Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

Please note I have never asked that government authority be used to curb homosexual activity merely that government authority not be used to force me to accept it as if it were no different than heterosexual activity inside the bonds of holy matrimony.

 

If I am forced to participate against my will I am in essence forced to accept the activity
That was the original formulation in the survey. It is at the heart of the statement "I was born that way." We are. from the Christian perspective all born sinners. This does not mean we cannot turn away from sin if we so choose or that being naturally attracted to sin is a good thing.nor is it an excuse to continue to sin.

 

No one is forcing you to accept anything. I hear this claim all the time and it is silly. Good that you distinguish between 1)having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others.

One of the big problems I have is that Gov't is engaging in censorship. While I many not agree with arguments against homosexuals - people have a right to be heard. Getting bad arguments out into the open is the best way to deal with these arguments - rather than hiding them under a blanket where they will fester.

 

Speaking of liberty, have you been able to clarify your 'harm' standard in discrimination law so that it's more consistent?

 

What "survey?"

 

The word "do" isn't in the above. Why not?

 

I clarified this to you previously - Discrimination can cause harm such as financial loss - inability to produce or buy food.

 

Anything.

 

Only because my family insisted

I couldn't get married prior.

getting married under the law is marraige. Marriage is a legal status.

Well you could have a knighting ceremony it you wanted that doesn't make you a nobleman. so do you have a wedding ceremony but can't get married there is no point.

I've learned to talking with you that impressions don't mean anything. This conversation is so meandering and soap pointless I don't at the f*** you're talking about.

never happened here so what difference does it make?

 

Hey @Polydectes and @chris155au, while I appreciate your participation on the thread, could you please take the off topic subject of same sex marriage to an appropriate thread for that? Or fit it into the topic of what conservatives/libertarians believe? Would be much appreciated.

 

Sure sorry about that.

 

You sir--I assume you are a sir?--are a scholar and a gentleman.

When it comes to same sex marriage though, I think probably conservatives/libertarians are all over the map about that. Some, like myself, support the concept though I do wish there could be a separate term for it than traditional marriage, but I am not passionate about that. But no conservative/libertarian worthy of the name would deny a public discussion about it or treat a gay person poorly for no other reason than he/she is gay.

I think most of us might agree that rules and regs re same sex marriage are not the constitutional prerogative of the federal government any more than traditional marriage is. And it is just as wrong to discriminate against gay people as it is straight people or black people or anybody else.

 

As far as marriage goes I tend to be more libertarian and that I don't think the government should be involved. What individuals decide to contract to one another or marry one another and the state government sticks to state government stuff. That way we don't have to worry about legal meanings of terms like marriage.

 

Well, I was once a progressive, which of course is an ideology based around force and collectivism, but my eyes have opened, and I see the light of liberty. I consider myself a libertarian now. And no, I am not a troll.

 

Which nobody has done. We don’t have holy matrimony in the US. We have legal marriage. In the eyes of the law, same sex couples and opposite sex couples are identical. You are free to not like that, and free to not marry someone of the same sex. But that is all.

 

Obviously you haven't been paying attention

 

Nothing I said in my post was incorrect. We don’t have holy matrimony. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Same sex and opposite sex marriage is identical. All facts. Sorry.

 

In conservative/libertarian (little "L") ideology, or perhaps a better way would to say the basic values, re marriage is for the purpose of establishing familial relationships which affects inheritance of property, but is mostly to protect any children that result from that union. Age restrictions, those closely related by blood cannot marry, and what becomes binding in marriage contracts, and how marriage contracts can be annulled or dissolved, are all proper roles for the state to establish. And it is because marriage has traditionally been the assumption that a family is formed with children as a possibility, with most of the rules and regulations for the benefit of those children, it was assumed until recent decades that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of forming a family unit within a much larger family of ancestors extending back as far as we can trace our family histories.

In same sex unions, attractions and affection also exists, and most conservatives/libertarians consider that real and significant, but it is not the same thing as marriage. There obviously is not universal agreement on that on any side of that discussion, but that can be debated on another thread more suitable for that purpose.

Likewise conservatives/libertarians consider marriage a good thing and a primary factor in forming stable, peaceful, productive, and prosperous communities that rarely, if ever, form when traditional marriage is not the societal norm.

 

First we still have church marriage, which is holy matrimony as far as Christians go. And you'd still be forcing Christian caterers, bakers photographers et Al to participate if Scotus hadn't told you to screw off.

 

Which is meaningless, unless a marriage license is obtained. So, as I said, we don’t have holy matrimony. We have marriage.

SCOTUS didn’t tell anyone to screw off. Public accommodation laws are still on the books and enforceable. SCOTUS just clarified that they bakers have to sell a cake they would normally sell to same sex couples. They can only refuse if it’s a special order cake, and not a cake off the shelf.

 

Which they were already doing.

 

Nope. Some bakers won, and some lost, for the reasons I stated.

 

Fair enough I just don't think it needs licensing.

No need for the licensure.

Yeah I don't see how it's not the same.

There obviously is not universal agreement on that on any side of that discussion, but that can be debated on another thread more suitable for that purpose.

I don't guess I understand the value in denying that to same sex couples.

 

I don't support forcing any business to serve any customer.

 

Trump's fans are finding new and interesting ways to avoid what is happening in our country. They wish to avoid the issues that are dominating the news.

That clearly is a sign of weakness where their political views are concerned.