Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 61

Thread: Statist Lee Bright:Freaks Out About Gay Marriage During Confederate Flag Debate

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Have you ever asked a gay person if they felt that way. I'm sure they would say otherwise. That's basically like saying interracial marriage wasn't banned in the Jim Crow era.
    It wasn't banned. Marriage of any kind has never been "banned." If something is banned that means that if someone participates in that activity, they face a penalty of either a fine or time in prison.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Susan Collins a fiscal conservative? I could have sworn that she was part of the big government, big spending republican senatorial gang.

    Also one doesn't have to be "liberal" on social issues, you just have to be small govt about it regardless of your personal beliefs. Essentially, you have to take a "live and let live" stance of things that doesn't directly affect you. Sorta like the same way Ron supports drug legalization even though he opposes the use of said drugs
    Susan Collins is for lower taxes and is for legal abortion. The way the media defines the term "libertarian," she would quality. (And the way that some here define it) I consider "live and let live" to mean that you oppose fining and imprisoning people for engaging in victimless crimes. That means that you don't have to support either legal abortion or same sex marriage to believe in a live and let live philosophy. On abortion, the live and let live philosophy would be to protect all life from the moment of conception on. The opposite position would actually be a "live and let die" philosophy right? On marriage, since gay couples were never fined or thrown in prison for getting married, those who advocate traditional marriage never advocated violating the non aggression principle. (Unless they advocated the criminalization of homosexuality or gay marriage) The only people who are staunchly opposing the non aggression principle and a live and let live philosophy are the gay rights people who want to fine and/or imprison anyone who won't bake a cake for a gay wedding or photograph a gay wedding.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Susan Collins is for lower taxes and is for legal abortion. The way the media defines the term "libertarian," she would quality.
    And by that definition, Trump would also qualify as a libertarian. Come on, every republican says they are for less taxes and that automatically makes every pro choice republican and every low tax democrat a libertarian. But no serious person believes it, I bet if you asked Susan Collins, she would would totally reject the notion that she is anything close to a libertarian. Like Ron Paul says there is nothing fiscally conservative about increased spending, the money spent would have to be paid back in taxes. So people like Susan Collins with their high spending ways are not fiscal conservatives, their spending today will be paid back in taxes by your children. Lastly, live and let live is just a different way of describing NAP and minding ones own business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    (And the way that some here define it) I consider "live and let live" to mean that you oppose fining and imprisoning people for engaging in victimless crimes. That means that you don't have to support either legal abortion or same sex marriage to believe in a live and let live philosophy. On abortion, the live and let live philosophy would be to protect all life from the moment of conception on. The opposite position would actually be a "live and let die" philosophy right? On marriage, since gay couples were never fined or thrown in prison for getting married, those who advocate traditional marriage never advocated violating the non aggression principle. (Unless they advocated the criminalization of homosexuality or gay marriage) The only people who are staunchly opposing the non aggression principle and a live and let live philosophy are the gay rights people who want to fine and/or imprison anyone who won't bake a cake for a gay wedding or photograph a gay wedding.
    On abortion, I know libertarians are split on the matter, I believe live and let live means that you have no right to interfere in the matters of another person if you are not invited by any of the party in the dispute. In the case of abortion, you don't have any contract, any request from said fetus to enter the debate. But I understand that there is a second interpretation that says one has a right to step and stop the "killing" from happening. Maybe this explains why we are involved in so many humanitarian wars, those libertarian presidents keep getting the call to protect life

