians want out of govt-marriage, so handing that article to someone implies that he's just against same-sex marriage. This was on purpose. Its like a politician using doulbespeak. $#@! Justin Raimondo.
    Political career? What political career? His not a politician. He's writer. His website is http://antiwar.com. You should check it out sometime. And if he just wanted to "play to his audience" he could and should have come out pro gay marriage as most people who have taken the "antiwar" banner are liberals like yourself. You sound like the Al Sharpton's of the world who want to shout down every black person who says "Maybe we don't need affirmative action indefinitely" as being an "Uncle Tom". (Misnomer because Uncle Tom was really a hero who stood up to slavery through non violent resistance but most people are too ignorant to know that.)
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by maybemaybenot View Post
    Lol Its not govt privilege. This is whether to allow gays to get the same privilege as everyone else. You're arguing for govt privilege. You're saying one group gets to do it but not another group.
    I do not disagree. Marriage, as currently constituted in law, is an obscenity. However, if we are to have it, all must have equal access.

    The imposition of the "one man, one woman, forever" specification is pretty lame as a universal. I don't care if that is one's belief. Have at it and be happy. But leave others to their beliefs as well. This is where the "religious right" goes so terribly wrong. From the one side of their mouths they go on about "freedom", while from the other they would force their religious values upon others. Denying ***** the same access to the vile state-issued marriage license is a good case in point. There is nothing of the Golden Rule in this posture. There is, IMO, nothing CHRISTIAN in it. It is, in fact, eminently un-Christian. Live, let live, and pass no judgment lest ye art prepared to be judged. Nobody is prepared for judgment; we all have committed trespass in one form and degree or another, so some of us really do need to get off the high-horse and return to right-sized. Is it not the Christian tenet that only God passes judgment? If so, then STFU, MYOB, and work on YOUR daily living and leave others to do the same.

    I do firmly believe that the fundamental psychology behind all this anti-***** sentiment is the fear that if one is not wildly railing for the gayboys to be drawn and quartered that it implies one is condoning the behavior. This, of course, is utter nonsense, yet it is vastly prevalent so far as I can observe, in some classes such as Christians. I also believe that in some cases people fear that if they are not going on endlessly, much less expressing tolerance, that others will suspect them of being gay. This is all so "commies under the bed" and all it serves to accomplish is to divide us against ourselves and to waste resources that could be otherwise put to better purposes, like getting "government" back on a very short leash and eliminating police.

    Leave the *****s to their devices. If they are damnably wrong, do you doubt in the least that God will set them to rights in the end?

    Sheesh.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    Show me a bill that gets the government out of marriage. Meanwhile people like Ron Paul support DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act. Neither of those get the government out of marriage. They do the opposite. When touting "state's rights", you are not supporting getting government out of marriage. You are supporting the government defining marriage.
    Ron Paul is consistently supportive of states rights as he believes the Federal Government has a "reverse Midas touch". (Everything it touches turns to crap). Tell me this. Do you support the Federal Government defining abortion rights? How about the Federal Government defining drug laws? How has that worked out exactly?

    As for bills to get the federal government out of marriage, in 2007 Ron Paul introduced a bill to abolish the IRS.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-...-resolution/23

    What does that have to do with the federal government and marriage? EVERYTHING! One of the stickiest issues in marriage is the so called "tax benefit". It's actually a penalty to some and a benefit to others. If you and your spouse have similar incomes, quite likely for same sex couples, [b]it is a marriage penalty[b]. Get rid of the income tax and there is no need to file married, single or otherwise. Also the fact that health insurance is tied to marriage is a result of income tax policy. Employers, not individuals, get the tax write off so employers, not individuals, shop for plans. If individuals were making that decision, insurance companies would be tripping over themselves to offer more flexible plans. Look at the competition in cell phones where Sprint offers the "framily plan" where you can define your group cell phone plan however you like. That would be true of insurance if not for federal government interference. The other bigaboo is Social Security. If it was replaced with private retirement accounts you would be able to leave the money to whoever you want regardless of whether that person was your "spouse".

