So, then, you might be gay in SF or in another environment.
Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
So, then, you might be gay in SF or in another environment.
apple0154
MEOW
I take it the good schoolboy did a lot more riding than just on his motorcycle.
But was there a big push for deforestation back then?
No deforestation. Thank God!
Actually, I was a good boy. Never went too far. Papa made it clear if I got a gal in "trouble" it would be the last gal I'd ever get in trouble.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Libertarians do tend to be socially liberal, but isn't it odd how there seems to be a division between social conservatives and libertarians based on religious beliefs? If you read through this thread, that's the glaring contrast between the two groups. For whatever reason, Libertarians are all in favor of individual liberty for a homosexual to marry a homosexual, but the individual liberty to oppose that, or to base your views on any religious teaching, is a big no-no! They apparently support any liberty anyone wants to express except the liberty to express our religious faith. With Gay Marriage, they have tied the issue to this forbidden religious faith, and break from their "small less intrusive government" position, in order to have government mandate a social policy. I'm sure they would be opposed to government mandating that we all accept a religious philosophy, but they are perfectly okay with government mandating we all accept a social philosophy.
Express away, just not in legislation. I respect people's beliefs and always have. I would never attempt to force your church to accept gays, or to marry them for instance.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why isn't "express away, just not in legislation" what we hear regarding gay marriage supporters? Why does your "libertarianism" change depending on an individual's religious faith and viewpoint?
Actually, it is exactly what I have said from the beginning and you are just being deliberately obtuse. Keep government out of marriage (don't express it in legislation). What we object to is the idea that we should pass laws to enforce your religious dogma on others.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
No deforestation. Thank God!
Actually, I was a good boy. Never went too far. Papa made it clear if I got a gal in "trouble" it would be the last gal I'd ever get in trouble.
Helps to have good parents. Family values at work for you there, Apple!!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why should we restrict the liberty of others who base their views on religious dogma? You seem to be all in favor of government getting into social reform, as long as it's not religiously based. Do people who hold their religious faith 'sacred' have some lesser right to liberty? Why should they be disallowed the liberty to express what they believe through the political process?
Throughout the "Reality: Homosexual Marriage" thread you argued that affect on others was not the reason to limit gay marriage (#654 is a good example but there are many others). You even went so far as claiming I was creating a straw man, when I was responding to pmp claim that gay marriages have a negative impact on others. Now you are taking up that argument?
It is not your right nor do you have liberty to impose your views on others via state force. You are free to disagree with their marriage or withhold your blessing. That's it.
The government is mandating a social policy based on religion, now. The idea that prohibiting gay marriages through state force is in agreement with limited government principles is nothing but your absurd spin. Was the state of Virginia simply adhering to limited government principles when it denied the Loving's the right to marry?
There is absolutely no limit placed upon your liberty by a marriage of homosexuals that is not also present with a heterosexual marriage. Others are not required to agree with the marriage anymore than they are required to agree with a Britney Spears marriage.
You have yet to show what valid state interest is served in prohibiting gay marriages. You, like the other opponents of gay marriages, do nothing but circle from one discredited argument to the next, desperately spinning to cover the fact that you have no legitimate basis for your position.
It is not your right nor do you have liberty to impose your views on others via state force. You are free to disagree with their marriage or withhold your blessing. That's it.
The government is mandating a social policy based on religion, now. The idea that prohibiting gay marriages through state force is in agreement with limited government principles is nothing but your absurd spin. Was the state of Virginia simply adhering to limited government principles when it denied the Loving's the right to marry?
There is absolutely no limit placed upon your liberty by a marriage of homosexuals that is not also present with a heterosexual marriage. Others are not required to agree with the marriage anymore than they are required to agree with a Britney Spears marriage.
You have yet to show what valid state interest is served in prohibiting gay marriages. You, like the other opponents of gay marriages, do nothing but circle from one discredited argument to the next, desperately spinning to cover the fact that you have no legitimate basis for your position.
Ditzy, your "newest" argument (or the one you are retreating to at the moment) is just as absurd as every other argument you offer. You are basically arguing that any change is advocacy of big government. Was the court advocating big government when it struck down Chicago's ban on handguns? Should gun grabbers be free to express their views in legislation? Should drug warriors be free to express their views in legislation? Should those who wish to allow police to conduct searches without a warrant or probable cause be allowed to express their views through legislation? Were the people who burnt crosses on the lawns of blacks or hanged them just expressing their views? Were the advocates of Jim Crow laws just expressing their views in legislation?
