Living Without Recognition

[angellica]

I don´t think I have stated my position to you, so I don´t know how you would feel about it. But perhaps you feel that every position an Atheist might hold is dubious... which is in turn a dubious position in itself.

But I´ll try to explain:
What I, as a supporter of same-gender-marriages, try to do is defend what I see as a basic right: the choice of people to form a family with a person of their respective choice. "Family" here means regarding in a legal sense, the only meaning that a law or governmental sposoring can have.

Now this is a right that is denied to a minority that is, again per law, protected from "the majority". You cannot, by vote, deny them this right.
And for that people try to bring examples that you would agree with: portraying such a right withheld from others that you agree with. They do that to show you that your position is not based on legal reasons or rational reasons... simply because you do not like the group in question.

I do not lump all atheists together, nor do I think every atheist belief is dubious by name alone. I did not mean you personally, but you as a representative of the view different than mine, since we were on opposing sides, or so it seemed to me, of the argument.

Anyway, I interpret the gay marriage differently than you. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, not just straight people. I do not agree with gay marriage, therefore I do not support it on any bill or amendment. It is not because I do not like gay PEOPLE, but because I do not support the ACT of being gay and I will not condone it. But it is not based on some discriminatory hate or fear; rather, it is based on my morals, which you are free to disagree with.

 

[Freodin]

I do not lump all atheists together, nor do I think every atheist belief is dubious by name alone. I did not mean you personally, but you as a representative of the view different than mine, since we were on opposing sides, or so it seemed to me, of the argument.

And any view that (possibly) disagrees with you is dubious? Well, I won´t follow this further.

Anyway, I interpret the gay marriage differently than you. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, not just straight people.

See, here you show some of the irrational arguments I mentioned. "Anyone can marry someoine of the opposite sex..." you say - but is that the "right" that is in question?
Is the only prereqisite for marriage that the opposite is of different sex? Could I simply walk on the street, grab the next girl I see and "marry" her?
What other conditions should be met? Some people think that marrying across races is "immoral"... would you tell them that "hey, everyone can marry a person of their own colour", if people would vote on that?

That is an good way to present a rational argument: turn it around, change it and see where the important parts are.

I do not agree with gay marriage, therefore I do not support it on any bill or amendment. It is not because I do not like gay PEOPLE, but because I do not support the ACT of being gay and I will not condone it. But it is not based on some discriminatory hate or fear; rather, it is based on my morals, which you are free to disagree with.

I can understand that you don´t agree with it... but I don´t understand why you use that disagreement as a reason for denying others to it. No one forces you or your children to marry a person of the same gender. But don´t you see that YOUR morals should not have any say about other peoples morals?

Or what else do you want to legislate? Should all of your morals be the law for everyone else?

 

[Chajara]

No, I would not vote for that bill. Common sense tells me that it would be too difficult and too many loopholes to define "Christian" and get anyone to agree on it. But as long as it is a man and a woman, they can get married.

This makes no sense if you believe that marriage is God-ordained. If this is true, then a marriage with no God involved is no more okay then a marriage with two men or women. Just because you think it'd be too hard to work out the details does not make your position consistent, and your conscience should be telling you to vote against it because God owns marriage and it should only be for those who honor Him.

Do you believe that non-Christians' marriages aren't real marriages? You must, if you believe that a gay marriage isn't a real one using the logic that God did not intend for it to be that way. If you don't believe this, then I don't know what reason you still have to deny gay people marriage.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I can understand that you don´t agree with it... but I don´t understand why you use that disagreement as a reason for denying others to it. No one forces you or your children to marry a person of the same gender. But don´t you see that YOUR morals should not have any say about other peoples morals?

Or what else do you want to legislate? Should all of your morals be the law for everyone else?