    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    The whole "get govt out of marriage" argument is similar to how some people claim we can't get rid of warfare or welfare spending until we end the fed.
    You've got it exactly backwards. The whole "Let's make the states recognize gay marriage" is like saying "We should get rid of welfare. But in the meantime illegal immigrants are not benefiting from it and that's not fair so let's expand it." Or "Let's get rid of affirmative action. But before we get rid of it, let's expand it to gay people."
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Why only two? Basis?
    Exactly!
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Hmmm... I expect the opinion in terms of basis, but injecting "God" into the argument runs problematic. His conclusion, however, is on the money in terms of getting government out of marriage, regardless of underpinning reasons.
    While I don't believe God should be written into legislation, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with using God in debating legislation.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Ron Paul is consistently supportive of states rights as he believes the Federal Government has a "reverse Midas touch". (Everything it touches turns to crap). Tell me this. Do you support the Federal Government defining abortion rights? How about the Federal Government defining drug laws? How has that worked out exactly?
    I live in a state that is more likely to enforce drug laws than the current federal government is. If Texas was the capital of the US there would be tanks in the streets of Washington state and Colorado and goons rounding up dispensary owners and customers. We can't even buy alcohol at certain hours of the day(light) and on certain days of the week. State tyranny isn't any different than national tyranny.

    As for bills to get the federal government out of marriage, in 2007 Ron Paul introduced a bill to abolish the IRS.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-...-resolution/23

    What does that have to do with the federal government and marriage? EVERYTHING! One of the stickiest issues in marriage is the so called "tax benefit". It's actually a penalty to some and a benefit to others. If you and your spouse have similar incomes, quite likely for same sex couples, [b]it is a marriage penalty[b]. Get rid of the income tax and there is no need to file married, single or otherwise. Also the fact that health insurance is tied to marriage is a result of income tax policy. Employers, not individuals, get the tax write off so employers, not individuals, shop for plans. If individuals were making that decision, insurance companies would be tripping over themselves to offer more flexible plans. Look at the competition in cell phones where Sprint offers the "framily plan" where you can define your group cell phone plan however you like. That would be true of insurance if not for federal government interference. The other bigaboo is Social Security. If it was replaced with private retirement accounts you would be able to leave the money to whoever you want regardless of whether that person was your "spouse".
    If we want the government out of marriage then let's stop pussy-footing around and say we want the government out of marriage rather than courting christians and avoiding saying that we want the government out of marriage. Until then, save me the propaganda of state's rights. This movement has helped elect people at the national and state level yet nobody elected seems to want the government out of marriage. When someone like Ron Paul proposes abolishing the IRS, the main reason anybody can understand it, is because they steal almost half of our income. As it is, marriages allow us to keep a portion of our income that the IRS would otherwise take.

    You've got it exactly backwards. The whole "Let's make the states recognize gay marriage" is like saying "We should get rid of welfare. But in the meantime illegal immigrants are not benefiting from it and that's not fair so let's expand it." Or "Let's get rid of affirmative action. But before we get rid of it, let's expand it to gay people."
    Illegal immigrants are benefiting from welfare so you're point is not very solid.

    The truth is folks like you want to ban immigration until welfare is abolished, even though welfare won't be abolished. The majority of welfare goes to legal citizens and illegal immigrants are your scapegoat to blame it on. Legal citizens vote in favor of welfare and will continue to do so until you change their minds. The New Deal won, and even Republicans support it but continue to blame illegal immigrants. It's just like blaming the Fed while ignoring the fact that most people want the fed.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    I live in a state that is more likely to enforce drug laws than the current federal government is. If Texas was the capital of the US there would be tanks in the streets of Washington state and Colorado and goons rounding up dispensary owners and customers. We can't even buy alcohol at certain hours of the day(light) and on certain days of the week. State tyranny isn't any different than national tyranny.
    I feel sorry for you. But at least you have the option of moving to another state. You also live in a state where one of the mayors of a major city is using "gay rights" as a fascist weapon against her Christian critics. Should "gay rights" become federalized such oppression could spread.

    If we want the government out of marriage then let's stop pussy-footing around and say we want the government out of marriage rather than courting christians and avoiding saying that we want the government out of marriage. Until then, save me the propaganda of state's rights.
    Are you serious about repealing the income tax? I am. Are you serious about privatizing social security? I am. Those are the main reason why the federal government is entangled in marriage.

    This movement has helped elect people at the national and state level yet nobody elected seems to want the government out of marriage. When someone like Ron Paul proposes abolishing the IRS, the main reason anybody can understand it, is because they steal almost half of our income. As it is, marriages allow us to keep a portion of our income that the IRS would otherwise take.
    Do you understand that for gays marriage will likely cause their income tax bills to increase? No you must not.

    http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-t...174620422.html
    http://www.advocate.com/business/201...e-bigger-usual

    Note the 2nd article I posted is from the "advocate" which is a pro gay magazine. Even they understand that marriage might be particularly hard on gays when it comes to income taxes. So why don't you hear more about this in the media? Because the gay rights movement isn't really about helping gays.

