• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Carrie Prejean Stripped Of Miss California Title

On one level I agree with you and on the other I disagree strongly.

The anti-gay marriage crowd consists primarily of hate groups sprinkled with a dose of ignorance. There are very very few people against gay marriage that don't fit into one of the two groups.

It's sad that you think that way. I cannot believe you have been so sheltered here in LA as to believe that things are that black and white.
 
Think of it this way. She is by any means a bigot. But I honestly could care less what she thinks. And I could care less what people think of her. It's the noise being made about her opinion that is annoying me. A bunch of people making her a little all-American straight white girl martyr for their moral cause du jour is not something I'm willing to allow and yet so many Liberals seem to be helping right wingers just that. I mean it's like you guys don't see that by continuing to talk about her her 15 minutes of fame gets a 3 minute extension. You're making her a victim in the eyes of the right wing. I mean it's because of petty **** like this that they say that the left is waging a culture war.

You are feeding the trolls.
 
Last edited:
It's sad that you think that way. I cannot believe you have been so sheltered here in LA as to believe that things are that black and white.

Maybe I am sheltered living in LA...but the rest of the nation could take a lesson from LA. I find LA to be a very "live and let live" community. The rest of the Country should be that way.

I have yet to hear anyone make a good argument that places the anti gay marriage crowd outside of either the hate group or the ignorant group.
Maybe there is one...I just haven't heard it.
 
Maybe I am sheltered living in LA...but the rest of the nation could take a lesson from LA. I find LA to be a very "live and let live" community. The rest of the Country should be that way.

I have yet to hear anyone make a good argument that places the anti gay marriage crowd outside of either the hate group or the ignorant group.
Maybe there is one...I just haven't heard it.

Religious groups. Many libertarians. Just old folks who can't wrap their mind around the concept. People like my own grandparents on one side of the family. :shrug:
 
Religious groups. Many libertarians. Just old folks who can't wrap their mind around the concept. People like my own grandparents on one side of the family. :shrug:

I link old folks in the "ignorant" group....and I don't mean that negatively. I mean it in the sense that they were simply raised that way and while they may not harbor "hate"...they either or too stubborn in their ways or they simply don't know any gay people or know enough about it to change their views.

Libertarians...on the other hand...if they are true "libertarians" would never be against gay marriage.
 
Libertarians...on the other hand...if they are true "libertarians" would never be against gay marriage.

Really? Because I have found that libertarians tend to be against any expansion of government involvement in marriage. Any expansion of government period, actually.

That's not ignorant or hateful at all.
 
Libertarians...on the other hand...if they are true "libertarians" would never be against gay marriage.
Correct. I'm not sure where that libertarian comment came from. Libertarians are to the left of liberals when it comes to government non-involvement in personal affairs.

Really? Because I have found that libertarians tend to be against any expansion of government involvement in marriage. Any expansion of government period, actually.

That's not ignorant or hateful at all.
Which means they would be against anti-gay marriage legislation. Saying government shouldn't recognize marriage has nothing to do with prohibiting gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Really? Because I have found that libertarians tend to be against any expansion of government involvement in marriage. Any expansion of government period, actually.

That's not ignorant or hateful at all.

Most Libertarians I know believe that government should stay out of the issue as much as possible. They don't believe that government should even be in the marriage business....and if they are....that government should not take a stand in enforcing rules that deny it to some and allow it for others.

The problem with "Libertarians" these days...is that there are a lot of disgruntled Republicans that have adopted the label. It is those "libertarians" that you are probably talking about.
 
Ok, as the topic here is gay mariage. I feel compelled to suggest a solution to the whole problem. This solution was actually proposed by my little brother, and it makes a lot of sense to me:

Here it goes:

The government gives out civil unions (not the crappy half-hearted ones now; basically what is a civil mariage license today) to everyone. Hetero- and homosexual couples alike. Then, religious institutions can MARRY anyone who meets their own religious requirements. Then everyone is happy. All couples are equal in the government's eyes, but mariage is still betweena man and a woman in most religions.
 
Correct. I'm not sure where that libertarian comment came from. Libertarians are to the left of liberals when it comes to government non-involvement in personal affairs.

The libertarian comment came from this being precisely my point.
 
Ok, as the topic here is gay mariage. I feel compelled to suggest a solution to the whole problem. This solution was actually proposed by my little brother, and it makes a lot of sense to me:

Here it goes:

The government gives out civil unions (not the crappy half-hearted ones now; basically what is a civil mariage license today) to everyone. Hetero- and homosexual couples alike. Then, religious institutions can MARRY anyone who meets their own religious requirements. Then everyone is happy. All couples are equal in the government's eyes, but mariage is still betweena man and a woman in most religions.

I would be perfectly fine with that. Leave marriage to religions. Religions can choose to accept same sex marriage or not. Some will...some won't....and the government treats everyone equally.
 
Really? Because I have found that libertarians tend to be against any expansion of government involvement in marriage. Any expansion of government period, actually.

That's not ignorant or hateful at all.

WRONG, many libertarians are against the FEDERAL government expanstion, but have no problem with the state level of it.

Let's be clear, libertarians are against federal involvement, but have no problem with state level hate.

It was Ron Paul after all that said the idea of slavery should have been left to the states and not federal.
 
WRONG, many libertarians are against the FEDERAL government expanstion, but have no problem with the state level of it.

Let's be clear, libertarians are against federal involvement, but have no problem with state level hate.

It was Ron Paul after all that said the idea of slavery should have been left to the states and not federal.

Ron Paul was not indicative of most libertarians in my experience. He was a bat**** crazy loon.
 
WRONG, many libertarians are against the FEDERAL government expanstion, but have no problem with the state level of it.

Let's be clear, libertarians are against federal involvement, but have no problem with state level hate.

It was Ron Paul after all that said the idea of slavery should have been left to the states and not federal.

Ironic that no libertarians are actually commenting on this post :D. Then there wouldn't be much debate on this point.
 
Ron Paul was not indicative of most libertarians in my experience. He was a bat**** crazy loon.

Actually he has been embraced by the libertarians.

He was rejected by conservatives.
 
???but that wasn't your point.....was it????

Yes. That the libertarian argument is against expansion of government involvement in marriage. No hate or ignorance toward gays. Just keeping with their idealogy.
 
Yes. That the libertarian argument is against expansion of government involvement in marriage. No hate or ignorance toward gays. Just keeping with their idealogy.

ACtually the libertarian argument is that the federal government should get out of marriage and that ALL MARRIAGES should be civil and without government benefit. To that end I agree.
 
Yes. That the libertarian argument is against expansion of government involvement in marriage. No hate or ignorance toward gays. Just keeping with their idealogy.

Ok....I see....I just see it differently in that government involvement in marriage is taking a stand to impose government restrictions. I think most libertarians think government should not be involved at all....which would be a much more pro-gay marriage stance.
 
By some libertarians.

By MOST. Most libertarians agree Marriage should not be interviened by the government. And that they should be just civil without government benefit.

I agree with them on that one.

Let marriages be done by whatever institution people want, and let taxes be done by the individual alone with no benefits for being married or unmarried.
 
Ok....I see....I just see it differently in that government involvement in marriage is taking a stand to impose government restrictions. I think most libertarians think government should not be involved at all....which would be a much more pro-gay marriage stance.

I see it as more of an anti-government stand than a pro-gm stance. The two are not necessarily inclusive.
 
Back
Top Bottom