Republicans Vs. Republican TEA Partiers

[rambone]

That leaves room for me to personally vote at the state level against what I consider to be immoral.

I'm not the one advocating the use of government force to impose my moral beliefs.

 

[Liberty1911]

Right. And As I've said, I'm not advocating a law that would arrest homosexuals if they walk into a church and get "married".

I'm saying that I would vote against having the government sanction those marriages.

That's hardly forcing my morality on others.

I realize you're choosing not to understand that, but that's your problem.

You're the one demanding that government force be used to make society recognize homosexual marriage. By any measure of the definition, that's not freedom.

 

[steveh_131]

You're the one demanding that government force be used to make society recognize homosexual marriage. By any measure of the definition, that's not freedom.

How are you any better by demanding that government force be used to make society recognize heterosexual marriage? Is that freedom?

 

[Liberty1911]

How are you any better by demanding that government force be used to make society recognize heterosexual marriage? Is that freedom?

I'm not demanding that. Another Libertarian straw man. I'm fine with government getting completely out of the marriage recognition business.

However, that's where you and your fellow Libertarians are being hypocritical.

If you truly believe that government has no business recognizing marriage, then you should be advocating the abolishment of that recognition altogether.

It's hypocritical to say "well since government already does it, then lets expand it., and oh, if anyone opposes the expansion, then they're trying to shove their morality down our throat."

If you were intellectually honest, when I oppose government recognition of homosexual marriage, you should be saying "that's exactly right!, and we need to get rid of existing laws also".

At least then I'd have respect for your position. As it is now, I stand by my assertion that you're really pro-immorality because you clearly don't have a coherent argument based in liberty or freedom.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm not demanding that. Another Libertarian straw man. I'm fine with government getting completely out of the marriage recognition business.

However, that's where you and your fellow Libertarians are being hypocritical.

If you truly believe that government has no business recognizing marriage, then you should be advocating the abolishment of that recognition altogether.

It's hypocritical to say "well since government already does it, then lets expand it., and oh, if anyone opposes the expansion, then they're trying to shove their morality down our throat."

If you were intellectually honest, when I oppose government recognition of homosexual marriage, you should be saying "that's exactly right!, and we need to get rid of existing laws also".

At least then I'd have respect for your position. As it is now, I stand by my assertion that you're really pro-immorality because you clearly don't have a coherent argument based in liberty or freedom.

The theocrats will never allow the government to get out of the marriage business.

 

[Liberty1911]

The theocrats will never allow the government to get out of the marriage business.

Maybe not, but is that an intellectually honest reason for expanding something that you consider illegitimate?

 

[hornadylnl]

Maybe not, but is that an intellectually honest reason for expanding something that you consider illegitimate?

Any less intellectually honest than others demanding the government be in the marriage business? No. I want the government out of marriage. You must be the only Romney voter that agrees with that.

 

[steveh_131]

Maybe not, but is that an intellectually honest reason for expanding something that you consider illegitimate?

No, but it is intellectually honest to say that since the government is already in the marriage business, it can not be allowed to discriminate based on moral issues.

Your logic leads us down an interesting path. Let's look at a hypothetical. Let's say the opposite was currently true. Only same-sex marriages are recognized by the government. Heterosexual marriages are not.

My vote: Remove government from the marriage business altogether. Barring that, allow heterosexual couples the same benefits offered to homosexual couples under state law.

Your vote: Remove government from the marriage business altogether (or so you claim). Barring that, do not allow heterosexual couples to marry, because it would infringe upon the 'property rights' of folks who are morally against heterosexual marriage.

What do you say to that?

 

[rambone]

That's hardly forcing my morality on others.

I realize you're choosing not to understand that, but that's your problem.

When you're constantly putting quotes around the word "freedom" and ranting about your other people breaking your version of immorality (even pot smoking and gambling, apparently), it is hard to believe you. You've specifically said you will vote against anything you consider immoral. You think you're being oppressed by libertarians offering you too much freedom. We can't even agree that individual rights intersect with immoral acts.

people nowadays only want the "freedom" to be immoral.

Immorality and rights are two different things.

I'm not sure I consider myself freer just because homosexuals can marry and smoke pot while gambling.

as long as they get to marry their sodomy partner and smoke pot, they think they're free.

That leaves room for me to personally vote at the state level against what I consider to be immoral.

 

[Liberty1911]

No, but it is intellectually honest to say that since the government is already in the marriage business, it can not be allowed to discriminate based on moral issues.

Your logic leads us down an interesting path. Let's look at a hypothetical. Let's say the opposite was currently true. Only same-sex marriages are recognized by the government. Heterosexual marriages are not.

My vote: Remove government from the marriage business altogether. Barring that, allow heterosexual couples the same benefits offered to homosexual couples under state law.

Your vote: Remove government from the marriage business altogether (or so you claim). Barring that, do not allow heterosexual couples to marry, because it would infringe upon the 'property rights' of folks who are morally against heterosexual marriage.

What do you say to that?

I say again that Libertarians are really pro-immoral. Here's why I say that, using what they (you) advocate for.

1. The government has no business telling people what they can ingest. Libertarian solution - Let's remove as many laws as possible even if we can't remove them all.

2. The government has no business telling people who they can marry. Libertarian solution - We can't remove all the laws, so let's expand them as much as possible.

Those are contradictory positions. The only thing in common is that Libertarians side with the least moral position each time.