    Illegal immigrants are benefiting from welfare so you're point is not very solid.
    And gays are getting married so your point is not very solid. Illegal immigrants are not benefiting from welfare as much as they could be. Their access to welfare could be expanded. Should it be expanded in the interest of "fairness"?

    The truth is folks like you want to ban immigration until welfare is abolished, even though welfare won't be abolished.
    Where did I say I wanted to ban immigration? In fact where did I say I wanted to ban gay marriage? I haven't. When you have to make up an argument for your opponent then it shows you are losing the argument. My point was, and is, that saying "We must expand the federal government role in marriage before we can roll it back" is like saying "We must expand welfare before we can roll it back." Neither argument makes any sense. Hey, if you want to push for gay marriage simply because on that issue you are liberal than just say it and be done with it. If a black person who is otherwise pro liberty wants to support an increase in affirmative action he should just say it and be done with it. Be yourself. I'm not stopping you.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I feel sorry for you. But at least you have the option of moving to another state. You also live in a state where one of the mayors of a major city is using "gay rights" as a fascist weapon against her Christian critics. Should "gay rights" become federalized such oppression could spread.
    While true, this ignores the fact that nobody should have to move to another place for the sake of escaping tyranny. And I mean this for all places on the planet.

    Are you serious about repealing the income tax? I am. Are you serious about privatizing social security? I am. Those are the main reason why the federal government is entangled in marriage.
    If taxation == theft, theft == crime, and crime == intolerable, then all taxation should be eliminated. To do otherwise = silent consent to crimes against oneself and all his fellows.

    This is very simple, yet unbreakable logic. The conclusion reached depends 100% upon the predication of the primary assumption: taxation = theft. If taxation == theft, assuming the trivial cases that theft == crime and crime == intolerable (a no brainer?), then all taxation is intolerable as unforgivable sin against the Individuals.

    To my eyes it is a staggering condemnation of the predilections of some men that in the face of so perfectly simple a syllogism they still arrive at the same wrong conclusions by way of either ignoring the brute force of the logic altogether, or through the attempt at mitigating the semantics of the conclusions to which it so forcefully points with glaring clarity by playing the "necessity" card (how will the roads be built, etc.) Far worse still, is the fact that the rest tolerate this in any measure whatsoever. The pox is less upon Themme than upon us, for we have the numbers by which to sweep Themme and their progeny into the void. Yet, we lie back as pestilent whores, tolerating the bad breath, greasy skin, and flakey scalps of the ones who buy us with their bribes such that we inevitably become familiar and thereby comfortable with the waves of disgust that rise up in response to our betrayal of ourselves and thereby of the sacred gift of freedom bestowed upon us by God Himself. We mock God and the goodness and propriety for which that concept stands. We soil it with our corruption; the filth of our moral lassitude; our lust for that which is easy over that which is right.

    Do you understand that for gays marriage will likely cause their income tax bills to increase? No you must not.
    I have had literally hundreds of ***** acquaintances and several close friends. While generally very intelligent people, politically speaking they are stoopid beyond all hope of salvation. This is because for the most part they are weak. They are literally ****, and I am serious when I say that it pains me to say it because they are not evil folk. They are, however, hopelessly wed to their fear and the refusal to face certain facts of life. This damns them to eternal conjugation with notions so patently and impossibly absurd that there is literally no hope to bring them around under the current environmental circumstances. The ONLY thing that will bring some of them around, to my mind, is a reset event of sufficient enormity and threat to their immediate survival that the choice to change and live or remain inert and die pretty much on the spot faces them. A meteor strike; a super volcanic eruption; massive earthquake; sufficient collapse of the national economy - these are the sorts of events to which I refer. If the small ocean of ***** in Greenwich Village find themselves in the midst of, say, food riots when the grocery shelves go bare, they will no longer enjoy the luxuries of environmental support for their endlessly stupid political postures. They will be faced with the choice to wise up NOW or die in the coming minutes. I suspect many will be unwilling or otherwise unable to make the transition into the real world. So be it.