    But with gay marriage, we cannot just go with live and let live when there is a govt collecting taxes, dolling about benefits and pushing regulations regarding the use of said license (e.g hospitals: who to consider legal guardian). Here we have to look to the Constitution and the 14th amendment which call for states to offer equal protection under the law to all citizens. So if a gay man bring his marriage certificate, the hospital for example should grant him guardianship of his husband rather than look for next of kin which is usually a family member. The govt (state or federal) should not favor one group over another just because of who they choose to sleep with. This is what they fixed and the real libertarians understand this.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    But with gay marriage, we cannot just go with live and let live when there is a govt collecting taxes, dolling about benefits and pushing regulations regarding the use of said license (e.g hospitals: who to consider legal guardian). Here we have to look to the Constitution and the 14th amendment which call for states to offer equal protection under the law to all citizens. So if a gay man bring his marriage certificate, the hospital for example should grant him guardianship of his husband rather than look for next of kin which is usually a family member. The govt (state or federal) should not favor one group over another just because of who they choose to sleep with. This is what they fixed and the real libertarians understand this.
    The hospital example could have been handled by presenting a private contract, that did not involve the federal government (via court decision) redefining marraige for the whole nation. Real libertarians should be about advocating removal of government taxes, regulations and benefits related to marriage, not telling others to "understand" they should be interim statists who extend the supposed subsidy or favor to additional groups. The federalization of the issue, in either direction, did not fix anything except to further entrench central government with a private institution.

    And yes, it is a group, not individual citizens, who were conferred this privilege by the SC decision. The original intent of the 14th amendment was never meant to even refer to marriage, understood at the time of its passage to be a private or local matter, not a matter of law. There is no right, heterosexual or homosexual, to have a government marriage license, or any other state privilege, thus it was irrelevant to be applying the amendment to a non-rights matter.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    It wasn't banned. Marriage of any kind has never been "banned." If something is banned that means that if someone participates in that activity, they face a penalty of either a fine or time in prison.
    The penalty would be that they could not legally resolve their issues since there marriage doesn't exist according to the state


    His argument for why Susan Collins is a libertarian makes zero sense, and the media would never describe her as a libertarian

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    But with gay marriage, we cannot just go with live and let live when there is a govt collecting taxes, dolling about benefits and pushing regulations regarding the use of said license (e.g hospitals: who to consider legal guardian). Here we have to look to the Constitution and the 14th amendment which call for states to offer equal protection under the law to all citizens. So if a gay man bring his marriage certificate, the hospital for example should grant him guardianship of his husband rather than look for next of kin which is usually a family member. The govt (state or federal) should not favor one group over another just because of who they choose to sleep with. This is what they fixed and the real libertarians understand this.
    The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with creating a right to gay marriage. It's absurd to suggest that the 14th Amendment has anything whatsoever to do with gay marriage when there were even sodomy laws that were enforced when the 14th Amendment was created.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    The hospital example could have been handled by presenting a private contract, that did not involve the federal government (via court decision) redefining marraige for the whole nation. Real libertarians should be about advocating removal of government taxes, regulations and benefits related to marriage, not telling others to "understand" they should be interim statists who extend the supposed subsidy or favor to additional groups. The federalization of the issue, in either direction, did not fix anything except to further entrench central government with a private institution.

    And yes, it is a group, not individual citizens, who were conferred this privilege by the SC decision. The original intent of the 14th amendment was never meant to even refer to marriage, understood at the time of its passage to be a private or local matter, not a matter of law. There is no right, heterosexual or homosexual, to have a government marriage license, or any other state privilege, thus it was irrelevant to be applying the amendment to a non-rights matter.
    I guess they got tired of waiting for the kinks to be worked out. But even if they fix the contract part of the problem, how about the monetary benefits that comes with marriage? they as tax payers would want some of that too. Think of what Ron was doing when he was in congress, he was a big advocate of federal govt taking the bare minimum from the states but while his dream reality wasn't happening, he made sure to bring back as much stolen dough as possible back to his state.

    This is similar to what the gays are doing, they are demanding their fair share of the federal give away while the people worked to fix marriage. If it is OK for Ron to take back money from the feds, it is equally OK for the gays to do the same. Maybe if more people had worked on fixing the system, we wouldn't be at this junction now.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  11. #39
    I always thought Bright was too socially conservative, thought Nancy Mace was a much stronger candidate.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by jkob View Post
    I always thought Bright was too socially conservative, thought Nancy Mace was a much stronger candidate.
    She was much better. Bright sucks.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Have you ever asked a gay person if they felt that way. I'm sure they would say otherwise. That's basically like saying interracial marriage wasn't banned in the Jim Crow era.
    It was.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    She was much better. Bright sucks.
    I highly doubt if Nancy Mace supports a clear anti liberty position like forcing the states to recognize same sex marriages.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Have you ever asked a gay person if they felt that way. I'm sure they would say otherwise.
    Some folks are more interested in facts than the ill-informed feelings of others.