You can try to "squirrel out of it" as you say, but the fact is, you're advocating the use of government force to require citizens to recognize homosexual marriage who otherwise may not want to. That is not consistent with liberty, and in fact it is a violation of your vaunted non-aggression principle.

 

[Liberty1911]

When you're constantly putting quotes around the word "freedom" and ranting about your other people breaking your version of immorality (even pot smoking and gambling, apparently), it is hard to believe you. You've specifically said you will vote against anything you consider immoral. You think you're being oppressed by libertarians offering you too much freedom. We can't even agree that individual rights intersect with immoral acts.

Exactly. I keep asking for Libertarians to cite an immoral act, and then explain how that is also a Constitutional right. No one is apparently willing however.

To your other point. Libertarians aren't offering me any freedom. They're offering me responsibility to take care of additional drug abusers via the safety net, and they're offering me another class of protected citizens that diminish my property rights.

If you're offering me additional freedom, I'd love to hear about it. So far, I'll I get are offers to have my freedom further diminished, and then lectured about "shoving my morality down their throat" if I don't agree with these offers.

 

[steveh_131]

Exactly. I keep asking for Libertarians to cite an immoral act, and then explain how that is also a Constitutional right. No one is apparently willing however.

Perhaps the problem is right here.

You think the only rights a human being has are those granted to him by the constition?

 

[steveh_131]

I say again that Libertarians are really pro-immoral. Here's why I say that, using what they (you) advocate for.

1. The government has no business telling people what they can ingest. Libertarian solution - Let's remove as many laws as possible even if we can't remove them all.

2. The government has no business telling people who they can marry. Libertarian solution - We can't remove all the laws, so let's expand them as much as possible.

Those are contradictory positions. The only thing in common is that Libertarians side with the least moral position each time.

You can try to "squirrel out of it" as you say, but the fact is, you're advocating the use of government force to require citizens to recognize homosexual marriage who otherwise may not want to. That is not consistent with liberty, and in fact it is a violation of your vaunted non-aggression principle.

That is a complete misrepresentation of everything that has been said thus far in this thread. I don't feel like arguing each point for the hundredth time. It's already been done.

Are you going to answer my question?

ETA: I take it back, it's not a complete misrepresentation.

Number 1 was pretty much correct. Number 2 was false. Nobody has advocated more laws, we have advocated equality in the application of the existing laws.

 

[Liberty1911]

Perhaps the problem is right here.

You think the only rights a human being has are those granted to him by the constition?

Not necessarily. However, I can't get anyone to give me a list of rights, or where they get their authority from. All I get are claims of "natural rights", and when asked, the answer is that they are inherent to each persons own understanding. That's nice, but at some point, you have to actually define what that means.

I get the whole "I can do anything as long as I don't infringe on you" schtick. And for what it's worth, I generally agree.

However, once again. That is NOT what you or any Libertarian here on INGO are advocating.

You're advocating a diminishment of my rights, in order to grant "rights" to others. That's hardly a live and let live proposition.

So again, you can try to "squirrel out of it", but the fact is, you are perfectly willing to use the force of government to diminish my rights in order to satisfy your own sense of morality.

I simply don't agree, and I think it's a hypocritical position if your philosophy is one of doing what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others.

 

[Liberty1911]

Number 2 was false. Nobody has advocated more laws, we have advocated equality in the application of the existing laws.

Incorrect. Existing law says marriage is one man and one woman. That law is equally applied.

You seek to expand existing law, so my analogy is correct.

 

[steveh_131]

Incorrect. Existing law says marriage is one man and one woman. That law is equally applied.

You seek to expand existing law, so my analogy is correct.

Incorrect.

Clarifying existing law is not the same as expanding.

You still haven't answered my hypothetical question. Good luck with that one.

 

[rambone]

Exactly. I keep asking for Libertarians to cite an immoral act, and then explain how that is also a Constitutional right. No one is apparently willing however.

Wow, really? Is this a serious question? MOST sins are also rights.

Worshiping idols and false gods
Blasphemy
Lying
Taking the Lord's name in vain
Dishonoring thy father and thy mother
Dishonoring the Sabbath
Adultery
Homosexuality
Practicing magic
Participating in the occult
Usury
Coveting
Pre-marital sex
Being a drunkard
Twisting scripture
Gluttony
Greed
Pride
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Lust
Holding grudges
Not forgiving your neighbor
Hatred
Atheism
.....



This could continue for a LONG time.

Morality is a personal standard. Making it a legal standard is tyranny.


How much of this list do you favor putting into law, Liberty?
SIN LIST

 

[steveh_131]

However, once again. That is NOT what you or any Libertarian here on INGO are advocating.

You're advocating a diminishment of my rights, in order to grant "rights" to others. That's hardly a live and let live proposition.

So again, you can try to "squirrel out of it", but the fact is, you are perfectly willing to use the force of government to diminish my rights in order to satisfy your own sense of morality.

First of all, I advocate abolishing all of this nonsense.

Secondly, please explain how your personal rights are diminished when two strangers get married.

 

[nawainwright]

Murder is an issue of morality. Just because you don't like that standard of morality doesn't mean there isn't one. You're proposing anarchy.

 

[steveh_131]

Murder is an issue of morality. Just because you don't like that standard of morality doesn't mean there isn't one. You're proposing anarchy.

Murder is an initiation of force.