    Note the 2nd article I posted is from the "advocate" which is a pro gay magazine. Even they understand that marriage might be particularly hard on gays when it comes to income taxes. So why don't you hear more about this in the media? Because the gay rights movement isn't really about helping gays.
    *****, like so many other subgroups, are to me rather infamous for cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They appear loathe to think beyond the boundaries set by the ends of their cute little button-noses where their political notions are concerned. They will demand this marriage nonsense, they will get it, and then they will take in not only up the butt, but in the neck where taxation is concerned, unless of course there is some special dispensation made in the tax code for the *****. This is a possibility one should not brush off too casually. Remember that there is a massive social engineering effort afoot. The ultimate intentions behind it may be good or malicious. The fact that there is a conspiracy at play cannot be denied; it is so in our faces that most appear incapable of seeing it... or unwilling. There is an agenda on the table and it is no longer being held latent. Regardless of the intentions behind the project, it is there, it is fact, and I believe that nearly any twist is possible when one considers how hopelessly fouled up the thinking becomes when the distortedly mutated notions of "equality" and "fairness" come into the mix. I can readily envision an income tax exemption for the gays based on the view that they are "victims" and must be handled specially... "fairly" to make them "equal" with the evil white heterosexual male, which is in this view the greatest evil in the galaxy. That way, the pansies get everything they think they want while the rest take it in the neck.

    And gays are getting married so your point is not very solid. Illegal immigrants are not benefiting from welfare as much as they could be. Their access to welfare could be expanded. Should it be expanded in the interest of "fairness"?
    Rather, WILL it? I suspect we all know the answer to that. The Cloward-Piven strategy is alive and laboring at high-steam in the USA.
    Last edited by osan; 10-22-2014 at 02:44 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  19. #46
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    While I don't believe God should be written into legislation, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with using God in debating legislation.
    I didn't say "wrong", I wrote "problematic". The two are not the same in the least, especially in this context. My parlance was intended to underscore the fact that the injection of "god" into the argumentation immediately turns hordes of people away from you. There is no need to put God into the argument. This fact is for me proof of God's benevolence and humility. He gave us the means by which to arrive at the correct solutions to our troubles without having to resort to references to Him. Such references, while perhaps appreciated by the Great Engineer, are not necessary. Given how hopelessly ignorant of stupid/stoopid so vast a multiplicity of folks appear to be, it is no wonder He made this provision. Otherwise, we would have collapsed into extinction long ago.

    Unlike so many others of the religious bent, I do not believe God stands before a mirror, staining it with spooge as he strops like a wild man to the strains of the praises heaped upon him by his human creation. I mean no offense, but this image of God is to me endlessly unlikely. I just do not see God as that small-minded that he mandates "worship me while I wanketh before mine mirror lest I consign thee all to eternal fire". I mean... really? To my way of seeing things, were anything to piss God off in royal fashion, would it not be this wholly irrational and somewhat obscene construction of what He wants of us? I just do not get the "standard" view.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake;5679827
    Do you understand that for gays marriage will likely cause their income tax bills to [b
    increase[/b]? No you must not.

    http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-t...174620422.html
    http://www.advocate.com/business/201...e-bigger-usual

    Note the 2nd article I posted is from the "advocate" which is a pro gay magazine. Even they understand that marriage might be particularly hard on gays when it comes to income taxes. So why don't you hear more about this in the media? Because the gay rights movement isn't really about helping gays.
    Do you realize that the first of those articles is referencing Obamacare as a reason for more taxes on couples both gay and straight?

    Nope, can't let those gays have marriage because Obamacare says it's bad.

    Both articles say IF couples meet a certain standard of income they might have to pay in more. But if they don't, then they don't. That is the case regardless of gay or straight.

    Don't like Obamacare? Fine. Let's get rid of it.

    Don't like discrimination laws? Fine. Let's get rid of them.

    Don't like the IRS, fine let's get rid of it.

    Don't like marriages that you don't approve of. Get the $#@! out of people's families. It's none of your business. Even if the govt got out of marriage licensing (which they won't), you'd probably still be very worried about what the gays are doing in their personal lives. The bible commands you to be concerned about it. That's what it boils down to.

    Almost nobody gave a $#@! about govt licensed marriage before the gays got involved... except for the Mormons. What we have here is a mostly Protestant populace that wants to legislate how society lives and it's biting them in the ass. Deal with it. Gay marriage won't be stopped. It's obvious that it won't.
    Last edited by fr33; 10-24-2014 at 11:27 PM.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    It seems that there is much focus on what federal benefits/penalties a marriage license brings. When gays ask for the equality of marriage they are not "cutting off their nose to spite their face." There are many, many benefits that marriage grants other than at a federal level. The combination of these benefits may outweigh, for them, any marriage penalties. Benefits such as medical that allow visitation if a partner is hospitalized and the ability to make medical decisions if the partner is unable to express their desires. Employment benefits such as shared health plans. Death benefits. Housing benefits. The list is quite extensive. "Tradition" marriage partners just automatically get these benefits. Sometimes they do not even realize the extent of what they receive through marriage.

