Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everyone at some point in their life has been ridiculed. Believe it or not. And if you let a lady that cuts hair for a living determine your attitude.. that is sad you would let that person have that much control over your thoughts and feelings.
I can't count the number of times people ridicule hetero couples on one thing or another "I can't believe she married HIM!".. "Who does HE think HE is, dating her."... etc etc.. etc..
it is unfortunate we have a society full of people that can't accept others for who they are or what they believe or who they want to live with.
I was ridiculed for dating my ex husband, I was ridiculed for marrying him.. My parents basically disowned me.. why.. he was below my station and arrogant.
I'm not saying gays get ridiculed. I'm saying noone can tell YOU who YOU can love. .. it's that simple. If you let them - then you give them control over you, and that's sad.
Given that "if you subsidize something you will get more of it"
Given that married people are less often in poverty
Given that a single household uses less resources than two households and married couples are more likely to live together than unmarried couples
Given that children statistically do better in two parent households
Given that married people are statistically happier and healthier
I see a good argument can be made for financial incentives to get married.
I wouldn't argue that those all seem like good things, but I would question if from a libertarian standpoint, the government should be involved in trying to manipulate personal behavior through subsidization. There are many things that are good for people, and that should be encouraged, but we don't use financial incentives to promote them. Very few people marry for financial reasons anyway, if financial incentives were removed, I doubt it would have much, if any effect on marriage rates.
I personally take no stand against marriage benefits, I was simply trying to look at it from a libertarian perspective as some are explaining it. I'm not a libertarian so I'd be happy to hear other perspectives on this. I'm much more interested in seeing marriage given equally to people who chose to marry the same gender. I also don't think trying to end marriage is anywhere near realistic, but there people who call themselves libertarians who say this is what people should be fighting for, rather than equal marriage, which is something I believe is necessary under the constitution.
I agree with some libertarian ideas, but don't behold myself to any one ideology. I will never understand how anyone could, given the myriad different issues and conflicts facing this country. When it comes to government we should be discouraging the human tendency for people to join groups, and allow their views to be formed, or influenced by the ideology of these groups. Joining groups that share ones beliefs, and interests is great for religious, or social reasons, but is a huge problem when it comes to governing a nation, especially one as large and diverse as the US. We seem to have reached the point where the vast majority of Americans are unable to think for themselves, and base every governing decision they are involved in on whatever "their" groups strict ideology says.
Most that I know are liberal. However, ALL Libertarians that I know would have no thought of restricting marriage between same sex partners who choose to marry. I am a Libertarian who believes the government/state has no right to infringe on who and who can not marry based on gender. What gives?
I've met quite a few conservative gays who vote Democrat because of the gay marriage issue. They have said if Republicans would support gay marriage, they would vote for them rather than the Democrats.
Most people vote for one of the two major parties. Most of the Ron Paulbots ended up voting Obama while the select few voted for Gary Johnson.
Note: Libertarians have a "dont care/whatever" stance towards gay rights. I.e., they will not fight for gay rights.
You don't want "rights" -- everybody deserves them -- You want priveleged status as a special group, same as all the others in the Democratic coalition of those seeking acces to power in order to have their way.
You don't want "rights" -- everybody deserves them -- You want priveleged status as a special group, same as all the others in the Democratic coalition of those seeking acces to power in order to have their way.
It is the libertarians who seek true equality.
Is that what libertarians tell themselves when they find that they truly DON'T believe in equal rights?
That the people seeking the rights want "special status"?
Please do enlighten the group as to how gay people are looking for "special status".... bonus points if you can manage to do it without implicating things that straight people are also entitled to - such as hate crime protection and sexual orientation discrimination protection.
It's more because the GOP is so virulently anti-gay, that gays end up being Democrats by default.
Like it or not, libertarianism is still a fringe political movement -- not just for gays, but for everyone. You might as well ask "why aren't more people libertarian?". The idea that gays gravitate toward liberalism because we want "affirmative action" is just ludicrous.
And besides, many self-proclaimed libertarians are actually stealth Republicans.
Libertarianism is a philopsophy that has little incommon with the conservative Republican agenda.
Note: Libertarians have a "dont care/whatever" stance towards gay rights. I.e., they will not fight for gay rights.
