Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

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.

Your insistence on using the terms "bigotry and hatred" show that you are not interested in having an honest discussion in good faith. As such, I'll take your posts as what they are - ideological polemics.

I'm beginning to consider putting the Angry Old White Men around here on ignore, much as I prefer not to.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your insistence on using the terms "bigotry and hatred" show that you are not interested in having an honest discussion in good faith. As such, I'll take your posts as what they are - ideological polemics.

I'm beginning to consider putting the Angry Old White Men around here on ignore, much as I prefer not to.

I don't know why not. It's not as if you are contributing anything particularly interesting to them, and hence not as if putting them on ignore would be doing them any disfavors.

Traditional attitudes towards homosexuals DO constitute bigotry, although I think for most of such bigots "hatred" overstates the case. It comes down to a combination of traditional sexual moral views that were originally aimed at maximizing birthrates (something we hardly need today), combined with personal, visceral squeamishness, i.e. the fact that a lot of straight people (especially straight men) find homosexuality icky. But whatever the source, it takes the form of trying to suppress homosexuality by punishing it in some way. In the barbaric past, the punishment might have been the death penalty. More recently, it was jail time, fines, or denial of jobs or housing. Today, those who want to suppress homosexuality are generally denied the privilege of using anything so crude as that, and are down to denying gay people the right to get married. This is progress.

In any case, suppression of homosexuality is clearly an anti-libertarian position. The argument that mandating gay rights (including gay marriage) infringes on freedom of religion, implies that religions have the right to deny people their rights. No libertarian would believe that this is true. Now, if it happened that a church was required to actually marry gay people, that arguably would be to infringe freedom of religion, but there is no need for that in order to insure a right of gay people to marry. If one church won't marry a same-sex couple, they can find a different church that will, or get married in a civil ceremony.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

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

And since there is nothing wrong with being LGBT (as opposed to something like committing an act of murder), I think I have the right to call homophobes bigots.

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. 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.

Their position is in conflict with the position the law takes; not their existence. It's a key distinction (and an extremely obvious one), and it does not entail infringements of religious liberty. What kind of consequence-based argument is this?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

And since there is nothing wrong with being LGBT (as opposed to something like committing an act of murder), I think I have the right to call homophobes bigots.

You've just made a statement of your personal moral view. Others disagree with you, and you have declared them beneath your consideration when it comes to law. That's a pretty fascist mindset if you ask me.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I dunno, I think the only true libertarian viewpoint on this issue is to keep marriage as a strictly religious ceremony and forget about state-sanctioned marriages of all kinds.

You are right. I agree with you, and that's what I argued previously.

I also seriously don't get how gay marriage somehow affects your religious liberty in a negative way. Maybe you could explain?

I already provided one example. The Catholic Church's freedom to provide adoption services according to its convictions has been directly infringed by MA's legal endorsement of homosexuality. Gays who wanted to adopt were not prevented from seeking another source. Therefore the privileges of gays were elevated at the expense of the freedoms of the Catholic Church. Cases of that kind will multiply over time if these laws spread. It's called "unintended consequences". Although in some case, they are entirely intended.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

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.

Well, yes, I distinguish between those who are tolerant, loving and forgiving and those who attempt to use government force to impose their own system of morality on the culture. If this makes me biased, I guess I'm a biased.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

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.

Actually, while a lot of folks are throwing around the word 'rights,' this might not be the best angle to approach the problem. Let me list four problems gay couples might encounter that hetero couples don't.

1. Many hospitals only allow close family into ICU units.
2. Many hospitals, only release medical data or allow malpractice investigations when a close family member is involved.
3. There are tax advantages only available to recognized couples.
4. Recognized couples find it easier to adopt a family.

To my knowledge, none of the above are specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights / Constitution. To my knowledge, no Enlightenment philosopher argued that any of these are 'natural rights' that God intended all men to have.

The point is that denying these things is just mean and spiteful. One cannot see one's life partner as he is dying? One cannot have a family? One must pay higher taxes?

