The Issue of Homosexuality

[The Sum of Awe]

Yeah, maybe I missed it, just link it, if you dont mind.

There will be a lot of public events, a lot more churches (some specifically for homosexual marriages), etc being made after this, and with Socialism in place, there'd be an increase of taxes.

 

[DreadFish]

There will be a lot of public events, a lot more churches (some specifically for homosexual marriages), etc being made after this, and with Socialism in place, there'd be an increase of taxes.

Oh ok, I did see that one. What I dont get is, why are you assuming socialism will be in place in this situation? I didnt understand where that came from.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Oh ok, I did see that one. What I dont get is, why are you assuming socialism will be in place in this situation? I didnt understand where that came from.

That's why I only want one or the other, is what I was saying. I'm not voting to support or demote gay marriage rights, because it has nothing to do with me, but if it is legal all over the country, then I'm definitely voting a capitalist.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

That's why I only want one or the other, is what I was saying. I'm not voting to support or demote gay marriage rights, because it has nothing to do with me, but if it is legal all over the country, then I'm definitely voting a capitalist.

Marriage has nothing at all to do with the economic choice of Capitalism or Socialism. The United States is a blend of both philosophies and that is what works best. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism works in its pure form, but when both are used to balance each other out it works fairly well.

 

[DreadFish]

Marriage has nothing at all to do with the economic choice of Capitalism or Socialism. The United States is a blend of both philosophies and that is what works best. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism works in its pure form, but when both are used to balance each other out it works fairly well.

Yes, this ^

 

[Penumbra]

Legality of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism or liberalism.

 

[tytlyf]

Legality of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism or liberalism.

But it does show how Republicans are trying to make America a Theocracy.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

But it does show how Republicans are trying to make America a Theocracy.

And unfortunately they seem to be having some successes.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Marriage has nothing at all to do with the economic choice of Capitalism or Socialism. The United States is a blend of both philosophies and that is what works best. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism works in its pure form, but when both are used to balance each other out it works fairly well.

It doesn't have to do with the economic choice of either... but it has part to do with the economy... as I explained why above. That affects my choice.

Legality of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism or liberalism.

I know, as I said to Trey's quote.

But it does show how Republicans are trying to make America a Theocracy.

What...

 

[T-Dawg]

I agree, personal freedom should be unlimited, but some people weren't too reasonable and made gay marriage illegal, but just because I think gays aren't bad and wouldn't hurt the world if they could get married, but it seems all of the people supporting gay marriage rights are also socialists, and that means more money out of my pocket for gay marriage programs, which I don't see much benefit of having in the first place, since there is such thing as being in a relationship without being married.

And here we have a classic example of how libertarians don't really exist. It's like they're trying to be a moral grey, when such a thing logically cannot exist.


Supporters of capitalism will do anything they can to restrict your freedom... to hurt you... libertarians can never be genuine, because to someone who supports capitalism, the right to exploit others will always be more important than the right of others to be free. If they didn't believe that, they would be denying the profit incentive, and that would be denying capitalism.

 

[Draka]

That's why I only want one or the other, is what I was saying. I'm not voting to support or demote gay marriage rights, because it has nothing to do with me, but if it is legal all over the country, then I'm definitely voting a capitalist.

Wrong-O. It does have to do with you. It really has to do with everyone, but just not the way the anti-gay crowd sees it. When one group's equality can be brushed aside and tucked under the rug like it doesn't matter it sets precedent for it to be able to happen to any group. Even one you belong to. Only then will it suddenly matter to you and you will start crying foul and saying how unfair it is.

Also, I find it a tad bit humorous that you seem to think that legalizing gay marriage will have some kind of negative economic effect. you and I both live in Iowa and I have yet to see this supposed economic downfall in our state as any result of the legality of gay marriage. Furthermore, by allowing gay marriage you actually increase the business for those whose businesses cater to weddings. Gay marriage being legal means more marriages, therefore more weddings, more bridal dresses sold, more tux rentals, more building/avenue rentals, more catering jobs, more event planning jobs, even more clergy and JP jobs. On the flip side, with legal marriages come legal divorces and here's where lawyers and court fees get to have their share of the take as well. So how does allowing a group of people to have the same right everyone else does to get married suddenly negatively impact our economics?

 

[waitasec]

Name some ways it hurts them.

think of all the rights a married couple get vs a gay couple cannot get.

from insurance coverage to inheritance to estate planning, social security disability, making arrangements for the burial of their partner, the option of living in in neighborhoods zoned for "families only", suing 3rd person for wrongful death

things like that.