Where do you see most Libertarians opposing your right to marry someone of the same sex? Yes we tend to be conservative on fiscal issues, but that's it! Yes many of us are religious as well, but we don't believe in forcing our beliefs on others, nor do we believe in using the government legislate morality, which is where the Republicans are at fault. At least those who pander to the religious extremists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
I wouldn't argue that those all seem like good things, but I would question if from a libertarian standpoint, the government should be involved in trying to manipulate personal behavior through subsidization. There are many things that are good for people, and that should be encouraged, but we don't use financial incentives to promote them. Very few people marry for financial reasons anyway, if financial incentives were removed, I doubt it would have much, if any effect on marriage rates.
I personally take no stand against marriage benefits, I was simply trying to look at it from a libertarian perspective as some are explaining it. I'm not a libertarian so I'd be happy to hear other perspectives on this. I'm much more interested in seeing marriage given equally to people who chose to marry the same gender. I also don't think trying to end marriage is anywhere near realistic, but there people who call themselves libertarians who say this is what people should be fighting for, rather than equal marriage, which is something I believe is necessary under the constitution.
I agree with some libertarian ideas, but don't behold myself to any one ideology. I will never understand how anyone could, given the myriad different issues and conflicts facing this country. When it comes to government we should be discouraging the human tendency for people to join groups, and allow their views to be formed, or influenced by the ideology of these groups. Joining groups that share ones beliefs, and interests is great for religious, or social reasons, but is a huge problem when it comes to governing a nation, especially one as large and diverse as the US. We seem to have reached the point where the vast majority of Americans are unable to think for themselves, and base every governing decision they are involved in on whatever "their" groups strict ideology says.
As with any political party, even Libertarians differ on issues. Not everything is black and white. I tend to look at things from a case by case scenario, and form my opinions that way. And you hit on something in which I've referenced before, and can simplify it as such... too much "group think" is a bad thing. Once their is too much group think, you lose your individuality, and the ability to think for yourself. I look at it this way... God gave me free will, and I use that free will to sift through the BS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02
I've met quite a few conservative gays who vote Democrat because of the gay marriage issue. They have said if Republicans would support gay marriage, they would vote for them rather than the Democrats.
Most people vote for one of the two major parties. Most of the Ron Paulbots ended up voting Obama while the select few voted for Gary Johnson.
I was one of the select few that ended up voting for Gary Johnson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual
On most issues "libertarians" are of the opinion "ok whatever, do it if thats what makes you happy, or don't, we just dont care, leave us alone".
And again, this is a problem, why? It's your life, your body... so long as you don't harm someone, do what you do. We aren't your parent, or your nanny. I certainly don't need the government, or anyone else to tell me how to think, or how to be a good person to others. Given our short time on this planet, why wouldn't you strive to do what makes you happy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen
Libertarianism is a philopsophy that has little incommon with the conservative Republican agenda.
This is true. But it seems that most liberals on here seem to think that if you're not a liberal, then you're a Republican. An example for you... my cousin is a died in the wool Democrat. He works for Ford, and is in the union, so go figure. It's funny, because his dad, my uncle is a staunch Republican. During football season we text a lot during Browns games, as he is in Kentucky due to having to relocate down there for his job. At any rate, we discussed politics, and he immediately tried to lump me in with the Tea Party. I got quite a chuckle out of that one. I told him that I feel both parties suck, and are both for expanding government, and I for one cannot support those views. He pretty much had the attitude of "oh well it ain't gonna change, so might as well go along with it." Sorry, but I don't play that "go along to get along" BS!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.. it's that simple. If you let them - then you give them control over you, and that's sad.
Yes we tend to be conservative on fiscal issues, but that's it! Yes many of us are religious as well, but we don't believe in forcing our beliefs on others, nor do we believe in using the government legislate morality, which is where the Republicans are at fault. At least those who pander to the religious extremists.
It's your life, your body... so long as you don't harm someone, do what you do. We aren't your parent, or your nanny. I certainly don't need the government, or anyone else to tell me how to think, or how to be a good person to others. Given our short time on this planet, why wouldn't you strive to do what makes you happy?