I can sort of understand how straight men in the military might find it creepy to share a gang shower with gay men. Brian used the word 'icky.' I could see how some might consider that icky.

But preventing tax breaks or not allowing one hospital visits is just mean. Call it civil union, rather than marriage. If a particular religion has a doctrine related to sexuality, sure, they can deny access to sacraments and claim no hope of salvation if they feel it necessary. The government should just not exclude some people from doing things that others can, especially on the basis of religious belief.

I could agree with a libertarian argument that the government should give no special stuff at all to married couples, but denying stuff to some people while allowing it to others is privilege. Laws granting privilege to some while denying it to others would be dubious.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Big chunk you bit off with that statement.

Yep. I was hinting at an argument made by the Right to Life people. They believe a fetus has rights. The government may properly intervene if anything might happen to infringe said rights. This is a very hairy argument I'd rather not go into in depth. It is a dubious argument.

Still, are you really ready to argue that there should be no laws against incestual relationships that are likely to lead to inbreeding problems? If you would care to make such an argument, I'll critique it. As is, I'll just say I have no problem with the sort of laws currently on the books. If you agree, I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

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

Could you build on this point? You asked my opinion on several ancient taboos, and I gave them. Before you take further pot shots at my positions, would you care to elaborate on your own?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You've just made a statement of your personal moral view. Others disagree with you, and you have declared them beneath your consideration when it comes to law. That's a pretty fascist mindset if you ask me.

A fascist mindset does not produce a lefty decentralist libertarian anarchist. It's true, I don't consider what one person, fifty people, or 300 million think when formulating what constitutes justice and what does not. How is that fascistic?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I dunno, I think the only true libertarian viewpoint on this issue is to keep marriage as a strictly religious ceremony and forget about state-sanctioned marriages of all kinds.

I also seriously don't get how gay marriage somehow affects your religious liberty in a negative way. Maybe you could explain?

I think JPT's argument hinges on the fact that, so long as marriage is a political issue (i.e., subject to explicit government definition), the state must assume a position either for or against gay marriage. If it legalizes gay marriage, than it must censure religious denominations that forbid homosexual relationships. The legalization of gay marriage is not so much the problem, then, as is the state's involvement in explicitly defining what constitutes marriage.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I think JPT's argument hinges on the fact that, so long as marriage is a political issue (i.e., subject to explicit government definition), the state must assume a position either for or against gay marriage. If it legalizes gay marriage, than it must censure religious denominations that forbid homosexual relationships. The legalization of gay marriage is not so much the problem, then, as is the state's involvement in explicitly defining what constitutes marriage.

There might also be a problem in that by defining the issue legalistically and ideologically both sides are being a bit stupid and arbitrary. So long as other adoption agencies in Massachusetts are open about working with gay couples, one might allow the Catholics to continue operating their adoption agencies. At the same time, it would it hurt heterosexual couples to have homosexual couples the same tax breaks they get? If both sides were more interested in letting the other side get what they want rather than standing firm on ideological principles something reasonable might get worked out.

Alas, the debate is getting structured on an all or nothing basis.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

A fascist mindset does not produce a lefty decentralist libertarian anarchist. It's true, I don't consider what one person, fifty people, or 300 million think when formulating what constitutes justice and what does not. How is that fascistic?

Do you also ever get tired of people confusing tyranny with fascism? Fascism, of course, is a specific political ideology combining, as Wikipedia says, an "authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology". Ergo, any lefty, assuming "lefty" implies a rejection of corporatist economics, cannot be a fascist. By definition, it's not possible to be a socialist, Communist, Peronist, or support any other left-of-center economic ideology, and still be a fascist. They are mutually exclusive. You *can*, of course, be a socialist, Communist, or Peronist and support dictatorships or authoritarianism (Lord knows both Communism and Peronism are economically leftist forms of authoritarianism), but fascism is a rightist philosophy. In fact, during WWII, Communism (as practiced in the Soviet Union) and fascism (as practiced in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere) were considered polar opposites on the ideological spectrum, representing both tyrannical extremes.

