Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Which liberties would those be?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

How will giving the all couples equal status diminish liberty? The issue is about prejudice and religious groups using government authority to impose their values on others.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I wonder if it's not one of those "negative" liberties; i.e., the "freedom" not to have to associate with certain classes of people. This to my mind does not seem very free. You mentioned doublespeak earlier. This might be a prime example of such.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Agreed. It is about preventing a minority group from getting what the establishment people have. It is far less about spreading liberty than about keeping a disliked group in their place. It is part of a long long story.

Since you both seem incapable of reasoning it out for yourselves - when gay marriage is enshrined into law, it limits religious liberty. A simple example is that the Catholic Church was told in MA that they would either place adoptive children with gays, or they would be forced to stop providing adoption services, which they had provided in Boston for 100 years, altogether. They chose the latter.

People who disagree with gay marriage or whose religious conscience forbids them from endorsing or supporting homosexuality will be placed on the wrong side of the law. There is great irony in the left's constant refrain about people who want to "force their morality on others through the law". In truth the left loves having the law force morality (or lack thereof) on everyone, as long as that morality (or lack thereof) is theirs.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Since you both seem incapable of reasoning it out for yourselves - when gay marriage is enshrined into law, it limits religious liberty. A simple example is that the Catholic Church was told in MA that they would either place adoptive children with gays, or they would be forced to stop providing adoption services, which they had provided in Boston for 100 years, altogether. They chose the latter.

People who disagree with gay marriage or whose religious conscience forbids them from endorsing or supporting homosexuality will be placed on the wrong side of the law. There is great irony in the left's constant refrain about people who want to "force their morality on others through the law". In truth the left loves having the law force morality (or lack thereof) on everyone, as long as that morality (or lack thereof) is theirs.

Many used to claim that the Bible demands the separation of the races. Try again.

Homosexuality requires a new set of ethical values that accept homosexuality but define what is acceptable and what isn't. Spreading communicable STDs should be unacceptable among any group of people.

Some homosexual adoptions would be troublesome; I don't want two men adopting some twelve-year-old boy and then grooming him to be a participant in homosexual activity with the adoptive "parents". The same applies in parallel for lesbians.

Gays adopting little girls or lesbians adopting little boys -- that troubles me little if at all. It is far better that a child having loving parents themselves of the same gender than no parents at all.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Since you both seem incapable of reasoning it out for yourselves - when gay marriage is enshrined into law, it limits religious liberty. A simple example is that the Catholic Church was told in MA that they would either place adoptive children with gays, or they would be forced to stop providing adoption services, which they had provided in Boston for 100 years, altogether. They chose the latter.

People who disagree with gay marriage or whose religious conscience forbids them from endorsing or supporting homosexuality will be placed on the wrong side of the law. There is great irony in the left's constant refrain about people who want to "force their morality on others through the law". In truth the left loves having the law force morality (or lack thereof) on everyone, as long as that morality (or lack thereof) is theirs.

What about those churches and denominations that want to allow gay marriage? Doesn't not allowing same-sex marraige discriminate about them? Should those churches be considered second-class?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Some homosexual adoptions would be troublesome; I don't want two men adopting some twelve-year-old boy and then grooming him to be a participant in homosexual activity with the adoptive "parents". The same applies in parallel for lesbians.

Try again, looking closely this should give you equal trouble in considering hetero adoptions. Some hetro people who want to adopt, have no business doing so for some of the very same reasons.

Gays adopting little girls or lesbians adopting little boys -- that troubles me little if at all. It is far better that a child having loving parents themselves of the same gender than no parents at all.

Character and parental behavior should be the considerations. These standards apply whatever the sexual orientation the candidate may have. Sexual orientation shouldn't enter into it.

Originally Posted by blackmet

What about those churches and denominations that want to allow gay marriage? Doesn't not allowing same-sex marraige discriminate about them? Should those churches be considered second-class?

The question being discussed here, at least from my perspective, is what the appropriate libertarian position on this issue should be. The argument was made that legalizing gay marriage would be a "more libertarian" environment than we have now. I've explained why that's not the case.

As has been stated above, the libertarian solution is to remove government from dealing with marriage in the way it does now, not to deepen it by adding gays to the equation.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If you think libertarianism is about "destroying privilege"...I'm not sure what to say. Maybe you should go to square one and read Atlas Shrugged.

What Justin said.