    That's basically like saying interracial marriage wasn't banned in the Jim Crow era.
    You're ignorant. Interracial marriage was actively banned in Virginia, i.e. an interracial couple could be prosecuted for living as man and wife.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Marriage of any kind has never been "banned."
    You should tell that to the polygamists in Utah who have been prosecuted for their nonlicensed polygamous marriages.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
    You should tell that to the polygamists in Utah who have been prosecuted for their nonlicensed polygamous marriages.
    That's true. However, the courts recently ruled that polygamists in Utah have the 1st Amendment right under the freedom of religion clause to enter into non licensed marriages.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I highly doubt if Nancy Mace supports a clear anti liberty position like forcing the states to recognize same sex marriages.
    How is this an anti-liberty position?

    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
    Some folks are more interested in facts than the ill-informed feelings of others.



    You're ignorant. Interracial marriage was actively banned in Virginia, i.e. an interracial couple could be prosecuted for living as man and wife.
    That was my point moron. Same-sex marriage was banned in a variety of states.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    How is this an anti-liberty position?
    Because it violates state sovereignty, gives more power to the federal government and the courts, enlarges the size and scope of government, and leads to the loss of religious liberty.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    That was my point moron. Same-sex marriage was banned in a variety of states.
    No, it wasn't banned. It just wasn't recognized. That's the point that RonPaulGeorge&Ringo was making. Inter racial marriage was actually banned in some states.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Because it violates state sovereignty, gives more power to the federal government and the courts, enlarges the size and scope of government, and leads to the loss of religious liberty.
    And states are violating individual sovereignty. States have no right to restrict your liberties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    No, it wasn't banned. It just wasn't recognized. That's the point that RonPaulGeorge&Ringo was making. Inter racial marriage was actually banned in some states.
    So what was the actual difference between what states that want to refuse gay marriage recognition and interracial marriage. Explain since you think there is a difference.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    And states are violating individual sovereignty. States have no right to restrict your liberties.
    No, they weren't. No state ever criminalized same sex marriage. State governments weren't sending in SWAT teams to arrest gay couples for getting married.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    So what was the actual difference between what states that want to refuse gay marriage recognition and interracial marriage. Explain since you think there is a difference.
    The difference is that gay marriage simply wasn't recognized by the government, while interracial marriage was actually banned. It was illegal.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    No, they weren't. No state ever criminalized same sex marriage. State governments weren't sending in SWAT teams to arrest gay couples for getting married.
    Gays couldn't get married in states before this ruling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    The difference is that gay marriage simply wasn't recognized by the government, while interracial marriage was actually banned. It was illegal.
    That doesn't explain the difference. The state gives you a marriage license so you can get married. Without it, your marriage will not be recognized. What did states do specifically for interracial marriage that makes banning different than simply not recognizing it by the government? States have effectively banned same-sex marriage by not recognizing it.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    No, they weren't. No state ever criminalized same sex marriage. State governments weren't sending in SWAT teams to arrest gay couples for getting married.
    This^^^
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  28. #54
    In days gone by, interracial marriage was actually banned in some areas in the sense that you could be fined and/or imprisoned for doing so.

    I do not think any state did that with same-sex marriage. Not that I think denying recognition for same-sex couples while accepting it for straight couples is right. As a gay man, I certainly do not like that. But the law back then was in fact much worse for blacks in many ways than the recent laws have been for gays.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Gays couldn't get married in states before this ruling.