Freedom of expression does not include the right to use force to compel others into adherence with your views. The only right you are championing is the right of the majority to oppress minorities.
Freedom of expression does not include the right to use force to compel others into adherence with your views. The only right you are championing is the right of the majority to oppress minorities.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I've not argued anything. I have asked why religious people don't have the right to express their religious faith in the political process? You seem to have no problem allowing homosexuals to express their beliefs, you don't object to Atheists expressing their beliefs, it appears the only group you are opposed to doing this, is religious people.
Then you don't have that right either! Pretty simple, isn't it? You're just as free to disagree with the 5,000 year old definition of marriage and withhold your blessings!
Again, we've been through this, almost every law on the books can be traced back to some religious teaching or morality rooted in religious dogma. It seems a kind of stupid standard to set, to disallow laws on the basis they could be associated with a religious belief. Limited Government is a great idea, if you applied it equally across the board, but you don't want to do that... you want government to dictate and mandate social policy regarding gay marriage, against the overwhelming will of the people, regardless of whether their viewpoints are religiously based or not... you just lump them all into the same "taboo" group of religious believers who apparently have no rights in your "Libertarian" world!
Well, we're not talking about MY liberty here, there is absolutely no limit placed on YOUR liberty by denying marriage to homosexuals! No one is requiring you to accept traditional marriage between a man and woman, you are free to believe marriage is anything you'd like for it to be.
Oh, but I have shown that, you are just too bigoted and stubborn for it to penetrate your rock-hard pinhead. In fact, my opposition is not even based on a religious viewpoint! It is primarily based on the legal aspects of setting precedent, and the 'equal protection' clause in the Constitution. Once you've established (in law) that we can redefine marriage to accommodate a sexual lifestyle, you MUST (by order of the Constitution) allow such accommodations to ANY sexual lifestyle that demands equal protection. You can attempt to make your "oh, but that's different" arguments, but the basic argument comes down to your personal moral beliefs and what you will and will not accept in society. You've discarded moral constraints, so anything goes! I don't want to live in that society, to be honest.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
At least my view is CONSISTENT! I believe ALL people should have the liberty to express their political views and lobby for legislation they support. I don't seek to dis-include those who I disagree with based on what they believe as part of their religious faith... YOU DO!
Social conservatives should seek counseling with authoritarians in the Dem party. You guys really don't care much about limits on economic liberty so long as you are allowed to limit social liberties. They don't care much about limits on social liberties as long as they are permitted to limit economic liberty. It's the perfect union.
Libertarians should seek common cause with those who are most concerned with limits on liberty, even if they are somewhat indifferent about limits in other areas. In other words, a Republican that is truly committed to economic liberty, but is somewhat indifferent about restricting or expanding social liberties is a good ally for us. Likewise, A Democrat that is committed to social/civil liberties and somewhat indifferent about restricting or expanding economic liberties is a good ally for us.
Libertarians should seek common cause with those who are most concerned with limits on liberty, even if they are somewhat indifferent about limits in other areas. In other words, a Republican that is truly committed to economic liberty, but is somewhat indifferent about restricting or expanding social liberties is a good ally for us. Likewise, A Democrat that is committed to social/civil liberties and somewhat indifferent about restricting or expanding economic liberties is a good ally for us.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And you guys don't care that much about economic liberty so long as you can obtain social liberty not rooted in religious faith. See how that works, moron?
Yes, Libertarians should side with Atheist Socialists who want to 'cleanse' society of any belief in God, so they can more easily implement the Socialist agenda. Libertarianism through Socialism... that makes sense!
A good ally for you, seems to be anyone who doesn't believe in a God, or have any religiously-based morality. If you have to ensure a godless Socialist is elected, that's just the price you have to pay to restrict the liberty of those "Believers!"
You are free to express whatever view you like. Your freedom is not a requirement on anyone else to take those views seriously. If you want to say, "homo marriage is a sin and the bible says so" go for it. But that is not a legitimate argument in our system. It never has been.
Fine, since I am not doing that. No one is arguing that religious people should be denied the right to marry. No one is arguing that only homosexuals be allowed to marry.
The argument is to remove the barriers to freedom and limits on the individual, not to expand them.
Again, you ignore the fact that we have made many changes to limit and permit marriages in the last 5000 years.
Yeah, we've been over it and yet you still return to another discredited argument. No one is arguing that a law be repealed simply because it can be associated with a religious belief. That's absurd. The argument is that your religion alone does not form a valid reason for the state to prohibit others from acting.
There is a valid state interest in prohibiting murder that has nothing to do with religion. What's the valid state interest in prohibiting homosexual marriage? There isn't any. All you have is that it's the will of the majority (motivated by their religious beliefs) and it's tradition (based upon religion). Neither the will of the majority or tradition are valid reasons to limit individual rights.
You are contradicting yourself. According to you, I am being forced to agree with a religious/social philosophy. Now, you claim I am not? Which is it. Are we forced to agree with whatever marriage the state allows or not?
You have not shown anything other than you are full of shit. You are a religious nut who demands the right to "express" himself by denying the right of others.
Your slippery slope argument failed miserably. Freedom of choice or consent from both parties to a contract is required and there is absolutely no reason to assume homosexual marriage will change that. Freedom of choice is the basis for expanding the right to marry to all. Nothing in your arguments about how this must lead to allowing marriage to a minor, dog or mail box has any basis in reality or legal precedent. The court would quickly reject such nonsense and you have failed to show otherwise through any valid argument. You have shown that you have no clue why the court allows or prohibits state action and so your predictions on where it will lead are laughable.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Most Libertarians I know go to church. They also believe that gov't shouldn't make laws that you obviously support.
Yeah right. Do you honestly think anybody buys your bullshit?
I don't care what you base your views on, the majority may not limit the rights of the individual without some legitimate state interest (e.g., the act would violate the rights of another). It does not matter if your views are based on religion, science or tarot cards.
You base this on? Republicans were in power and they focused on limiting social liberties not expanding economic liberties. In fact, they limited economic liberty, as well.
To someone deluded by their own spin, like you, I am sure it does. Anyone that advocates state force to cleanse or discourage the religious or homosexuals is not in favor of social/civil liberties.
I have come into contact with many religious libertarians, including one that was a Catholic Priest. I don't care what you believe about God or homosexuals, so long as you support liberty for all.
The view you have expressed here agrees verbatim with modern socialists (democratic socialists). That is, you are advocating complete majority rule.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And that's NOT what I said, is it?
You are also "free" to express whatever view you like! Your freedom is also not a requirement on the rest of society to take seriously, or to redefine definitions of 5000 year old traditions and customs.
Homosexuals are not barred from getting married, they just can't marry the same sex, but neither can heterosexuals!
But aren't you establishing a barrier to freedom of religious expression by claiming religious beliefs have no place in political discourse? Aren't those individuals being denied the freedom to express their viewpoints because they are based in a religious philosophy?
Well, until a couple hundred years ago, we didn't have the Constitution guaranteeing "equal protection" under the law. So any 'change' now, would have to be done in consideration of that mitigating factor.
And I presented a perfectly valid legal argument for my opposition to gay marriage. And why the hell is someone's personal religious philosophy not a valid reason for them to support or oppose ANYTHING pertaining to the society they live in? That seems to be an obtrusive limitation on THEIR liberty!
Again, my opposition is not based on religion. Homosexuals are not prohibited from marriage or anything else the heterosexual community is allowed to do! Murder most certainly IS a religiously-based morality! It is one of the TEN FRIKIN COMMANDMENTS! If we operated by the "law of nature" the act of murder would be viewed as nothing more than survival of the fittest! Other animals are not guilty of murder... it is a humanistic morality we established a long time ago, and we can argue what the basis is, but it's certainly rooted in mankind's civilization and spiritual enlightenment.
You're not being forced to agree with anything, I never asked you to do so. You don't have to agree with what the state allows or doesn't allow, that is your own personal liberty, I just wondered why you wish to deny that same liberty to those who don't agree with you?
I'm not religious, I am spiritual. I do demand the right to express myself, and I am shocked you, as a supposed libertarian, don't support that right. I have not ever supported denial of liberty to anyone, gay people are perfectly welcome to marry whoever they please, even same-sex partners if they want to, but the state shouldn't sanction their sexual behavior, and we shouldn't redefine laws to accommodate a sexual lifestyle. At the very least, it should be left up to the people of the many states, to determine what standards are set for the society they live in, and those determinations shouldn't be restricted to only secular viewpoints.
Call it what you will, but there is a reason you mentioned "slippery slope" and not me. As much as you want to argue it wouldn't lead to a "slippery slope" you know that what I said was valid and accurate. I presented the basis... The Constitution! It says very clearly, if we establish a law to offer something to one group of people, it must be offered to all groups! We can't discriminate and allow something for one sexual lifestyle, yet deny the very same "right" to other sexual lifestyles, based on our personal taste or moral constraints. Legal precedent is used ALL THE TIME in courts, and they certainly DON'T reject cases on such basis!