That article is simply an expression of what I talked about in my previous post. Libertarians have not been happy with the GOP, for good reason. My argument is that the Republicans must move back in that direction.

Move back in what direction? Back to the old right of the New Deal era? Is that what you are referencing?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I know exactly what you mean, but I was responding to what I believe to be the understanding of "privilege" that Matt1989 is most likely using - the socialist one which seeks to take what someone else has, rather than leaving people free to do as they please.

How does that square with any definition of the word privilege? I don't know what this means.

In any case, the issue of gay marriage cannot possibly be a top priority of anyone who calls themselves a libertarian, and the position Matt1989 has stated is simply incorrect.

It shouldn't be a top priority in the sense you are using it, and no one to my knowledge has made it a top priority. But that doesn't mean it's unimportant, and at this point, I think it's a simple matter of equal rights.

Legalizing gay marriage will only result in more conflicts with the liberties of others, which is no solution at all.

It's stuff like this that makes me point to the article.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The question being discussed here, at least from my perspective, is what the appropriate libertarian position on this issue should be. The argument was made that legalizing gay marriage would be a "more libertarian" environment than we have now. I've explained why that's not the case.

And you are wrong, unless your brand of libertarianism is that brand that closeted neo-cons and religious fundamentalists hide behind to further their own ends. The fact is the equal treatment of all people under a given law in a manner that maximizes liberty, is libertarian.

As has been stated above, the libertarian solution is to remove government from dealing with marriage in the way it does now, not to deepen it by adding gays to the equation.

You paint a picture that isn't there. What is this DEEPENING? Extending is the word you should be using.......extending it by adding gays to the equation. But, based on your arguments lately I fear you really don't want that, for less than libertarian reasons. Please show me that I'm wrong!

Government recording of events (births, deaths), rights (land title, terms of contracts, marriage contracts, conditions of leases, land surveys, flood plain data, etc.) and identities, (formal adoptions, terms parental custody, state of residence) serves a multitude of purposes in an organized society and are vital to enabling the extension of liberty. This recording and tracking is the very basic accounting and the very basis of accountability required to sort out the details and develop the clarity liberty needs. Marriage is part and parcel a civil act with significant impact on individuals and society at large and therefore worthy of civil attention. It should be open to all qualified parties, regarless of race, religion, nation of origin or sexual orientation. It's recording as a contract should be required as well.

This goes back to the very founding of our nation. Even the religious zealots who landed at Plymouth agreed that this SHOULD BE THE PROVINCE OF CIVIL LAW AND NOT A RELIGIOUS MATTER!

To confuse religous doctrine with civil management is folly and one our founding fathers feared for good reason. No serious libertarian would do so.

Now, what one does with a marriage license is a different matter alltogether. Talk of taxing systems, rights to adopt children, emigrate, attend school, etc. are prescriptions that don't need to be applied. These are different debates and don't grow naturally from the legally recorded contract of marriage.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Since you both seem incapable of reasoning it out for yourselves - when gay marriage is enshrined into law, it limits religious liberty. A simple example is that the Catholic Church was told in MA that they would either place adoptive children with gays, or they would be forced to stop providing adoption services, which they had provided in Boston for 100 years, altogether. They chose the latter.

People who disagree with gay marriage or whose religious conscience forbids them from endorsing or supporting homosexuality will be placed on the wrong side of the law. There is great irony in the left's constant refrain about people who want to "force their morality on others through the law". In truth the left loves having the law force morality (or lack thereof) on everyone, as long as that morality (or lack thereof) is theirs.

This example seems to compare with the Jim Crow right of southern city governments to have special seating for whites at the front of busses.

I would agree with English Civil Law as refined by Oliver Wendell Holmes. The rights of individuals do not extend to harming others or infringing on their rights. Thus, free speech does not extend the right to falsely cry 'fire' in a crowded theater. Thus, one's right to wave one's fist around ends where someone else's nose begins.

There is no right to deny equality. Such is a null concept. As soon as one starts denying one class of people what is granted to other classes, one cannot do so in the name of rights and liberty.

One shouldn't deny people family. One shouldn't deny people the opportunity to visit their partners in the hospital. One shouldn't have different tax status for different sorts of people.

