Poppycock!!Libertarians, like Liberals, and conservatives all draw a line on what is "favorable" and "mature" based on their own goals for society; so please spare me the sanctimony.
In terms of gay marriage, there are logical arguments from both sides. With liberals, the arguments stem from short term inconsequence to society, with Conservatives, their arguments stem from long term consequences to society. Libertarians on the other hand, on the face, care little about consequences in favor of an all or nothing path to unbridled freedom Both liberal and conservative views are potentially correct, however, a libertarian no holds barred approach to freedom, and liberty, is undoubtedly incorrect.
Tim-
Gee I wonder what the pro gay police would say to my views on the topic.. LOL
No it doesn't.
Not really. Anyone can do what anyone else can works fairly well.
I'd be interested to read these journal articles. Please cite them.
Yes. We have a will to power. Nietzsche would be proud.
Hehe. I marriage license is a certificate on record with the cival registar that you both meet the eligibility to enter into a marriage contract. Yes, you meet the terms. The marriage certificate is the contract between you an another party reflecting duties and obligations condition precident to fulfill said contract. A marriage license requires no such quid pro quo duty, or responsibility or obligation to enter into the marriage. A drivers license conversly requires that you meet the terms to be able to drive a car. If you fail to meet the laws for operating that vehicle you are subject to punishment. The drivers license is NOT a contract either. It merely says you're eleigble to drive a car. The contract to drive it safely is with you and the common laws of society.
Any more questions Einstein?
Tim-
It gains several dynamics for insurance, income, household, medical, etc advantages. It is the method through which marriage is officially recognized, and it comes in the form of contract.
A driver's license IS a contract as well. In order to obtain, I must strike contract with the State and agree to operate within their conditions along with several other dynamics mostly related to drunk driving (such as per say). Most certainly a contract.
DOMA is still unconstitutional because the Constitution requires a state to respect the laws of the other states, and because the 10th Amendment does not give the right to regulate marriage to the Federal government.
See^^^ This is why I shouldn't have wasted my time. My answer is correct and yours is not.
Tim-
Yes, well declaring yourself right doesn't necessarily make it so. The Marriage License is a contract, it is one of the reasons why you have to have it dissolved in court for divorce. Additionally, government may not just strip you of it at their leisure as they can a drivers license (which still requires a contract between individual and State). The Marriage License composes a 3-party Contract. The license itself was nothing more than a backdoor means through which government hoped to gain control over marriage and as such is part of the contractual dynamic.
Yes it does..
I love arguing with true blue libertarians.. Question for you. Should we all be free to use the same bathrooms and change rooms? Now I know you'll say no because noone else is allowed to do that, but then I'd say, well why not? And you say???.....
No, but you can look in the sexuality forums. That'd be a good place to start, if you're really interested.
Can you elaborate?
I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend a great deal of time on explaining it to you if you do not already know my well
documented views on the subject. To do so would be a massive waste of time.
Gee I wonder what the pro gay police would say to my views on the topic.. LOL
In my experience, people who've made up their minds on this issue, will not change them.
Suffice it to say that my argument stems mostly from a breakdown in the family over the last 40 years as leading to the direct result of why our country is as screwed up as it is. Gay marriage would add to that breakdown, it would not solve it, or improve it in any way. Kids need both their mothers and their fathers active in their lives and as direct role models. Uncles and Aunts, and neighbors, or schools do not provide for these needs, and until we decide collectively as a nation to restore these virtues, we're destined to fall even further as a once strong familial based society.
Laws are representative of a societies values on justice and punishment. Libertarians, as I explained, just want to be in the drivers seat, as do conservatives and liberals.
Tim-
While it's been a while since I was on the debate team, I remember "because it does!" didn't go too well. :roll:
Sure. Another sign that society is stupid and illogical.
Interesting. Most of the studies I've come across in Child Development journals and Psychology journals claim that there isn't enough evidence to really say it deters children.
Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, or The Will to Power (although I'd be weary of the latter because it was posthumously printed and may / may not be Nietzsche's original works.)
Tim-
I love arguing with true blue libertarians.. Question for you. Should we all be free to use the same bathrooms and change rooms? Now I know you'll say no because noone else is allowed to do that, but then I'd say, well why not? And you say???.....
Tim-
You said...
So we are supposed to guess?
Have you made up your mind about that?
A marriage between two people of the same sex in no way infringes upon the marriage of anyone else. That legal standard will not work.
