Why Proposition 8 Was A Victory For Liberty (A Libertarian Defense Of Traditional Marriage Alert)

Culture11 ^ | 11/23/2008 | Mike Thomsen

[goldstategop]

A libertarian defense of traditional marriage. Not all libertarians subscribe to the shibboleth that all marriages are created equal. They do not. Legitimizing same sex marriage means forcing society to accept homosexuality as just and moral. In a free society, left to their own devices, there is no way the gay community could gain such voluntary recognition for the way it chooses to live out its existence. And there's more. Its not a civil rights issue. Opposing same sex marriage above all, is indeed a victory for liberty in this country.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Inkie]

What ticked me off was that it was 4 CA judges who decided gay marriage should be legal. If the state feels that way, then let our legislators enact a law. They won’t do it. - same on the federal level, i.e. for abortion. They let a handful of judges make the decision, defying public sentiment, and slink out of putting their money where their mouth is.

[nufsed]

It is highest form of convolution language to deny people the liberty to do something and then call it a victory for liberty. Paging Mr.Orwell.

[goldstategop]

That's not the author's argument. He says its wrong for the state to impose a particular arrangement on every one else. If gays really believe in liberty, all they have to do is propose taking the state out of licensing marriages. If they don't want to do it, then their motives will be obvious to all.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nufsed]

You can't be imposed upon by someone exercising a right. That's what a right is. They can do it.

There are how many million ghomosexuals and you ascribe the same motive to them all? maybe some of them just want to marry and have you mind your own business.

I know we're having an ongoing anti-gay war here, but please don't describe restricting rights as a victory for liberty.

This will be the only clause in the state constitution or any that I know of in any state which restricts the rights of people.

[nufsed]

I was responding to the self-contradictory headline of the thread.

[goldstategop]

There have always been restrictions on whom one could marry. Its never been an absolute right and no one has ever been compelled to get married. So where is the discrimination?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nufsed]

We were declared independent of a king on the basis of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Marriage is a clear example of the latter two.

[Paperdoll]

Marriage was adopted for the purpose of having children, to simplify. Children need both father and mother to grow up to be well adjusted men and women.

The marriage vows have meaning beyond words. God made woman for man.

That marriage be considered by two homosexuals to each other is unthinkable.

The privilege to marry is not denied to a homosexual man to a heterosexual woman, though I think it would be a very sad situation for the woman.

[goldstategop]

That was a divorce. We divorced the Mother Country because of irreconcilable differences.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nufsed]

Was that a rhetorical question? The discrimination is that you have the government now prohibiting two tax-payers from getting married.

[nufsed]

Non-responsive

[goldstategop]

Gender is a legitimate basis for organizing our society and its affairs that would never be countenanced with any other criteria. Men and women are different and that's reflected in our laws and its not discrimination to acknowledge gender is relevant to the definition of marriage.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[calex59]

No one's liberty has been denied. They have the right to marry anyone as long as it is a member of the opposite sex and both parties are willing and free to marry. They have the same rights as straight people. Plus they can form a civil union that confers the same rights as being married. This is not about "rights", it is about controlling people and destroying morality so the government can step in and take the place of religion.

It has been done over and over again in communist countries. The plans are all laid out by the communist. clear as bell. Try reading some communist BS sometime, it might open your eyes.

The bottom line is this, their is no constitutional basis for same sex marriage, you can't "deny" a right that never existed.

[goldstategop]

I pointed out that your example is the opposite of marriage which is an act of social unification of two as one. The American revolution was about a breakup of one people that had been formerly united under the same king. Hardly non responsive as an answer.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Traditional values are essential to freedom. Without them, the opposite is tyranny.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nufsed]

What you consider legitimate and a basis for denying these taxpaying adults from getting married are overriden buy human rights. Your definition and opinions are just that, yours. The opinions of the majority are just that. The majorty cannot vote against the rights of others. Otherwise, blacks would still be in segragated schools.

That's why everyone here whined so much when the conservative Cal Supreme court rendered the decision that did. They can't understand this basic concept of freedom because thay can't let those filthy homos have anything.

[BillyBoy]

Wow. This guy gets it. Too bad Boob Barf couldn’t figure this out when he drank the libertarian kool-aid and issued press releases claiming a 4-3 gay marriage ruling from activist judges was a “victory” for “state’s rights”

[nufsed]

Liberty, companionship and love, ARE traditional values.

[nufsed]

Don't forget those traditional values of slavery, women as second class citizens. Was the opposite of them tyranny?

You're in over your head here. Call your ping list or whatever.

Good night.