    That doesn't explain the difference. The state gives you a marriage license so you can get married. Without it, your marriage will not be recognized. What did states do specifically for interracial marriage that makes banning different than simply not recognizing it by the government? States have effectively banned same-sex marriage by not recognizing it.
    Same sex marriage wasn't banned before this ruling. Interracial marriage was actually banned, because the government imprisoned interracial couples. The government never used force against gay couples in any way before this ruling.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    The government never used force against gay couples in any way before this ruling.
    Not for marrying (or attempting to get married), you are right about that, but I would point out that the sodomy laws were an example of the government using force against gay couples. Not a very common charge, but frequent enough that it led to multiple court cases, including two by the Supreme Court.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyFan View Post
    Not for marrying (or attempting to get married), you are right about that, but I would point out that the sodomy laws were an example of the government using force against gay couples. Not a very common charge, but frequent enough that it led to multiple court cases, including two by the Supreme Court.
    Right, but Lee Bright said in his speech that he doesn't care what gays do in their own bedrooms. So it seems like he's taking the libertarian position on this issue to me. He's saying that the government should leave homosexuals alone.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post

    That was my point moron.
    $#@! off, dip$#@!.

    Same-sex marriage was banned in a variety of states.
    This is a false statement. Will you retract it? Or are you still so mind-bogglingly stupid that you still don't get after having it explained to you five times. you obviously have no understanding of natural rights or the principles the USA is built on. Read Justice Thomas' dissent to begin to get a clue. Then maybe you could read the Declaration. Locke wouldn't hurt either, you ignorant asshat.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Same sex marriage wasn't banned before this ruling. Interracial marriage was actually banned, because the government imprisoned interracial couples. The government never used force against gay couples in any way before this ruling.
    Ok so the only difference is blacks were imprisoned in the Jim Crow era. That doesn't change the fact that you cannot legally get married in this state. Marijuana is decriminalized in certain states. Is it still not illegal or banned?

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Then why does he want gay marriage banned? Do you even understand what he's saying. Man shut up. I swear this page is more social con than libertarian. It's ridiculous.
    If you honestly think the recent ruling was the liberty position you are seriously lost. I have no religious beliefs but this is extending govt benefits to more people, how on earth could any libertarian support that? Next, you have to see this is about power and attacking political opponents. Regardless of how you feel about gays, lighting up the white house with Rainbow colors - all the while having a $#@! fit about the Confederate flag - should clue you in this more about trying to squash out any kind of difference of opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by jj- View Post
    No, saying that the state shouldn't define what marriage is is the pro liberty position. You sound like one of those Social Justice Warriors libertarians.
    Spot on!

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    But he's trying to BAN GAY MARRIAGE. Do you not understand this? Are you really trying to suggest the current ruling was better than allowing states to ban gay marriage? Man you statists are annoying.
    Actually he isn't, and gay marriage was not banned prior to this. But polygamy, incest, necrophilia, etc are banned, you can actually be arrested and tried for it, so if you're saying it's wrong for a society to make moral judgements about sex, then you must object to those being illegal or by your own words risk being a statist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    How does it grant that? There is nothing in their ruling that allows for businesses to be forced to serve gays. Even if it did, when did I say I agreed with that. This is about MARRIAGE. Not what you think the state will do next. You continue to dodge the fact that he wants gay marriage banned and attack me for that. Lol go ahead and cry about how you still support this statist.
    It's not just about serving gay customers, now an employer must pay benefits to gay "spouses", and even CNN already put it out there that having certain views on gays is now going to be illegal, see Canada if you want a preview.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Have you ever asked a gay person if they felt that way. I'm sure they would say otherwise. That's basically like saying interracial marriage wasn't banned in the Jim Crow era. That's your interpretation.
    The typical BS argument. Interracial marriage has precedent in many societies, gay marriage does not. Even in open societies like Rome no one ever bitched and moaned that they couldn't marry their gay lover because they all understood that marriage was for man and woman, it was for alliances, reproduction, etc. Gays have made themselves miserable like people on the left always do about every little thing.

    Oh, and let me say, I'm definitely in the camp of getting rid of marriage benefits, I'm just saying if we're going to get into it, marriage was never for gays, that is just a fact, redefining it is just absurd.
    Last edited by HankRicther12; 07-09-2015 at 01:47 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. eBay, Amazon and Valley Forge Flag Ban Confederate Flag Sales
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-03-2015, 07:31 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-21-2015, 07:22 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2015, 06:41 AM
  4. Confederate flag was the flag of traitors?
    By Madison320 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 12:42 PM
  5. Confederate Flag
    By Reason in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 02-27-2009, 11:20 PM

Posting Permissions

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