Again, especially considering she claims to be a Libertarian. Apparently liberty is only applicable if it works for her, screw everyone else. But just like Christians like to say "Just because you're in a garage doesn't make you a car," just because she claims to be Libertarian doesn't mean she is. I'd love to hear her views on whether drugs should be legalized or not.

 

[angellica]

I am a Libertarian in that I believe the people should be able to vote on it, it shouldn't be in the hands of big government. It can go to a vote, like in California, and if the people want it we'll have it. But if they outvoted it in Cali., there's little chance of it passing elsewhere.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I am a Libertarian in that I believe the people should be able to vote on it, it shouldn't be in the hands of big government. It can go to a vote, like in California, and if the people want it we'll have it. But if they outvoted it in Cali., there's little chance of it passing elsewhere.

I hate to tell you this, but that's not Libertarian philosophy at all.

lib·er·tar·i·an: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

"Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it."

"Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same."
-- Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government

Libertarianism is NOT about restricting the liberties of another based on popular vote. Sorry, you are very much not Libertarian, as much as you want to claim you are. Your way of thinking flies directly in the face of fundamental Libertarian philosophy.

 

[gwenmead]

I am a Libertarian in that I believe the people should be able to vote on it, it shouldn't be in the hands of big government. It can go to a vote, like in California, and if the people want it we'll have it. But if they outvoted it in Cali., there's little chance of it passing elsewhere.

Okay. I'm still curious to know if you'd hold this position if the hypothetical in the OP actually happened, and the people voted down Christian marriage to other Christians. You seem to value democratic representation highly and I'm curious to know how far your position goes on that.

If you are willing and able to indulge me, I will appreciate it. If not, that's okay, you are by no means obligated to fulfill my curiosity.

Either way, thank you for reading.

 

[angellica]

Okay. I'm still curious to know if you'd hold this position if the hypothetical in the OP actually happened, and the people voted down Christian marriage to other Christians. You seem to value democratic representation highly and I'm curious to know how far your position goes on that.

If you are willing and able to indulge me, I will appreciate it. If not, that's okay, you are by no means obligated to fulfill my curiosity.

Either way, thank you for reading.

I would move to a civilized society where my morals and beliefs were respected and understood by others. I would not want to live in a place primarily filled with homosexuals and transgenders, to be perfectly honest.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

But if they outvoted it in Cali., there's little chance of it passing elsewhere.

Actually that's not true. First, it will be overturned in Cali. Second, here in NY we already recognize same gender marriage, it's only a matter of time until performing the marriages here in NY is legal. I am very active in monitoring and influencing the legislative process here in NY and it will be five years at most. Actually with Democrats completely controlling everything here in NY now, it will likely come much sooner.

 

[angellica]

I hate to tell you this, but that's not Libertarian philosophy at all.







Libertarianism is NOT about restricting the liberties of another based on popular vote. Sorry, you are very much not Libertarian, as much as you want to claim you are. Your way of thinking flies directly in the face of fundamental Libertarian philosophy.

I am not a strict libertarian, nor am I a strict Republican. I agree with many sentiments on both parties, so I am a combination of the two.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I would move to a civilized society where my morals and beliefs were respected and understood by others. I would not want to live in a place primarily filled with homosexuals and transgenders, to be perfectly honest.

Us "homosexuals and transgenders" would likely take up a collection to pay for your plane ticket, to be perfectly honest. But good luck finding a place like that. Maybe Alabama can secede and you all can move there. Or Alaska and Sarah can be your queen.

 

[Chajara]

This makes no sense if you believe that marriage is God-ordained. If this is true, then a marriage with no God involved is no more okay then a marriage with two men or women. Just because you think it'd be too hard to work out the details does not make your position consistent, and your conscience should be telling you to vote against it because God owns marriage and it should only be for those who honor Him.

Do you believe that non-Christians' marriages aren't real marriages? You must, if you believe that a gay marriage isn't a real one using the logic that God did not intend for it to be that way. If you don't believe this, then I don't know what reason you still have to deny gay people marriage.

