Posted on 08/14/2013 10:41:23 AM PDT by Nachum
The U.S. Defense Department announced on Wednesday that it will make "spousal and family benefits" available no later than Sept. 3, 2013, regardless of sexual orientation, for all service members who can provide a valid marriage certificate. And what about same-sex military couples who live in a state where same-sex marriage is not allowed? No problem. "We recognize that same-sex military couples who are not stationed in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriage would have to travel to another jurisdiction to marry. That is why the department will implement policies to allow military personnel in such a relationship non-chargeable leave for the
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
If marriage was only about religion then law wouldn’t be involved and atheists would be out of luck, and polygamy and gay marriage would have been legal all along, don’t get silly and start all that childish pretending stuff.
Like libertarians always do, you want to play games of evasion, you are fine with the military treating gay marriage the same as they do actual marriage.
That is why you can’t just answer the obvious question posed, I know the answer, you know the answer, we all know the answer, but you don’t want to say it out loud.
“”Are you saying that your libertarianism supports discriminating against homosexuality by the federal government, for instance, that the military should not recognize a marriage, if it is of homosexuals?””
Interesting article, thanks for the link.
(Un)fortunately, I am 1) non-religious 2) do not believe the Bible to be the end-all of right vs. wrong (it IS a good basis, as much as many of the World’s religions) 3) can read/comprehend/understand/debate the plain words of the Constitution.
Now, you are more than welcome to your ideas about the (L) Party. Those which you have stated I can only reply, WTF?
Aside from a few planks, IMHO can be ‘remedied’, I can’t see where you’re coming from: Fed. gov’t has few/defined roles, all else, as Rights only exist with the Individual, belong to the People or the State to which they authorize certain tasks. How is that not following the principles/vision?
I, for one, am glad we have evolved past the notion of disemboweling Citizens, depriving TWO (possibly) people of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit, for the ‘sin of sodomy’.
If anything THAT flies in the face of the Constitution and all it stands: Free Peoples able to do what they wish, at any time, as long as it does not interfere or abridge the Rights of others, w/out the threat of the all-mighty State.
I answered it already, but maybe I can put it into verbiage (aka ‘words’) you’ll easily digest: As we are a nation of Laws, applied equally upon all Citizens, where all ‘marriages’ are to be treated the same.
Now, does that mean I am in favor of the same? HELL NO. But that’s why you get when you allow the gov’t to meddle into areas it has no authority to inject itself. As I’ve stated, multiple times, gov’t has no authority in the marriage business to start, let alone to give ‘special favors’ based on the same usurped authority.
Now, go back to having your mental masturbation temper tantrum. If you don’t like it, change the Law. Or, better yet, get the gov’t out of the F* middle (this would be my ‘childish pretending’...a Constitutional Republic). There would be no benefits nor privileges to worry about giving away by those in power. Then, maybe then, we can both get onto getting gov’t out of the next area of intrusion.
Why must libertarians be so evasive? You don't disagree with this do you?
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.
So why waste everyone's time avoiding saying so, while defending it and promoting it, in between the lines?
It has been a quick trip from “Don’t ask, don’t tell” to preferential treatment for gays.
What idiocy, when was the government not involved in marriage? You think that early America was just people making up their own marriage definitions? You really think that a Muslim American could have multiple wives, or that two homosexuals could marry if they started a religion?
Do you think that Greece and Rome, and New Guinea tribesmen and Apache Indians did not have marriage formally defined, to be able to apply law for inheritance and divorce and death?
Yours is the most silly, dishonest argument of all as you deny the facts, truth, and history, to promote your gay marriage, and anti-American agenda.
Moral absolutes are practically the same in every monotheist religion, including some that are not, such as Buddhism.
Hedonists such as yourself want “freedom” - but what you really mean is “licence”. You’re in the same group as others who want such “freedom” - pedophiles, bestiality practitioners, those who want polygamy legalized and incest practitioners. They all want “freedom” to do what they want.
Without moral absolutes based on universal religious principles, we have nothing but a frenzied free for all of the most vicious less-than-animal life, and since according to people such as yourself, there are no boundaries at all, so off into the abyss we go.
You’re a clever little libertarian, what with bringing in disemboweling and all. Of course, since homosexuals are now running the government, disembowelment is okay as long is it’s their child victims getting disemboweled, such as Jesse Dirkhausing.
And, btw, I get my “ideas” about the LP from their website and reading the comments of self identifying libertarians.
The Libertarian Party is the official Pro Vice party.
He’s a very slippery one.
RE: “You don’t disagree with this do you?”
Yes, I DO disagree with your statment. NO subject can be so ‘lumped’ and still remain black/white. There is a myriad of gov’t intervention/tentacles that need to be chopped/unwound...THEN look at the subject at hand.
Case in point: this thread. Special treatment of some over others...NO (quite black and white)
vs. adoption: are we basing what is in the best interest of the child, or are we equally applying the Law/Rules? (IE: there is no guarantee of abuse by a homo couple [increased risk? I’d THINK so, but that’s not a basis for Law] vs. no guarantee of a loving/non-abuse by a hetero couple).
What about artificial insemination? Though the gay community cannot reproduce w/out ‘help’ does that make that baby NOT their child vs. hetero that cannot conceive w/out the same help...
There is nothing evasive, but I think I’m smart enough to see there is more than one angle to every ‘problem’, and most of that involves getting gov’t out of the process to reduce the variables.
Your mind is too mushy and confused to try and make sense of, but I’ll try again.
So you disagree with the libertarian position, or are you agreeing with it?
“”Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.””
Idiocy....yes, Freedom is such a burden *rolls eyes*
When has it not? As if that matters....it has no authority to be there. Precedent does not make a thing valid. Just because anti-gun laws are passed (gov’t involved in subverting the 2nd A), that makes things OK?
What/why does it matter to YOU whom hitches up with whom, be a marriage, civil union, polygamy, harem, etc.? Again, we’ve dealing with consenting people of legal age....no your straw-men of 14 yr old brides (which wasn’t too unfamiliar in THIS Country not that long ago). It only becomes a problem when gov’t grants privileges.
Oh, I’m SURE tribesmen (New Guinea and Native Americans) had their lawyers with licenses and wills all ready....geez.
I wouldn’t want to cause you lack of sleep to think there’s someone w/ a difference of opinion in your world-view. If I’m that silly, stop replying.
One thing clear in all that gibberish, you just have no idea what you are rambling about.
Damn. Do you have a hard time comprehending a response that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived notion? Go back, if you care, and re-read the reply...it all was laid out for your perusal.
I’ll jump in with my .02cts but the issue of marriage is all bogus. Homosexuals are predators, once counterfeit marriage is the law then there is nothing stopping them from pushing that nonsense on our children. Based on marriage stats in homo friendly states and countries most of them don’t want marriage anyway.
Always up to hearing another (courteous) point of view....
I’ve always said we lost the debate when we allowed the verbiage to be twisted and ‘changed’ w/out a fight.
Now, they already TRY to push to the kids, but I am not seeing how it is going to be mandatory (as sure as sh!t is doesn’t belong in any ‘school’)
My whole contention has been if there were no bennies, this would be a moot debate. It’s only because gov’t intervention do we have these troubles/battles. Get them OUT OUT OUT.
Placemark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.