Wait, so you're calling yourself a "lefty decentralist libertarian anarchist" now? I remember you being socially libertarian and otherwise apolitical in the old days...were my perceptions awry?

Originally Posted by 1990

Wait, so you're calling yourself a "lefty decentralist libertarian anarchist" now? I remember you being socially libertarian and otherwise apolitical in the old days...were my perceptions awry?

Sounds like me about 3 years ago. Guess I've changed, huh.

Originally Posted by 1990

Do you also ever get tired of people confusing tyranny with fascism? Fascism, of course, is a specific political ideology combining, as Wikipedia says, an "authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology". Ergo, any lefty, assuming "lefty" implies a rejection of corporatist economics, cannot be a fascist.

Yes. It has long been a stupid partisan debate trick to call any leftist policy communist and any rightist policy fascist. Recent variations on the theme are equally inappropriate. It was popular for a while to list the dozen or so defining attributes of fascism, and link each of them to Bush 43. From my perspective, both fascism and communism are in practice highly authoritarian philosophies. No recent US political party has been authoritarian enough to merit true comparison to either.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I think JPT's argument hinges on the fact that, so long as marriage is a political issue (i.e., subject to explicit government definition), the state must assume a position either for or against gay marriage. If it legalizes gay marriage, than it must censure religious denominations that forbid homosexual relationships. The legalization of gay marriage is not so much the problem, then, as is the state's involvement in explicitly defining what constitutes marriage.

-sigh-

How many of our socio-political difficulties today come back down to much the same thing?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I dunno, I think the only true libertarian viewpoint on this issue is to keep marriage as a strictly religious ceremony and forget about state-sanctioned marriages of all kinds.

Your statement is your opinion, yes, but at odds with most libertarian strains of thought. The recording of contracts is a public act most necessary for future arrangements. It is critical data required when issues of divorce, inheritance, custody, etc. come to light. Putting the control of such a process in the hands of religious institutions is anything but an endorsement of the libertarian ideal.

Methinks your disregard for government's role in marriage sounds more like that of the individualist-anarchist brand of thinking........except for the fact that you endorse leaving it to religious bodies to administer ........which makes me think you are REALLY just walking by the campfire of this thread and tossing in a little gunpowder for kicks

The recording of contracts, agreements, lineage (patrilineal and matrilineal), etc. by a neutral body is such a basic need of organized society that even anarchists (particularly anarcho-syndicalists) agree on its essential nature.

If even those most opposed to the state would agree that such a function is a basic need, it makes suspect the assertions by so-called "Libertarians" that the function (government recording of civil unions aka marriages) be abolished. This lends more evidence to the argument that the so-called Libertarians on this forum are anything but! Possibly they should take another glance at the playbook lest they be revealed as posers~!

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I think JPT's argument hinges on the fact that, so long as marriage is a political issue (i.e., subject to explicit government definition), the state must assume a position either for or against gay marriage. If it legalizes gay marriage, than it must censure religious denominations that forbid homosexual relationships. The legalization of gay marriage is not so much the problem, then, as is the state's involvement in explicitly defining what constitutes marriage.

You are right, there is a problem there. Mixing the religious marriage with civil marriage is the problem.

Civil marriage - a requirement to record the contract for the purpose of future public knowledge no different than recording a lease, property ownership, etc. This is essential to an organized society and key to future decisions that impact individuals (particularly offspring) and society at large.

Religious marriage - a magickal ritual prescribed by various religious bodies based on specific physical, social, and moral requirements of the faith. This is nonessential and completely determined by the codes of the faith and enforced by it's adherents. The government should have no role whatsoever in determining how religious marriage is granted. Conversely, religious marriage has no weight in determining civil matters. It's a preference of faith alone.

Mix them up and you have problems.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

You are right, there is a problem there. Mixing the religious marriage with civil marriage is the problem.

Civil marriage - a requirement to record the contract for the purpose of future public knowledge no different than recording a lease, property ownership, etc. This is essential to an organized society and key to future decisions that impact individuals (particularly offspring) and society at large.