 

[T-Dawg]

Also, I find it a tad bit humorous that you seem to think that legalizing gay marriage will have some kind of negative economic effect. you and I both live in Iowa and I have yet to see this supposed economic downfall in our state as any result of the legality of gay marriage. Furthermore, by allowing gay marriage you actually increase the business for those whose businesses cater to weddings. Gay marriage being legal means more marriages, therefore more weddings, more bridal dresses sold, more tux rentals, more building/avenue rentals, more catering jobs, more event planning jobs, even more clergy and JP jobs. On the flip side, with legal marriages come legal divorces and here's where lawyers and court fees get to have their share of the take as well. So how does allowing a group of people to have the same right everyone else does to get married suddenly negatively impact our economics?

I think what he's trying to say is that he'd rather vote for a wicked man who loved the Lord than vote for a decent secular candidate, since the latter is associated with good economics (as in, not rabidly laissez-faire) in this country. Since as a libertarian he opposes good economics, and he as a capitalist views economics as the sole source of meaning in life, he has no choice but to vote for the wicked man, given the choice between the two.

 

[Alceste]

I tried hard to write all of that to your post, considering that I didn't have much written in the first draft, so please respond instead of remarks.

I literally can't reply to it because it makes no sense to me. Are you saying that you think the state pays for weddings with tax dollars or something? I'm getting married in three weeks, and I can assure you that is, tragically, not the case.

 

[fallingblood]

But it does show how Republicans are trying to make America a Theocracy.

Not really at all. The opposition of homosexuality has little to do with theology. It has to do with underlying prejudices that we see surfacing in a variety of forms, but usually dealing with minorities.

And I can't see how anyone (this is not directed at you personally), could say that the Republicans are having any success at doing so at all. Really, we are nothing like a theocracy. What Republicans (and lets be honest, some Democrats) are doing is enforcing ideas based on prejudices. As long as we have been a country, we have had a problem with subjugating minorities. And it hardly ever has to do with religious ideas (yes, often, and it is usually quite some time after the atrocities begin, religion is used as a justification; however, if one looks at the situation, one can clearly see something else is at work).

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Haven't you read about restrictive abortion laws being passed in some states recently? Or TN's new law to remove evolution from class? Or the no say gay law in Missouri? How about the sperm bill in Oklahoma or that new Kansas law to allow religious discrimination of gays?

How long are we going to pretend there is no theocratic agenda and that these things aren't going on?

 

[fallingblood]

Haven't you read about restrictive abortion laws being passed in some states recently? Or TN's new law to remove evolution from class? Or the no say gay law in Missouri? How about the sperm bill in Oklahoma or that new Kansas law to allow religious discrimination of gays?

How long are we going to pretend there is no theocratic agenda and that these things aren't going on?

First, all of the things you mentioned are also supported by some Democrats as well. So are Democrats just as guilty as wanting a theocracy?

Second, none of those are actually (besides evolution) about religion. Abortions main argument against is that it "kill a person." Most Democrats also aren't are that happy about abortion either anyway.

Gay laws generally focus on not a religious idea (as really, the Bible says pretty much nothing on the subject) but one based on a prejudice against a minority. We see it all throughout history with other groups as well, such as those who are left handed. To pass it off as religious really does no good, and it hampers the progress as it is focusing on the wrong problem.

Third, you're showing the same type of intolerance that you are accusing others of. I say that because you are demonizing Republicans with broad sweeping generalizations, that really aren't based on facts, but on rumors/gossip/ignorance.

Finally, none of that is what a theocracy is. There is a separation of church and religion which would make a theocracy nearly impossible. More so, as evidence consistently shows, the United States will not vote for a president who would try to lead through theocracy, as in, we generally vote in moderates. Not to mention, even if we had such a president, it would mean very little as we have a system of checks and balances that would equal it out.

As a side note, trying to implement some "religious" based laws is not trying to set up a theocracy.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

And here we have a classic example of how libertarians don't really exist. It's like they're trying to be a moral grey, when such a thing logically cannot exist.

That's bull and you know it. A lot of Libertarians support gay marriage. I don't care about the idea of gay marriage is all, since I'm not gay and it has nothing to do with me.

Supporters of capitalism will do anything they can to restrict your freedom... to hurt you...

Bull again, and not only bull, but a stereotype.

libertarians can never be genuine, because to someone who supports capitalism, the right to exploit others will always be more important than the right of others to be free. If they didn't believe that, they would be denying the profit incentive, and that would be denying capitalism.

Thanks for offending my political views, be thankful I didn't report you. Oh, I'm not genuine, so don't thank me...

 

[tytlyf]

Not really at all. The opposition of homosexuality has little to do with theology.

Wrong. It has everything to do with Theology. These are christians who are using the bible as a means to prevent same-sex marriage. Nothing less.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm making Libertarianism look bad by people misinterpreting me and thinking all Libertarians share my opinion, so I'm just going to say I have nothing against the idea of gay marriage.