How do you suggest we restore the family? You are suggesting a package deal. That is, you don't want to allow gay marriage because you are hoping for some sort of cultural shift in the family. That implies that you would want to change something to improve the stability of families. I am here to tell you, marriage as it existed before women's liberation and the 70s is not going to come back without some sort of change in the treatment of marriage by the courts and state. I do not support a return to what existed before the 70s, but if you do or anyone else does they should be up front with it.
An honest libertarian and/or liberal usually are looking to find a framework that works for everyone. Many conservatives and/or progressives are the ones who demand the drivers seat and tell everyone else to shut up and be quiet.
I guess we can agree to disagree as we did before.. But I'm right and your wrong.
Tim-
Oh that is such a head scratcher.... As long as the owner permits it and is willing to accept liability for possibly creating a dangerous environment in consideration of the cutlural and social norms in which the bathroom exists. Are you under the impression that such restrooms are prohibited by law or that they should be? Do you believe that providing for public safety is a valid state interest or imagine that it is no different than enforcing a narrow view of the state's interest in family?
You can claim it as much as you want, but any precursor to the contract is part of the contract. If I have right to contract, and I want to engage in contract, but you add a piece called a license on top of that contract that forbids me from entering that contract, you have infringed upon my right to contract (additionally, the license becomes part of the contract dynamics). Having done so through the use of government force, in this case the marriage license, is an act of aggressive government interference in the exercise of rights. The government is not allowed to act in this manner.
Well thanks for the reading suggestions, however I fear I have better things to be doing. Like thinking for myself.
I already told you I'm NOT here to debate anyone. I'm merely here to profess any objections I might have about a particular comment or two. I've already done the debating part ad nausium, and there's really nothing to learn from the other sides point of view. I cannot possibly entertain the idea of presenting my views as complex as they are, as every little flare up on this topic appears on DP. Can you imagine? It's not something that can be summarized in a paragraph or two, and even if it could, the resulting oppositions questions and critique would require more vested time to clarify. What results is a link war that says my study is more credible than your study, but all the while both sides missing the point - that none of the studies meets the burden of proof required to win the debate. So where are we left? Nowhere really, and I have come to the point that when bored I'll enter a thread like this; spout off a few one liners, or maybe a parapgraph about my views on the subject, joust a bit, and then go back to my normal way of life.
Topics (like this) are perfect for debate forums in some ways because there isn't a correct answer. The subjectivity of the material makes it perfect for philosophical forums, and or religious forums, but where facts and truth are concerned, very little is solved by spending days going back and forth in the hope that perhaps you'll find a way to articulate your point of view better, or more consice as to change anyones opinion, or vice versa.. It's a futile endeavour..
Tim-
I'll tell you what. You seem like a bright fellow, I'll entertain your questions but it will have to wait until later this evening, however I'm not sure what you wish to focus on? Is it my views on gay marriage and they could potentially affect our society in the long run, or is it my ideas on how to recapture, or maybe reinvent my idea of the most ideal society? Or would you prefer that I pick on libertarians for the rest of our exchange? I can do either or, but in the interest of time and effort, I'd prefer you focus on my opposition consisting of one topic at a time? Fair? So, which one do take priority with?
Tim-
Ya know, call me silly, but I think you take issue with my challenging libertarian purism? Someone as well-read as yourself can't possibly like it when someone so clearly deficient on the subject matter as I, scoffs at something so dear to you that it approaches insulting. Especially since you've taken 20 years to adopt your philosophy, so let me ask you. Is this what you wish to discuss later this evening?
Tim-
Gee I wonder what the pro gay police would say to my views on the topic.. LOL
The fine print...
Sixty-five posts before it was mentioned that marriage is a CIVIL institution. Some of these complaints here are the equivalent of demanding that government keep its hands off Medicare.What are you trying to argue here? The Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract...
Your answer is a sham of semantics. A marriage license is a document issued by a state anointed official indicating qualification for entering into a contract of marriage. A marriage certificate is a document issued by a state anointed official indicating that such a contract has indeed been entered into.See^^^ This is why I shouldn't have wasted my time. My answer is correct and yours is not.
It's unequivocally false. The state does not have rights, but powers, and the Tenth Amendment doesn't confer any power upon the federal government at all.And that might be true, we'll see.
No, you trip stumble, and fall. The terms and conditions for no fault divorce are set out by the state and a meeting of those terms and condtions must be established to the satisfaction of a state-established authority empowered to grant the divorce. No-fault is all state, all the time.Truth is that, now we have no fault in all 50 states, so the duties, responsibilities and obligations condition precedent are now mostly anything but, but I digress.
BaytoBay... I agree with Henrin on pretty much nothing, but he is about as libertarian as they come... and a consistent one at that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?