Religious marriage - a magickal ritual prescribed by various religious bodies based on specific physical, social, and moral requirements of the faith. This is nonessential and completely determined by the codes of the faith and enforced by it's adherents. The government should have no role whatsoever in determining how religious marriage is granted. Conversely, religious marriage has no weight in determining civil matters. It's a preference of faith alone.

Mix them up and you have problems.

I could quibble. If one buys into some of the faith systems the religious ritual would not be considered nonessential. Other than that, I'm with you.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I could quibble. If one buys into some of the faith systems the religious ritual would not be considered nonessential. Other than that, I'm with you.

*sigh* I should really read my posts before posting them.

Non-essential from a civil perspective but required by the faith of its adherents.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

If even those most opposed to the state would agree that such a function is a basic need, it makes suspect the assertions by so-called "Libertarians" that the function (government recording of civil unions aka marriages) be abolished. This lends more evidence to the argument that the so-called Libertarians on this forum are anything but! Possibly they should take another glance at the playbook lest they be revealed as posers~!

Then there is that old Will Rodgers line about his not belonging to any organized political party. He was a Democrat. I wouldn't accuse the varied libertarians of being posers. I would just decline to capitalize 'libertarian' when referring to them as I am dubious that they are following any official platform. They are following a relatively consistent philosophy, however.

This is not to say that the Republicans or Democrats aren't all that much more focused in platform or philosophy. The 3T Republican alliance between corporate, religious and neocon perspectives is shattered. The Democrats are traditionally and famously fractured. Thus, it is hard to expect the libertarians to be any different.

And this is a time of change. The Democrats ought to be building a new consensus. Those that disagree are eventually going to build a response. I don't think we will see an appropriate and focused response until the Democrats have a working consensus. In the meantime, a variety of ideas might be floated.

It's just that any attempt to float anything is apt to be followed by an attempt to sink it. Nothing new there.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

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.

Sir, I am much more inclined to the varieties of Syringa than to sugar maples (with all due respect).

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You've just made a statement of your personal moral view. Others disagree with you, and you have declared them beneath your consideration when it comes to law. That's a pretty fascist mindset if you ask me.

Only if he accepts your idiosyncratic definition of "fascism."

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I think JPT's argument hinges on the fact that, so long as marriage is a political issue (i.e., subject to explicit government definition), the state must assume a position either for or against gay marriage. If it legalizes gay marriage, than it must censure religious denominations that forbid homosexual relationships. The legalization of gay marriage is not so much the problem, then, as is the state's involvement in explicitly defining what constitutes marriage.

I have always considered marriage a civil matter rather than a religious one. It is possible to be legally married without ever going through a religious body. AFAIK, one cannot be married in any state without getting a license and/or signing some sort of legal document.

To me it's pretty clear that the state is the final arbiter of who is and who is not legally married. And I find it ridiculous that some churches believe they can trump that.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Methinks your disregard for government's role in marriage sounds more like that of the individualist-anarchist brand of thinking........except for the fact that you endorse leaving it to religious bodies to administer ........which makes me think you are REALLY just walking by the campfire of this thread and tossing in a little gunpowder for kicks

Aw, no, really?

The recording of contracts, agreements, lineage (patrilineal and matrilineal), etc. by a neutral body is such a basic need of organized society that even anarchists (particularly anarcho-syndicalists) agree on its essential nature.

If even those most opposed to the state would agree that such a function is a basic need, it makes suspect the assertions by so-called "Libertarians" that the function (government recording of civil unions aka marriages) be abolished. This lends more evidence to the argument that the so-called Libertarians on this forum are anything but! Possibly they should take another glance at the playbook lest they be revealed as posers~!

Or at least address your point rather than make speeches. It's a damn fine point, too.

I do not think that JPT is being inconsistent in his beliefs by coming out against legal gay marriage. From his many opinions and posts on this forum, JPT seems a very solid conservative Republican in more ways than just one. I do not at all see him as libertarian, despite some confluence of issues that do intersect between the two groups.

Originally Posted by The Rani

No it isn't. Religious organizations are private agencies.

You're missing his point. This isn't about government versus private entities. It's about authority and control.