Once America achieves the Ron Paul Revolution of freedom, we will be faced with the question as to whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry eachother according to our laws.
What should or shouldn't be the laws on this? Why? What reasons will gain the best marketability in order to achieve such ends?
Let's not talk about state vs. federal authority on this one:-) Assume we're talking about your State? Keep it based on your logic, philosophy, and values.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 348 reads
Amen Adam!
Yeah, get the government out of marriage -- and out of the bedroom, doctor's office, and financial records as well
Why should the state have anything to do with marriage?
And... if you think it should... it should be an issue each state deals with not the Feds.
BTW... why do you bring up divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage etc? Doesn't further the cause.
www.ronpaulhq.com
Because I'm serious and want to further my understanding of the topic. I have not already made up my mind about everything in the world and then proceed from there. My views are open to change and I appreciate all input, even from someone like swarelis. I personally LOVE a debate where you are just STRUGGLING to keep your emotions at bay! It's like an adrenaline rush- a worthy sport. I also get a little bit of morbid humor out of watching people freak out too- like swarelis. I think this is a serious character flaw in me.
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
hai. itz me again.
> Because I'm serious and want to further my understanding of the topic.
why is this a topic for you at all? how does it affect you personally if two gay men or two gay women marry or not?
> My views are open to change and I appreciate all input, even from someone like swarelis.
that's good to hear.
> I also get a little bit of morbid humor out of watching people freak out too- like swarelis. I think this is a serious character flaw in me.
i'm not freaking out at all. i have to admit i write these responses to you with a silly grin on my face since i can easily refute most of your notions. :)
>why is this a topic for you at all? how does it affect you personally if two gay men or two gay women marry or not?
It's a topic for many people, and I wanted to see what BTM thought about it. Mission accomplished. I'm still learning about this whole Libertarianism thing, and I think most others are too. It does not personally affect me if two gays marry. It's not hurting anyone else.
You've refuted something? I didn't notice. You seem to just whine most of the time. Not saying that I don't whine either.
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
You really are a Spaceball, you know that, right?
Actually I think once the Ron Paul revolution takes place the concept of marriage will no longer have anything to do with laws or government. Instead it will be between you and your church or an organization that offers you a "marriage". This is because people who are married should not be seen as different in the eyes of the law because they are married, or get any special tax cuts/breaks, etc. over a person who is single and so on. Ron Paul always says, "We don't get our rights because we are blacks, or whites, or gays... we get them from our creator as individuals." So... the government should butt out!!
Outstanding. Just what I was hoping to hear. My original intent all along was to get opinions in this thread then pose a "Gay Marriage in a Free Society (2)" and raise your exact point. But you beat me to it. Maybe I should have realized you guys are smarter than that and posted it that way right away!
The original question comes back to "what is marriage?" Why do we marry? What does it mean? This is a better debate than "should gays be allowed to marry or not."
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
As I was reading the question posted, I was forming my answer in my head, and it sounded a lot like what you said here.
The very idea that government should be involved in a religious constitution is silly to me. Why do we need the governments approval when we get married? If a church finds it acceptable to marry a same sex couple, how is it the governments job to say "no"?
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
> Once America achieves the Ron Paul Revolution of freedom, we will be faced with the question as to whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry eachother according to our laws.
really? right after the 'revolution of freedom' we will be faced with this one particular question? you have decided that this is the next pressing thing to tackle? thank god we have you vertebrae8 to tell us how it's all gonna go down.
Your comment is completely worthless and was only aimed to offend me. Flagged as offensive.
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
my comment is super funny and draws attention to the fallacy of your argument.
by the way, calling my comment 'completely worthless' is not at all offensive.
To be fair, swarelis, verbate8 did pose the question in a more open manner than he did his other post (morals ethics values of BTM etc) and I think is just trying to encourage a discussion on this issue. He did not imply which side of the debate he was on or say he is pulling support if BtM does not side with him. I think he learned a lesson from that previous post (and taught us all a lesson in the process) and even apologized for his initial attitude. Maybe we should forgive him?
Yes, there are probably more pressing issues than gay marriage, but do we need to discuss these issues in order of importance?
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
> To be fair, swarelis, verbate8 did pose the question in a more open manner than he did his other post (morals ethics values of BTM etc)
just because his comment/post was less nutty this time around doesn't mean that I should cut him some slack. if he posts something then he expects that people will have an opinion about his post. i don't necessarily have to follow his lead and answer his questions if i feel that the question has no merit to begin with. (see Trevor's comment below for the right answer).
> and I think is just trying to encourage a discussion on this issue.
but he completely missed the point right from the start. he puts a bunch of people in a group and asks us what rights they should or shouldn't have. i'm a strong believer in individualism as are most people who found refuge in Ron Paul's message and the Basic Media effort so questions like "should group A be allowed to do X" irritate me.
so, once again, if verbate8 will post silly out of place comments then i shall comment back.
I see your points, and generally agree with you, as I agreed with Trevor, but why couldn't you have simply answered his question with what you told me and point out the silliness of his question in that way? Why did you have to insult him in the process? What's the saying...You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If the point of Break the Matrix is to help spread liberty through individuality, shouldn't we be welcoming as many people that come here as we can? With verbate8, half the battle is over. He is here. Now we just need to show him how a liberty minded person thinks so that he won't ask "nutty" questions. You can be right and mean, or you can be right and welcoming. The former is going to chase people away, the latter is going to bring more people to the movement.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
> why couldn't you have simply answered his question with what you told me and point out the silliness of his question in that way?
it's just my style to ridicule ridiculous statements. i can't help it and i don't feel like changing my ways so that vertebrae8's feelings aren't hurt. plus, once again: my comment was hella funny.