Still waiting on an answer for this.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I am not a strict libertarian, nor am I a strict Republican. I agree with many sentiments on both parties, so I am a combination of the two.

No actually, you really have nothing in common with a true Libertarian. At all.

 

[gwenmead]

I would move to a civilized society where my morals and beliefs were respected and understood by others. I would not want to live in a place primarily filled with homosexuals and transgenders, to be perfectly honest.

Okay. Thank you for your response.

It sounds as if your position on acceptance of the will of the people (as dictated by democratic vote) is not absolute. Is that correct?

If this is true, I am curious as to how you determine when rule by the will of the people (i.e., by majority vote in a democratic system) is acceptable, and when it is not.

If I am way off base and misunderstanding your position, then please educate me.

Thanks again.

 

[angellica]

Okay. Thank you for your response.

It sounds as if your position on acceptance of the will of the people (as dictated by democratic vote) is not absolute. Is that correct?

If this is true, I am curious as to how you determine when rule by the will of the people (i.e., by majority vote in a democratic system) is acceptable, and when it is not.

If I am way off base and misunderstanding your position, then please educate me.

Thanks again.

It is absolute. If I happened to live in a place full of homosexuals, however, I would not sit there and put up with it. I would move to a place with the same base morals and principles as my own.

 

[angellica]

No actually, you really have nothing in common with a true Libertarian. At all.

What do I think about foreign policy, nuclear weapons, guns, abortion, oil, the list goes on? You don't know. You have no idea what I do or do not have in common with any political party. I honestly do not place that much emphasis on the word Libertarian or Republican. I take each issue on a case by case basis, but you know nothing of my views on any topic other than this, and you really don't know all of that so you are not enlightened enough to tell me what party I belong to. I did not know the Libertarian police trolled these forums.

 

[gwenmead]

It is absolute. If I happened to live in a place full of homosexuals, however, I would not sit there and put up with it. I would move to a place with the same base morals and principles as my own.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate it.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

What do I think about foreign policy, nuclear weapons, guns, abortion, oil, the list goes on? You don't know. You have no idea what I do or do not have in common with any political party. I honestly do not place that much emphasis on the word Libertarian or Republican. I take each issue on a case by case basis, but you know nothing of my views on any topic other than this, and you really don't know all of that so you are not enlightened enough to tell me what party I belong to. I did not know the Libertarian police trolled these forums.

It doesn't matter. You think that rights should be subject to popularity and that is completely against the most fundamental of Libertarian principles and philosophy. It is the entire basis of what it means to be Libertarian. It matters not one iota how you feel about foreign policy, guns, abortion, oil, whatever. Some of your views may align with Libertarianism, but your reasoning and the way you arrive at the same place as a true Libertarian in those areas is completely different and fundamentally flawed from a Libertarian perspective.

 

[Garyzenuf]

It is not because I do not like gay PEOPLE, but because I do not support the ACT of being gay and I will not condone it. But it is not based on some discriminatory hate or fear; rather, it is based on my morals...

...which are based on discriminatory hate and fear, thank you for clarifying.

You know folks, I'm starting to get a creepy feeling this is HolyRoller dressed up in drag and come back to haunt us.

 

[angellica]

It doesn't matter. You think that rights should be subject to popularity and that is completely against the most fundamental of Libertarian principles and philosophy. It is the entire basis of what it means to be Libertarian. It matters not one iota how you feel about foreign policy, guns, abortion, oil, whatever. Some of your views may align with Libertarianism, but your reasoning and the way you arrive at the same place as a true Libertarian in those areas is completely different and fundamentally flawed from a Libertarian perspective.

Well I can agree that I don't agree with YOUR Libertarian perspective, but everyone is different, and there are some that I do agree with in several areas. There are also some Republicans that I agree with in several areas. I'm really not one to be compared to the "typical" of either, though, because I don't fully side with one or the other.