Why would a homosexual want to get married to a sex to they are not attracted to?
…Again I ask why does the ability to marry an opposite (and not sexually appealing) sex mean that the right of same-sex marriage is unnecessary?
Because while the state is still around we should be pushing for libertarian goals within it until the day of its demise. Perhaps you have yet to figure out that the state has a monopoly on force within this country and individuals can use it to indirectly coerce others into their stepford lifestyle of conservative idiocy. Therefore in pushing for equality in rights within the state you are at the very least imposing libertarianism onto an organization that will have none of it. Do you perhaps think that we should wait UNTIL the state falls to start pushing equality in rights?
Since you can’t possibly have the background on what I am talking to Giles about, perhaps you should worry about who you are linking to, and what your fallacious arguments rest on, rather than continuing to add to the list of things you have an opinion on, but no knowledge about.
Says the guy who quotes fascists.
Again, only a fascist can’t distinguish between tolerance in a free society to reduce the cost of conflict, with his own insecurity and social hangups.
Ah, so anyone who actually believes in the United States and seeks a positive future for the country is a neocon / fascist. LMAO, this must really work well to convince people of libertarian positions.
Why should I be tolerant? You assume the same thing as the PC crowd does, that “tolerance” is good, tolerance won’t get anybody anywhere. Rather, selectivity and exclusivity are virtues, funnily enough they’re virtues that the state makes very difficult to practise. You preach about the right to associate, but when it comes to the converse right to not associate, you seem to have a very different tone.
A libertarian goal is additional state sanctioned politically correct “equality” laws? I had no idea. What you are stating is illogical. Like I said a politically correct libertarian, I had no idea.
Excuse me? By allowing same sex marriage which rights of yours are being violated?
I believe their is a right to liberty and under that right you have the ability to choose who you wish to marry and who not to. To answer your last statement, you cannot force others not to recongize it, which anti-same-sex marriage is.
Excuse me? I’m no longer a libertarian because I don’t stop you from going to Washington and trying to get them to sudsize you for reading Human Action? Will violating your rights make me more libertarian under your system?
They don’t have the same rights to marry as everybody else. They in fact have no right to marry the people they want to marry while heterosexuals do. Thank you for presenting your contradiction in such a clear and unperverted form.
I’m the fascist? You are the one seeking state equality laws to push politically correct positions. I’m still waiting for you to back up your neocon lies. And your childish attacks on LGF will not prevent me or discourage me from linking to them in the future.
Normal is subjective. Your definition of normal is irrelevant. Don’t strawman me because you’re incapable of making value free objective arguments.
I’m going to skip the strawmen in your argument, it’s poor form and you are being incredibly lazy.
I’m curious to know what the social costs of marriage are. Can you explain them?
You’re being called a statist because you support a double standard on the right of association.
The right of association under the state is ineffective if it is not recognized.
This is a hypocritical argument. You claim to want the state out of it, but if it is in it, you’re implying that only majority/normal [sic] positions should be pandered to. I think what laughing man and I are saying, recognize all or recognize none. You seem to be picking and choosing.
I’ll ask again, have you been sodomized and do you think that incurs costs?
I think you need to stop confusing your social and sexual hangups with profitable behaviour in the free market.
Oh, boo hoo. Someone won’t put up with your anachronistic nonsense and you have to cry about it when called out. waaaaah
This isn’t a politically correct ‘law’. This is the recongnition of rights of an individual. You fall into the same trap of all conservatives. ‘I want freedom and liberty!..unless your gay…’
You don’t understand the position you’re arguing. You’re arguing for a positive right, so when you say that “they’re not hurting anybody”, the fact that they’re using the state says otherwise.
Excuse me? By paying me $1,000,000 a day to read Human Action which rights of yours are being violated?
Yes, you do. You just can’t force anybody to recognise it, as you wish to do.
As for the last remark there, I don’t like the fact that the state interferes in marriage at all, I’ve said this.
What’s the difference between myself, and say, AIG?
Do heterosexuals have the right to marry the same sex?
The answer is obviously no, so yes, they do have the same rights.
Of course it is a politically correct law. You seek state recognition for a minority group on the grounds of politically correct positions - “equality”. Getting the state our of marriage is a libertarian position, advocating for state sanctioned equality laws is a progressive position. Libertarian advocating for gay marriage are not true libertarians but progressives.
No Giles. I’m nearly as big of a prude and sexual luddite as you are. I won’t let anyone touch my ass. But the difference is, I don’t formulate my worldview around my insecurities. And if I try to bear the costs of insecurities in the market, I will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Value laden.
I’m neither forcing anyone to associate, nor preventing anyone from disassociating. You’re good on the former, but absolutely horrible on the latter.
You’re much to bright to be making this ridiculous comments. I’m very surprised because I know you have hangups, we all do, but you’ve got to be able to see how unproductive and polarizing (for no gain other than petty emotional rises) they are. The ability to socialize and collaborate is an absolute necessity in market.
It is the country I live in. A positive future for the country is my subjective opinion of one with more liberty and economic freedom, though not anarchy as I am not an anarchist. I hold many libertarian positions.
I’m not necessarily going to be paying you, please answer my question. Which rights of yours are being violated by having same-sex marriage?
Well unfortunately we are in a position in which they do. Like I stated, gay marriage after the state is gone is a non-issue but while it is in place, negative liberties should be allowed to be enacted.
Are you purposely being flippant?
Why would a heterosexual want to marry a homosexual?..
Have you read those studies? People who use marijuana do not smoke the amount they test in those studies- if you ever smoked you’d understand right away what those studies are testing*(The effects of marijuana on people who do nothing BUT smoke all day everyday 5-10 times a day).* Tylenol can also cause severe problems if you take way too much every single day. You’re not getting brain damage from smoking once a week- once a month, or once in your whole life. But either way if its libertarianism that you support- the effects of those products are irrelevant- since the other path is throwing humans in cages or death in turf wars.
No, it’s not. People are selective all the time, in who they associate with and who they employ. To behave otherwise would be suicidal.
It’s more than that. I think there’s an important issue at stake here, libertarians tend to be far too keen on reciting the PC line. Tolerance is not a virtue, rather, selectivity is. In a free market, you’d better be highly selective regarding the peole you associate with, because reputation will matter a lot.
No, you haven’t been. If you wish to now, go ahead, but at least have the decency to admit you’ve been wrong thus far.
You’re not getting the point, let me put it another way. When AIG goes to the government and asks for a bailout, what rights of yours are being violated?
Nope, but you don’t seem to be getting the point.
Why is that any of the state’s business. Or any of mine, since as a taxpayer I will be subsidizing this.
Why not just stick to the argument that government has no place in marriage in the first place? We don’t have to be “PC” and go along with the “tolerance idea” of supporting gay marriage when we shouldn’t be supporting government sponsored marriage and benefits towards a particular lifestyle(marriage between 2 people) anyway.
being intolerant of and selecting out people with bad reputations , ‘bad characters’ , has nothing to tell us about how people with different sexual orientations should be treated, any more than it tells us how people with different preferences for ice-cream flavours should be treated. not relevant.