> Why did you have to insult him in the process?
i'm sure he can get over it with time. don't be so sensitive. it's ok to laugh at someone every now and then.
> If the point of Break the Matrix is to help spread liberty through individuality, shouldn't we be welcoming as many people that come here as we can?
> With verbate8, half the battle is over.
trust me, the battle with vertebrae8 has just begun :)
> He is here.
but for how long? did you not read about how he'll withdraw his financial support and steer away the masses from this site if we offend him in some way? frankly, i'm surprised he's still here.
> Now we just need to show him how a liberty minded person thinks so that he won't ask "nutty" questions. You can be right and mean, or you can be right and welcoming. The former is going to chase people away, the latter is going to bring more people to the movement.
there's a flip side to that argument. what if, say... a gay man was checking out this site and he saw vertebrae8's gay marriage discussion and was offended by him even proposing such a question. how does that reflect the values of this effort?
my point here is: if you don't like my comment, vote it down, if you like it vote it up, if you have anything to add, then add to it, just please stop posting things along the lines of "why did you say it that way and not the other way?" it's not going to change me and it sure as hell won't change vertebrae8's views.
oh, and there's nothing wrong with at least trying to be funny and making a point at the same time.
>it's just my style to ridicule ridiculous statements. i can't help it and i don't feel like changing my ways so that vertebrae8's feelings aren't hurt.
Come on now. You know as well as I do that that is a weak argument. You can help it. Have you tried? I recommend you go read Green Eggs and Ham. You might find that you like not being a jerk! :) (I'm just poking fun here! :) I don't want to anger you like verbate8 has!)
>don't be so sensitive.
Same could be said to you, sir.
>but for how long? did you not read about how he'll withdraw his financial support and steer away the masses from this site if we offend him in some way? frankly, i'm surprised he's still here.
So your response is to try to offend him? Again, I think the better approach here is to try and change his way of thinking through reasoned debate. Did you not read where he apologized to you personally? I don't know if you two continued your discussion in private messages or not, and if you did, whether you accepted his apology there, but it seems you could have at least commented on his change of tone to a more humble approach.
>what if, say... a gay man was checking out this site and he saw vertebrae8's gay marriage discussion and was offended by him even proposing such a question.
Then he would read the first comment from a smart guy named swarelis where he calmly and confidently explains why the question is silly and can be offensive. He would notice this comment is getting voted up and realize that others share swarelis' point of view and realize it is a place he wants to be after all.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
"there's a flip side to that argument. what if, say... a gay man was checking out this site and he saw vertebrae8's gay marriage discussion and was offended by him even proposing such a question. how does that reflect the values of this effort?"
My uncle in law is gay. He loves to talk about the gay rights issue, because he both identifies with the group (oh noez! not a grooop! ZOMG!) of other gays but he is also a citizen and wishes to see the laws shaped in his favor. He would not be offended and he would join the discussion. Probably because I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING OFFENSEIVE? I thought I put it out there in a neutral fashion. Can you tell whether or not I support gay marriage by the original post?
Once again you're railing on about me and my personality without even having given one word about how you think the laws in our country should change. Why are you even here?
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
> Can you tell whether or not I support gay marriage by the original post?
it's not that i have a problem with what your take on this might be. i have a problem with you bringing this up as an issue in the first place. who are you and who am i to say what a group of people 'should be allowed' to do? i will reiterate what Trevor quoted in his response: [...] Ron Paul always says, "We don't get our rights because we are blacks, or whites, or gays... we get them from our creator as individuals." [...]
should group A be 'allowed to' marry?
should group A be 'allowed to' adopt?
should group A be 'allowed to' vote?
this is a nonissue. the answer is everyone in group A is free to do everything that everyone else is free to do. you should already be past this kind of discussion. if you embrace the idea that you have (or should have or are striving for) individual rights then this sort of question that you posted wouldn't even occur to you.
here's something to contemplate for you: should i, being a straight man, have any say in whether 'gays should be allowed to marry'?
Hey well look at that. You finally addressed the topic and made a good logical statement. I agree with what you said, and see why you thought it was a silly question now. Learning has occurred. Thank you.
How many days later? Why didn't you just say this in the first place? Flamer.
So going with "Should group A be allowed to adopt?" I had a thought. Is it harmful to a child to be raised by gay parents? You know- without a dad or without a mom? Is it harmful to be raised by a single parent? Is it better? Is it inconsequential? I was raised by a single mom. I've got an opinion on it. We talk about "do nothing that harms someone else" and all, like incestuous children... what do you think about this adoption thing? Why do we even have standards for adoption? Should we get rid of them? Who sets the standard?
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
I've thought about this quite a bit and I've come to this conclusion. If a child is up for adoption it has no parents, right? It is the ward of the state or an adoption agency. So what's better for the child, being with two people of the same sex that love one another, or having no parents that love and take care of you? If my son had to be adopted, I would prefer he go to a straight couple, but in the end I'd rather him go to any other couple than be a ward of the state.
Sure, there's a chance that the child will get adopted by some gay pedophiles, but theres just as much of a chance that the child would get adopted by straight pedophiles too, right?
I mean, just because your parents are gay doesn't mean the child will be gay right? If that were true everyone would be straight. Here's a novel idea... How about we get government out of the child care business altogether.