If this doesn't make republicans jump ship

[dross]

I struggle with libertarians arguing for more government involvement because they are accepting that the government will be involved regardless - a pragmatic position - but they only embrace this political pragmatism on certain issues.

Where's all this "no-compromise, stick to your principles" when it comes to elections? You're willing to choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to gay marriage, but not when it comes to other issues.

The libertarian position on this should be that no one gets an advantage for being married, period. This renders the state of a person's marriage irrelevant. Now anyone is free to marry anyone.

 

[steveh_131]

The libertarian position on this should be that no one gets an advantage for being married, period. This renders the state of a person's marriage irrelevant. Now anyone is free to marry anyone.

Have any libertarians here said otherwise? I haven't heard any.

Let's discuss pragmatism. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would prefer that the government stayed out of the morality business altogether, and not draw lines such as these. Equality. That is the discussion taking place here. In this hypothetical world where I was given that choice, that is the choice I would make.

But I'm not given that choice. In the real world, I stick by principles. Zero government involvement in marriage. My vote reflects that.

 

[steveh_131]

I struggle with libertarians arguing for more government involvement

And I also reject this summary of my position.

How do we measure government involvement? More marriage certificates being handed out? I prefer to measure it by the decisions it involves itself in and the lines that it draws.

It already draws a line between married and unmarried. It shouldn't. But it does.

It also draws a line between 'moral' marriage and 'immoral' marriage. It shouldn't. But it does.

To me, removing the government from either of these decisions should be quantified as less government involvement, not more.

 

[Liberty1911]

I struggle with libertarians arguing for more government involvement because they are accepting that the government will be involved regardless - a pragmatic position - but they only embrace this political pragmatism on certain issues.

Where's all this "no-compromise, stick to your principles" when it comes to elections? You're willing to choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to gay marriage, but not when it comes to other issues.

The libertarian position on this should be that no one gets an advantage for being married, period. This renders the state of a person's marriage irrelevant. Now anyone is free to marry anyone.

I have to admit, you concisely exposed libertarian hypocrisy much better in a few sentences than I have in the entire thread.

And in exposing their hypocrisy, I'll once again point out that it proves they're perfectly willing to use the force of government to shove their version of morality down everyone else's throat.

 

[dross]

And I also reject this summary of my position.

How do we measure government involvement? More marriage certificates being handed out? I prefer to measure it by the decisions it involves itself in and the lines that it draws.

It already draws a line between married and unmarried. It shouldn't. But it does.

It also draws a line between 'moral' marriage and 'immoral' marriage. It shouldn't. But it does.

To me, removing the government from either of these decisions should be quantified as less government involvement, not more.

You've said nothing I disagree with. That's exactly the reasoning I apply to elections.

I have to admit, you concisely exposed libertarian hypocrisy much better in a few sentences than I have in the entire thread.

And in exposing their hypocrisy, I'll once again point out that it proves they're perfectly willing to use the force of government to shove their version of morality down everyone else's throat.

You may have misunderstood my position. I WAS calling out my fellow libertarians' (small "L") inconsistency, but I must disagree that government taking a neutral position on gay marriage is the shoving anything down someone's throat.

 

[Liberty1911]

You've said nothing I disagree with. That's exactly the reasoning I apply to elections.

You may have misunderstood my position. I WAS calling out my fellow libertarians' (small "L") inconsistency, but I must disagree that government taking a neutral position on gay marriage is the shoving anything down someone's throat.

You misunderstood me, I think.

What steve is offering, is not that the government take a neutral position, which is what I would expect the libertarian position to be as you noted above. He wants government intervention to officially sanction homosexual marriage, so that it's "equal protection". That's an initiation of force, hence, asking government to shove it down our throat.

If the libertarians here (maybe some do), would take the position of no one gets an advantage for being "married", as you said, and advocate that, then I wouldn't be arguing with them.

 

[dross]

You misunderstood me, I think.

What steve is offering, is not that the government take a neutral position, which is what I would expect the libertarian position to be as you noted above. He wants government intervention to officially sanction homosexual marriage, so that it's "equal protection". That's an initiation of force, hence, asking government to shove it down our throat.

If the libertarians here (maybe some do), would take the position of no one gets an advantage for being "married", as you said, and advocate that, then I wouldn't be arguing with them.

While I want the government to take a neutral position, I don't think there's anything wrong with insisting that if they are not going to be neutral they should at least be more inclusive.

 

[Liberty1911]

While I want the government to take a neutral position, I don't think there's anything wrong with insisting that if they are not going to be neutral they should at least be more inclusive.

Ok, I see. You agree with the pragmatism, you were just calling him out for the selective pragmatism.

 

[RockofStrength]

While I want the government to take a neutral position, I don't think there's anything wrong with insisting that if they are not going to be neutral they should at least be more inclusive.

But couldn't it be argued that by mandating a law for homosexual marriage it solidifies the government's role in marriage all the more? Similar to what some warned would happen when the property taxes caps were passed here? Sure the taxes are capped, but now the government will never not have property taxation power since they can now point to that amendment for justification.

 

[Liberty1911]

hello IN.i just join the from

Welcome back Solitaire!

 

[Bunnykid68]

hello IN.i just join the from

Interesting perspective

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Interesting perspective

He's a cuttin' and pastin' fool

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/search.php?searchid=7649758

There must be a good deal a-waitin in the classifieds.

 

[sepe]

I find it truly amazing that the word 'principle' is being used throughout this thread and not once does it appear in purple.

Nobody runs on principles, they run on money. He who has the money, establishes the principles. Unfortunately those that have the money are all thinking alike, leaving us no options. We can talk about the lessor of two evils in an election, but I for one, am extremely tired of voting against someone. Give me an option, I can vote FOR.

Some have and few end up winning. People care more about a nice suit, an expensive haircut, and a smooth talker.

Principles?

http://youtu.be/bFEoMO0pc7k

 

[Bunnykid68]

He's a cuttin' and pastin' fool

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/search.php?searchid=7649758

There must be a good deal a-waitin in the classifieds.

Your link does not work anymore

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Your link does not work anymore

Whoa....persona non-grata just like that?

 

[Bunnykid68]

 

[Liberty1911]

Whoa....persona non-grata just like that?

Yeah, well he made the mistake of joining the from. That's iffy. Now if he'd have joined the forum, well then things might be different.

 

[techres]

If you let marriage into the gov't - don't be surprised when the gov't is in marriage.

And with all things the gov't is in, there must be a definition of what it is.

Law of social evolution - definitions change.

You want it sanctified? Religiously pure (by your definition)? Immutable?

Then keep it separate.

 

[edporch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
The government shouldn't even be in the "marriage business".

Up until the latter part of the 1800's, it wasn't.
"Marriage licenses" in the USA were first used to control inter-racial marriages.

Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts and they had nothing to do with "inter-racial marriages." Marriage licenses were first established to ensure the banns were observed in order to prevent legal impediments, such as bigamy. I can't believe the amount of poppycock that is manufactured as "history" on here and swallowed whole.

Here in Indiana, when doing genealogical research, i don't start finding them until the late 1800's.

Additionally, if you look up the history of marriage licenses, it is mentioned that it was used to control inter-racial marriages.
Massachusetts doesn't define everywhere.

 

[Liberty1911]

Here in Indiana, when doing genealogical research, i don't start finding them until the late 1800's.

ISL: Databases

"In addition the database includes listings for the St. Francis Xavier parish church in Vincennes, Indiana which date from 1749."