Same sex marriage compromise

maquiscat said:

So then you disagree with the part of the Declaration of Independence that people "...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."?

Click to expand...

They are words. There is no "creator" and rights don't work that way.

Cephus said:

They are words. There is no "creator" and rights don't work that way.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. You are coming from a completely different premise than I am. I will grant you your logic based upon that premise. My focus wasn't so much on the "creator" aspect as it was on the concept that we do have certain basic rights that are not granted by law but protected by it.

maquiscat said:

Fair enough. You are coming from a completely different premise than I am. I will grant you your logic based upon that premise. My focus wasn't so much on the "creator" aspect as it was on the concept that we do have certain basic rights that are not granted by law but protected by it.

Click to expand...

The problem is, this isn't a premise, it deals with reality. There simply is no evidence that rights exist or operate the way that many libertarians wish they did. It's just a bunch of philosophical masturbation, not borne out by facts or logic, only by wishful thinking and faith. The question is, where did these "rights" come from, what guarantees them and how have you worked out exactly what these rights are, using only evidence and reason? It's something that I've yet to see a single libertarian be able to answer logically.

Cephus said:

The problem is, this isn't a premise, it deals with reality. There simply is no evidence that rights exist or operate the way that many libertarians wish they did. It's just a bunch of philosophical masturbation, not borne out by facts or logic, only by wishful thinking and faith. The question is, where did these "rights" come from, what guarantees them and how have you worked out exactly what these rights are, using only evidence and reason? It's something that I've yet to see a single libertarian be able to answer logically.

Click to expand...

How many libertarians don't know (In their mind.) that it's everyone's God-given right to exclude all Black people from their restaurants? (Not because they're prejudiced, but strictly for property rights, of course.)

When they manage to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and make that legal, I'll start paying a little attention to that minority group.

Until then, I'll give them the respect that they deserve. Which is equal to zero.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Jerry said:

Again, yes you did, right here:

You specified "two". You went out of your way to include an arbitrary limit on the number of consenting adults in the union. That's bigoted and very intolerant.

Click to expand...

You may have wanted me to make some other statement, but I did not. Now that we know you troll, I will just say this: I made a statement about what I support, that does not say anything about what I do not support. Being in favor of a group of two is not a statement of how I feel about a group of 3, 5, 25, or even your group of 1.

shrubnose said:

How many libertarians don't know (In their mind.) that it's everyone's God-given right to exclude all Black people from their restaurants? (Not because they're prejudiced, but strictly for property rights, of course.)

Click to expand...

Let's make this easy. There is no evidence for any gods so let's take that right off the table. And yes, lots of libertarians are completely alright with personal racism, sexism, discrimination, etc. Personally, I don't care who you hate, I just care that you're not allowed to openly act on that hatred. I don't go in for mindcrime, that's a liberal thing.

When they manage to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and make that legal, I'll start paying a little attention to that minority group.

Click to expand...

The problem is, I don't think it's possible in today's political climate to make a single change to the Constitution, especially since so many people treat it like a holy document that can never be changed under any circumstances. I think that while it was designed to be a living document, it keeled over a long time ago.

Cephus said:

The problem is, this isn't a premise, it deals with reality. There simply is no evidence that rights exist or operate the way that many libertarians wish they did. It's just a bunch of philosophical masturbation, not borne out by facts or logic, only by wishful thinking and faith. The question is, where did these "rights" come from, what guarantees them and how have you worked out exactly what these rights are, using only evidence and reason? It's something that I've yet to see a single libertarian be able to answer logically.

Click to expand...

It's a premise and a perception. Unless you want to call out the founding fathers on the same premise I share which then would say to me that you also question the premise the foundation the constitution was written upon. As for right not working the way I am touting then at this point gays don't have a right to marry and are trying to create that right. But the way the liberals are saying it they are being denied a right they currently have. Liberals, libertarians, and conservatives all carry on about what rights they have, so this isn't just a libertarian issue.

shrubnose said:

How many libertarians don't know (In their mind.) that it's everyone's God-given right to exclude all Black people from their restaurants? (Not because they're prejudiced, but strictly for property rights, of course.

Click to expand...

Not all libertarians believe in God given rights. The Wiccan libertarians believe in Goddess given rights and the atheist libertarians believe in natural rights. Religion is irrelative to this. Believing in the freedom to discriminate does not automatically equate to the desire or practice of discrimination. It is no different from believing in the right to free speech even if that speech is undesirable.

Cephus said:

Let's make this easy. There is no evidence for any gods so let's take that right off the table. And yes, lots of libertarians are completely alright with personal racism, sexism, discrimination, etc. Personally, I don't care who you hate, I just care that you're not allowed to openly act on that hatred. I don't go in for mindcrime, that's a liberal thing.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between being alright with something and being willing to tolerate it because you value freedom over your personal beliefs, likes and dislikes. We have freedom of speech. One can say all kinds of hateful things about whatever race. That is as much openly acting on a hatred as trying to cause one physical harm. Yet that is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Libertarians simply believe that some things should be changed by social pressure and not by force of law to remove freedoms.

maquiscat said:

It's a premise and a perception. Unless you want to call out the founding fathers on the same premise I share which then would say to me that you also question the premise the foundation the constitution was written upon. As for right not working the way I am touting then at this point gays don't have a right to marry and are trying to create that right. But the way the liberals are saying it they are being denied a right they currently have. Liberals, libertarians, and conservatives all carry on about what rights they have, so this isn't just a libertarian issue.

Click to expand...

Absolutely I do, the founding fathers were just men, they had their biases and their beliefs and made claims based on them. That doesn't make those claims true. And while you are right that people do carry on about what rights they have, they have to have a logical position to start from. The Constitution lays out some rights that society had granted to the people who were a part of that society. That's where the rights came from. To say that it was just spelling out rights that existed elsewhere is absurd unless you can actually demonstrate where those rights existed prior to the society that granted them. While I don't want to speak for you, I've run into lots of libertarians who simply want these rights to exist but they can't justify them rationally outside of a social context, therefore they basically make them magic. They're just there! Unfortunately, that just makes no rational sense.

There is a difference between being alright with something and being willing to tolerate it because you value freedom over your personal beliefs, likes and dislikes. We have freedom of speech. One can say all kinds of hateful things about whatever race. That is as much openly acting on a hatred as trying to cause one physical harm. Yet that is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Libertarians simply believe that some things should be changed by social pressure and not by force of law to remove freedoms.

Click to expand...

But the law is a form of social pressure, the people elect people to represent their wishes and desires and codify them into law. That's the one thing that libertarians don't seem to be able to grasp. The government isn't an alien entity imposed on us from above, it's the legislative arm of society! It is the way it is because society wants it that way!

Cephus said:

But the law is a form of social pressure, the people elect people to represent their wishes and desires and codify them into law. That's the one thing that libertarians don't seem to be able to grasp. The government isn't an alien entity imposed on us from above, it's the legislative arm of society! It is the way it is because society wants it that way!

Click to expand...

Libertarians are not all racists, but they advocate laws that make life better for racists and bigots.

I doubt that libertarians will ever control the U.S. government.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Smeagol said:

The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?

Click to expand...

This notion about getting government out of marriage is pointless. Marriage is about property (and love of course), and government's main function is property and ownership (land, homes, possessions, wealth, children, etc.) Government can't get out of marriage as long as marriage can be dissolved.

shrubnose said:

Libertarians are not all racists, but they advocate laws that make life better for racists and bigots.

Click to expand...

I never said for a second that any libertarians were racists, I just don't think they understand the world around them.

I doubt that libertarians will ever control the U.S. government.

I think the chances of them ever being in charge are somewhere between none and none.


"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Click to expand...

Cephus said:

I never said for a second that any libertarians were racists, I just don't think they understand the world around them.

Click to expand...

And why is that?

Kreton said:

And why is that?

Click to expand...

A lot of their positions, and I am speaking in very general terms, are based on wishful thinking, not in demonstrable reality IMO.

Cephus said:

A lot of their positions, and I am speaking in very general terms, are based on wishful thinking, not in demonstrable reality IMO.

Click to expand...

An example perhaps?

Kreton said:

An example perhaps?

Click to expand...

Some of the libertarians on this thread 'think' that they are going to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Not going to happen.

Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

About thirty years from now whites will be a minority of the U.S. population.

Think about it.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Kreton said:

An example perhaps?

Click to expand...

Natural rights.

shrubnose said:

Some of the libertarians on this thread 'think' that they are going to change the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Not going to happen.

Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

About thirty years from now whites will be a minority of the U.S. population.

Think about it.



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Click to expand...

maybe i missed that post. I am a card carrying member of the libertarian party. I have been to the rallies from time to time and have helped raise funds. In short, i have been around a lot of libertarians. I can say that not once has repealling the 1964 civil rights act come up. Maybe they are hiding it from me, but it seems more likely that you are mistaken.

Cephus said:

Natural rights.

Click to expand...

Ok, can you elaborate and actually explain what you are talking about? If you are going to give some vague nonsensical answer you should just not reply. It would be simpler.

Kreton said:

maybe i missed that post. I am a card carrying member of the libertarian party. I have been to the rallies from time to time and have helped raise funds. In short, i have been around a lot of libertarians. I can say that not once has repealling the 1964 civil rights act come up. Maybe they are hiding it from me, but it seems more likely that you are mistaken.

Click to expand...

It was brought up on this thread.

That is a fact.

shrubnose said:

It was brought up on this thread.

That is a fact.

Click to expand...

That is also you mistaking a statement of what one believe the right to be as a call to repeal legislation.

Kreton said:

Ok, can you elaborate and actually explain what you are talking about? If you are going to give some vague nonsensical answer you should just not reply. It would be simpler.

Click to expand...

You asked for an example of something ridiculous that libertarians hold to be true, I gave you an example. If you don't understand the example, ask specific questions and I'd be happy to answer them.

In my opinion, there shouldn't be any legally recognized marriages. At least when it comes to taxes and other benefits. People who want to get benefits should have to go through legally recognized civil unions. Marriage is a religious ceremony and should remain as such and have no legal standing.

Cephus said:

You asked for an example of something ridiculous that libertarians hold to be true, I gave you an example. If you don't understand the example, ask specific questions and I'd be happy to answer them.

Click to expand...

Of course he was asking you to explain why it was ridiculous.

Henrin said:

Of course he was asking you to explain why it was ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Because it's wholly unsupported by logic or reason, of course.

Cephus said:

Because it's wholly unsupported by logic or reason, of course.

Click to expand...

Your evidence of this is what?