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    Do you realize that the first of those articles is referencing Obamacare as a reason for more taxes on couples both gay and straight?
    Fine. Here's an article that talks about the marriage tax penalty without referencing Obamacare.

    http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...-will-cost-you

    Here's the point. If two people have disparate incomes they are helped by filing married. If their incomes are the same they are hurt by filing as married. Considering that people of the same gender are more likely to have similar incomes than people of different genders, marriage will likely be a tax penalty for most gay couples.

    Nope, can't let those gays have marriage because Obamacare says it's bad.

    Both articles say IF couples meet a certain standard of income they might have to pay in more. But if they don't, then they don't. That is the case regardless of gay or straight.
    Umm....yeah. But if you have any knowledge of income distribution you'll know that people of the same sex are more likely to fall into the category where their taxes go up. You are trying to talk about something that you haven't researched.

    Don't like Obamacare? Fine. Let's get rid of it.
    I agree. That's what the rest of us are doing rather than focusing on gay marriage.

    Don't like discrimination laws? Fine. Let's get rid of them.
    Fine by me.

    Don't like the IRS, fine let's get rid of it.
    I agree. That's what the rest of us are doing rather than focusing on gay marriage.

    Don't like marriages that you don't approve of. Get the $#@! out of people's families. It's none of your business. Even if the govt got out of marriage licensing (which they won't), you'd probably still be very worried about what the gays are doing in their personal lives. The bible commands you to be concerned about it. That's what it boils down to.
    Guess what? Those of us that you want to hate on so bad are the ones wanting to get the government out of people's families. That's done by getting rid of the IRS, privatizing social security etc.

    Almost nobody gave a $#@! about govt licensed marriage before the gays got involved... except for the Mormons.
    Actually that's not true. Marriage licenses began in the U.S. as a way to stop interracial marriage. I think torchbeaer for pointing that out to me. That's why I believe the answer to this whole mess is to get the government out. But the first step is to get the federal government out. And that's what most of us care about. But for whatever reason you can't get over the fact that the government isn't getting enough taxes from gay people.

    What we have here is a mostly Protestant populace that wants to legislate how society lives and it's biting them in the ass. Deal with it. Gay marriage won't be stopped. It's obvious that it won't.
    If you're so confident about that, ten why are you wasting your time blabbering in this thread? Yes I'm sure gays are going to fall for this Trojan horse. The march towards bigger and bigger government is pretty near inevitable. That doesn't mean I have to go along with it.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    It seems that there is much focus on what federal benefits/penalties a marriage license brings. When gays ask for the equality of marriage they are not "cutting off their nose to spite their face." There are many, many benefits that marriage grants other than at a federal level. The combination of these benefits may outweigh, for them, any marriage penalties. Benefits such as medical that allow visitation if a partner is hospitalized and the ability to make medical decisions if the partner is unable to express their desires. Employment benefits such as shared health plans. Death benefits. Housing benefits. The list is quite extensive. "Tradition" marriage partners just automatically get these benefits. Sometimes they do not even realize the extent of what they receive through marriage.

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html
    Most of those can be handled without the government involved at all. In fact you're better of drawing up your own contracts than going along with supposed "marriage benefits". Do you want your spouse to only get 30% of your estate? Then go along with the "government benefit" instead of doing the sensible thing and drawing up a will. "Ma roads! Without the government I can't has ma roads!"
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    If you're so confident about that, ten why are you wasting your time blabbering in this thread? Yes I'm sure gays are going to fall for this Trojan horse. The march towards bigger and bigger government is pretty near inevitable. That doesn't mean I have to go along with it.
    To point out the futility of trying to end marriage licensing.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    To point out the futility of trying to end marriage licensing.
    Like I said. Getting the federal government out of marriage = getting rid of the IRS and privatizing social security. Those are by far the two biggest federal impacts on marriage. Last time I checked those were two major goals of the liberty movement. They may be "futile" as you say, but they are worth fighting for.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. TN Judge declines divorce case, citing gay marriage ruling
    By Lucille in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-03-2015, 08:24 PM
  2. What does the Libertarian model for marriage look like?
    By JohnCifelli1 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 07-03-2015, 11:54 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-08-2014, 04:09 PM
  4. Racist Judge Inadvertantly Makes the Case For Gay Marriage
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 05:00 PM
  5. Case For Polyandry, Marriage All Around
    By cheapseats in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 07:05 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •