Freedom is the ability to do whatever we want as long as we do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Anything beyond that is not freedom.
So
freedom to maim is not freedom?
You're not a libertarian because you don't seem to like libertarian principals.
Which are of course defined by you and just you. Nice setup there. You get to define what libertarian principals are and whenever anyone deviates from what you believe to be libertarian principles you declare they aren't a libertarian.
Once again, I'm not a libertarian because you don't want me to be.
Oh but it makes perfect sense. Slavery is better than everyone getting killed (how having gay marriage and regular marriage sponsored by the state is better than just having regular marriage sponsored by the state), but slavery is still not a good thing.
So you want maximum freedom, but more freedoms than the previous state is a no-no?
Really, do you expect me to buy you're a libertarian when you refuse to accept the next best freedom maximizing option?
I'll only support getting the state out altogether.
And when that never happens....?
You realize your stance is very anti-libertarian no? If you can't get the best option, you accept and even condone anti-libertarian positions?
You are the vegetarian who dislikes the choices of vegetarian dishes and thus orders a 16 oz steak. Can't have the ideal? Well, then it's okay to go with an anti-thetical idea.
You can't understand my position until you look at the analogy seriously.
I can't take your position seriously when you refuse to push for the most freedom maximizing option.
How's the T-bone steak my fair weathered vegetarian friend?
I'm not abandoning it. The state should not have any say in marriage, so I'll always vote that way: always. Just because I vote against gay marriage does not mean I am against the right of association or free speech, it means that I'm against government involvement.
In fact you are abandoning it. Instead of realizing that some things will not go the way you want them and thus accept that we should push for the next best freedom maximizing option, you have an all or nothing take on it. If you can't get state less marriage, then it's okay to bar certain people from marriage and limit their freedoms, which is the antithesis of Libertarianism.
Just because you don't like the menu does not mean you pick something that is against your diet.
Don't look at it like I'm voting against gay marriage, look at it like I'm voting against state involvement with marriage.
But you are voting against gay marriage. Instead of expanding personal freedoms to people, you are for curtailing them. How is that libertarian? Furthermore, your stances end in the most freedom curtailing scenarios. Instead of accepting that somethings are too entrenched to move and thus look for the next most libertarian position, you just throw your hands up and accept anti-libertarian positions.
The ideal is no state marriage. But since we cannot get that, do we just abandon our ideas and accept freedom limiting measures upon people in our society or do we push for freedom maximizing measures?
You want the high and mighty, or nothing at all. As we so rarely ever get the high and mighty, under your stance, we get many anti-libertarian laws rather than libertarian leaning laws. Hard to consider you a libertarian when you are complement with that.
Look at it this way. I don't think gay marriage is really marriage, but with freedom of association, it really doesn't matter.
When it comes to personal freedom and rights it is marriage. Unless you want to argue that the 1,000 or so rights that come with marriage and not civil rights aren't rights because it's two gay people in the contract.
How the hell is it freedom of association?
Hopefully this makes it clearer for you.
Nope. My position has not changed.
The difference between you and I is that you only support the high and mighty and have no problems abandoning libertarianism when you run into turbulence. Also, you have no problems accepting anti-libertarian ideas because you can't get the absolute. If all libertarians followed your stance, we'd get very anti-libertarian laws that did not lean towards personal freedom rather than libertarian leaning laws that seek to maximize personal freedom.
A vegetarian does not order a steak because they do not like the vegetarian options. Similarity, a libertarian does not advocate for anti-libertarian positions because they don't like the options.