But those extending prejudices with long historical precedents generally see their own beliefs as trumping the broad principles of rights and equality. Their prejudice and hatred is different, somehow, than all other prejudice and hatred.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The question being discussed here, at least from my perspective, is what the appropriate libertarian position on this issue should be. The argument was made that legalizing gay marriage would be a "more libertarian" environment than we have now. I've explained why that's not the case.

As has been stated above, the libertarian solution is to remove government from dealing with marriage in the way it does now, not to deepen it by adding gays to the equation.

That would be a consistent libertarian position, assuming the libertarians in question were attempting to remove all special treatment given to those participating in any form of marriage. I am dubious such an effort would gain libertarians additional followers, but it would be a consistent position.

What I more commonly see is those with religious values attempting to keep their own privileges while denying these same privileges to others through the force of the government. What I am seeing is attempts to deny homosexuals equality. I am not seeing attempts to deny married people a special place under law.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

This example seems to compare with the Jim Crow right of southern city governments to have special seating for whites at the front of busses.

I would ask you to provide a logical, rational, fact-based explanation for why sexual behavior is equivalent to race.

Your own vehement bigotry toward Christians is clear. Please show how opposition to gay marriage or disapproval of homosexuality is bigotry.

I would agree with English Civil Law as refined by Oliver Wendell Holmes. The rights of individuals do not extend to harming others or infringing on their rights. Thus, free speech does not extend the right to falsely cry 'fire' in a crowded theater. Thus, one's right to wave one's fist around ends where someone else's nose begins.

There is no right to deny equality. Such is a null concept. As soon as one starts denying one class of people what is granted to other classes, one cannot do so in the name of rights and liberty.

One shouldn't deny people family. One shouldn't deny people the opportunity to visit their partners in the hospital. One shouldn't have different tax status for different sorts of people.

But those extending prejudices with long historical precedents generally see their own beliefs as trumping the broad principles of rights and equality. Their prejudice and hatred is different, somehow, than all other prejudice and hatred.

Where do your notions of rights, equality, prejudice and hatred end? Do you oppose polygamy? Incestuous marriage between two adults? If so, why? And why is that not hatred and prejudice on your part?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I wonder if it's not one of those "negative" liberties; i.e., the "freedom" not to have to associate with certain classes of people. This to my mind does not seem very free. You mentioned doublespeak earlier. This might be a prime example of such.

That's not really negative liberty, which is freedom from coercion by another agent. The freedom to not run into people you don't like isn't any sort of freedom.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Move back in what direction? Back to the old right of the New Deal era? Is that what you are referencing?

I assume the article was re-posted prior to last year's election for a reason.

It shouldn't be a top priority in the sense you are using it, and no one to my knowledge has made it a top priority. But that doesn't mean it's unimportant, and at this point, I think it's a simple matter of equal rights.

...

It's stuff like this that makes me point to the article.

If you are a libertarian (which is not entirely clear to me), do you believe in religious liberty? Do you also realize that church/state conflicts only arise where the state is present?

More importantly, if you believe, reasonably, that people should be free to enter into whatever kind of contract they want to, do you believe others, who are not signatories to that contract, should be forced by the state to honor it?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I would ask you to provide a logical, rational, fact-based explanation for why sexual behavior is equivalent to race.

Your own vehement bigotry toward Christians is clear. Please show how opposition to gay marriage or disapproval of homosexuality is bigotry.

Wouldn't disapproval of a certain lifestyle count as bigotry toward its practitioners?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Since you both seem incapable of reasoning it out for yourselves - when gay marriage is enshrined into law, it limits religious liberty.

When slavery was abolished, did that limit the religious liberty of those who believed that they had a God-given right to own other people?

Why should I respect the "liberty" of those who want to use the force of law to deny same-sex couples the rights that I enjoy with my husband?

A simple example is that the Catholic Church was told in MA that they would either place adoptive children with gays, or they would be forced to stop providing adoption services, which they had provided in Boston for 100 years, altogether. They chose the latter.

The question of adoption rights is a separate issue from that of marriage.

People who disagree with gay marriage or whose religious conscience forbids them from endorsing or supporting homosexuality will be placed on the wrong side of the law. There is great irony in the left's constant refrain about people who want to "force their morality on others through the law". In truth the left loves having the law force morality (or lack thereof) on everyone, as long as that morality (or lack thereof) is theirs.

Nope, not at all. No one on the "left" is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex, or "endorse" homosexuality. It's like endorsing blondes.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If you are a libertarian (which is not entirely clear to me), do you believe in religious liberty? Do you also realize that church/state conflicts only arise where the state is present?

Sure; while I'd prefer to get rid of the State, if I am to have a state, I would prefer to have it separated from the church.

More importantly, if you believe, reasonably, that people should be free to enter into whatever kind of contract they want to, do you believe others, who are not signatories to that contract, should be forced by the state to honor it?

Certainly not. But extending marriage privilege does not amount to increased violation of peoples' rights.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Wouldn't disapproval of a certain lifestyle count as bigotry toward its practitioners?

By that definition, every law is an expression of bigotry.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

When slavery was abolished, did that limit the religious liberty of those who believed that they had a God-given right to own other people?

Why should I respect the "liberty" of those who want to use the force of law to deny same-sex couples the rights that I enjoy with my husband?


The question of adoption rights is a separate issue from that of marriage.


Nope, not at all. No one on the "left" is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex, or "endorse" homosexuality. It's like endorsing blondes.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Sure; while I'd prefer to get rid of the State, if I am to have a state, I would prefer to have it separated from the church.

Certainly not. But extending marriage privilege does not amount to increased violation of peoples' rights.

When the government places its seal of approval on gay marriage, it has ceased to be neutral. It has taken an affirmative position in favor of homosexuality. By definition, that means that anyone who holds a contrary position is in conflict with the law. If you cannot imagine the infinite possibilities for conflict and infringements of religious liberty, I would suggest that you are willfully refusing to contemplate it. Or more likely, that you simply don't care, which is what I would expect.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

That's not really negative liberty, which is freedom from coercion by another agent. The freedom to not run into people you don't like isn't any sort of freedom.

Agreed, and I appreciate the correction in terminology.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

When the government places its seal of approval on gay marriage, it has ceased to be neutral. It has taken an affirmative position in favor of homosexuality.

In favor of freedom.

By definition, that means that anyone who holds a contrary position is in conflict with the law. If you cannot imagine the infinite possibilities for conflict and infringements of religious liberty, I would suggest that you are willfully refusing to contemplate it. Or more likely, that you simply don't care, which is what I would expect.

Not at all. You can continue to believe whatever you want. There are plenty of people who believe all sorts of unpopular things. I happen to believe that pot should be legalized, or at the very least, decriminalized. That places me in direct conflict with THE LAW. But THE LAW is not coming after me because I've voiced an opinion.

The Catholic Church continues to preach against artificial birth control. It can preach away all it wants, but it has lost the debate within secular society. Those who railed against interracial marriages for religious reasons also lost the argument. Over time, the same will probably occur with regard to gay marriage.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

In favor of freedom.

Government licensing has nothing to do with freedom.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your own vehement bigotry toward Christians is clear. Please show how opposition to gay marriage or disapproval of homosexuality is bigotry.

I do not perceive myself as being bigoted towards all Christians. Christians are a very diverse group. Many believe in loving their neighbor, and respecting the golden rule. Many take into consideration the parable of the good Samaritan when deciding who is their neighbor and who is not. Those Christians inclined to believe 'love they neighbor' is a suggestion that they should love everyone are a fine bunch of people. Such a belief is quite compatible with the core values of the hippie Blue Awakening. I flirted with both the Blue awakening and the Red.

But there are also so called Christians who believe their understanding of the Bible is superior to other interpretations, other holy books, other moral systems, and then attempt to impose their morality on others in various ways. Those who attempt to impose their religious values using the force of government are a subset of Christians who get my special attention. I would think a sincere libertarian would understand why without lengthy explanation.

Whether such 'bigotry' is really bigotry or related to the libertarian and liberal notion that the government should not have certain powers is debatable.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I would ask you to provide a logical, rational, fact-based explanation for why sexual behavior is equivalent to race.

I would suggest that all individuals should be equal under law. Rights commonly granted to the white male heterosexuals should in generally be available to all. It is not my place to prove that a particular group should have rights. By default, all should be equal. All should have rights. It is the place of anyone wishing to deny rights and equality to show a basis for denying it. Thus, I would reverse the burden of proof.

In my opinion, if one wants to deny rights, one should have to prove crime beyond reasonable doubt, in a public court, with opportunity to face one's accuser, have a defense council, et-cetera...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Where do your notions of rights, equality, prejudice and hatred end? Do you oppose polygamy? Incestuous marriage between two adults? If so, why? And why is that not hatred and prejudice on your part?

In general, what consenting adults do in private is their own business. Again, I wouldn't think this needs explanation to a sincere libertarian.

Unprotected incestuous sex might produce a less than fully capable child. Anything that might harm a citizen of the US starts to become government business. Instinct, many religious traditions and law all forbid too close unions. I have no problems with such laws as long as the closeness of the unions forbidden have some meaningful relationship to the threat of problems from inbreeding.

I am not particularly opposed to polygamy so long as everyone involved freely consents. Some of the old incidents within the historical Mormon Church seem troubling. If a religious leader uses his status to seek sexual gratification, this troubles me. If religious upbringing includes a teaching that young girls should marry elders, this makes me nervous. I distrust the abuse of religious authority for personal gratification and pleasure.

But even there I would yield to the standard of allowing what consenting adults do in private.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Government licensing has nothing to do with freedom.

From a certain point of view, I suppose it might not.

But I favor Skabungus's earlier argument about the role of government in civil interactions.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I do not perceive myself as being bigoted towards all Christians.

I don't perceive that either, Bob. But JPT's definition of "Christian" appears to be much narrower than ours. I know many, many Christians who are in favor of making gay marriage legal.

What is your position on Arborous Marriages?

Should it be up to the Several States to empower or deny such unions with the Children of Men? Could the Several States limit their citizens to marriages with only the State Tree; the Grey Badger to a Piñon, Odin to a Red (Norway) Pine, CoS to Sugar Maple, etc. Or would any and all be fair wed?

What of the Whig in a Commonwealth who espies an American Elm; but it is later found that the object of his desire is an arbuscle? Is this annullable? A Husqvarnal divorce needful?

Or is this sort of marriage beyond the control of the States until King Numbers nods Severally? What say you on union with the Tree of Liberty? Do advise.

Please consider these as companionable unions and leave your comments upon consummation un-posted. Thank you.
Also, I leave those whose affections are for a forest to a more Progressive Time; the next Awakening perhaps.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I do not perceive myself as being bigoted towards all Christians. Christians are a very diverse group. Many believe in loving their neighbor, and respecting the golden rule. Many take into consideration the parable of the good Samaritan when deciding who is their neighbor and who is not. Those Christians inclined to believe 'love they neighbor' is a suggestion that they should love everyone are a fine bunch of people. Such a belief is quite compatible with the core values of the hippie Blue Awakening. I flirted with both the Blue awakening and the Red.

But there are also so called Christians who believe their understanding of the Bible is superior to other interpretations, other holy books, other moral systems, and then attempt to impose their morality on others in various ways. Those who attempt to impose their religious values using the force of government are a subset of Christians who get my special attention. I would think a sincere libertarian would understand why without lengthy explanation.

You're expressing your own biased POV here, presuming that anyone who opposes gay marriage therefore does not "love their neighbor" with regard to gays. You are probably aware of what the counter argument would be, but are simply uninterested in providing a balanced assessment.

I would suggest that all individuals should be equal under law. Rights commonly granted to the white male heterosexuals should in generally be available to all. It is not my place to prove that a particular group should have rights. By default, all should be equal. All should have rights. It is the place of anyone wishing to deny rights and equality to show a basis for denying it. Thus, I would reverse the burden of proof.

In my opinion, if one wants to deny rights, one should have to prove crime beyond reasonable doubt, in a public court, with opportunity to face one's accuser, have a defense council, et-cetera...

What prospective "right" are we talking about? It's not people's freedom to do whatever they want within the privacy of their own homes. It's not people's freedom to enter into whatever kind of relationship or agreement they want. It's about people claiming a right to have the government sanction their relationship. The prospective right in question is therefore "equal protection under the law". However, in order to claim equal protection, you must show that the two things in question are in fact the same - which means you must explain why homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones, before you can demand that they must be treated equally.

Anything that might harm a citizen of the US starts to become government business.

Big chunk you bit off with that statement.

But even there I would yield to the standard of allowing what consenting adults do in private.

You seem unable to distinguish between what people do in private, and what they demand the government (and their fellow citizens) endorse.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

When the government places its seal of approval on gay marriage, it has ceased to be neutral.

When government grants rights and privileges to some groups, but not to others, it is not being neutral. That bigotry and hatred have been traditional over long periods of time does not mean they should be extended indefinitely.