[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / chaos / islam / kpop / misr / newbrit / u / wai ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: 79310520b1f25b9⋯.jpg (233.73 KB, 600x857, 600:857, femenough.jpg)

 No.55680

Do you support it, yes or no? I have met many who call themselves libertarians who do not support this.

 No.55683

Are you asking if we approve of the practice personally or think that government should prevent the practice?


 No.55691

>>55680

Every libertarian worth his salt will tell you that the government should get out of marriages. Just leave that to people themselves and to the religious communities.

Personally, I don't have anything against gay marriage, or against gay people. They're one of the few "oppressed" groups that I haven't grown to detest.


 No.55692

If they can find a church willing to marry them, I don't really care. The problem is when they use government force to make a more traditional church give them a ceremony.


 No.55701

File: 84861564789a296⋯.jpg (66.98 KB, 960x555, 64:37, 84861564789a296668f5d0fbfc….jpg)

>>55692

When have had a church been forced to do a gay marriage ceremony? Sounds like Christian propaganda.

I know many older folk Wii say they have nothing against gays, and say the "I have gay friends" fake excuse, but then say they are against gay marriage. There is never a good reason, some try to cloak their bigotry in religion as though the bible gives them no choice but to oppose gays. Other times they say they "I don't care what they do in their bedroom, but I don't want gays to be able to parade around and go forcing their views and culture on us, and offend the older conservatives." (They want then to not be visible at all.) I have heard no sound excuses for opposing it, and every excuse wants to make them second class citizens.

As I see it you either support universal rights and equality of opportunity or you do not. Since there are no reasonable excuses, if you do not support marriage equality, then you cannot claim to not be a bigot.


 No.55702

>>55680

Why is this an issue now? It's already legal.


 No.55703

>>55701

>When have had a church been forced to do a gay marriage ceremony? Sounds like Christian propaganda.

"Bake the cake" and all that. It's not a far-off idea.


 No.55704

>>55702

It shouldn't be. I ranted a little because I just had heated arguments with two seniors about it. Both times I was non-chalently talking about how views evolve over time and how in less than 20 years most people have changed their views and decided to support gay marriage. Both times I assumed they were fine with it because they had never said anything against gays and I thought I knew them well.

On two occasions they interrupted me to argue about why they were dead opposed (only because gays annoyed them), and then told me I had better learn to respect other people. (I consider that line very hypocritical when they both wanted to change the law to make gay marriage illegal. The seniors want to have their cake and eat it too.)

Sometimes I forget it's not a settled issue for everyone, and when they argue, I turn around to look at the ones I thought were following me and find there is a wide gap and they haven't at all caught up yet.


 No.55705

>fag marriage

What is this, 2012? Nowadays it's all about letting Joe the wig-wearing trucker go to the womens restroom and 12 year olds deciding they're going to castrate themselves because they're girls now.


 No.55706

>>55703

You are talking about a private bakery offering a transactional service which is very different. What examples have you found with a church? I think they get exceptions, because of non-profit status and politically motivated religious privileges. The 1st amendment would make the state afraid to get involved with religion.


 No.55708

>>55706

Freedom of contract used to have made the state afraid of forcing business owners to accept someone as a customer. The 2nd amendment used to have made them it afraid of confiscating guns. How long until the 1st amendment is dissolved? Don't ever count on the state to permanently respect any constitutional or moral boundary.


 No.55715

>>55701

Being against gay marriage isn't the same as being against gays. This is a childish view.

> if you do not support marriage equality

Further evidence that you are essentially progressives who are selfish about money. You suffer from the delusion of equality.


 No.55716

File: 1c2e0fa5203fbfa⋯.jpg (23.73 KB, 289x225, 289:225, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.jpg)

>>55715

>Further evidence that you are essentially progressives who are selfish about money. You suffer from the delusion of equality.

Generalization much?


 No.55726

>>55715

You would humor us to back up what are empty assertions. How is there a difference for all intents and purposes? I am not talking about farfetched hypotheticals, I am asking you to explain how you could support gay marriage and oppose "gays" (you meant gay rights), or support "gays" (gay righs) and not support gay marriage. They are mutually exclusive. Gay marriage is a subset of gay rights according to the standard definitions.


 No.55732

>>55715

I don't get involved in controlling other people's lives. Consistent ethics require me to leave gays alone. You have the legal right to obstruct them nonviolently.


 No.55741

>>55732

>obstructing somebody

>e.g. literally denying them groceries from the store

>non-violent

Your definition of violence is sheer law positivism


 No.55742

>>55741

Denying in what way? I don't have to sell them anything if I own it. Restricting their movement on property that is not mine is violent. Any definition of coercion that goes beyond physical interaction is rife with contradiction.


 No.55743

File: a05fca42aa48b36⋯.png (67.55 KB, 1180x1084, 295:271, commie get out.png)

>>55741

>Not baking a cake for people is evil coercion

You better bake that cake, motherfuckers!


 No.55748

gays are fine, "trans"-gender, and otherkin can fuck off.


 No.55749

>>55742

>>55743

I didn't make a statement about what you ought to do. I simply said denying somebody access to the basic living standards established in a society is violence. The same way trade boycotts is a form of economic terrorism.

You see, you adhere to a very vulgar distinction between social issues and economic issues, completely ignoring that these two are interconnected.


 No.55750

File: 9b7c7961cf92054⋯.jpg (51.52 KB, 650x650, 1:1, 1468027611285.jpg)

>>55741

>lol go away, I don't want to bake a cake for you

>evil bigoted coercion

>bake a cake for these people or I'll throw you in jail

>tolerant, non coercive behavior


 No.55752

>>55750

>match my personal. arbitrary preferences or starve

>not coercion


 No.55754

>>55752

You do realize that by forcing association you ARE making him match your arbitrary preferences.

>I simply said denying somebody access to the basic living standards established in a society is violence

I'm fairly sure that only violence is violence. Call it anything else you want, but avoid changing the definition to suit you. Nobody is entitled to live a certain way. I am not a resource to be managed. Not I, not my labor, nor my produce. People are arbitrary. Everyone is. Your idea that everyone is entitled to live a life you would consider fair, is arbitrary. Choosing to keep living is arbitrary. Living standards are arbitrary. It does not matter if one or many prefer them. They are no less arbitrary for it.


 No.55756

>>55749

>trade boycotts is a form of economic terrorism

>The one thing that can peacefully deter poor service from a provider is terrorism.

How is not being allowed to voice your opinion and refuse to consume, terrorism?


 No.55757

>>55726

>if you support someone's right to do something, you support the act itself

The most frustrating fallacy in politics today.

I don't approve of an unhealthy diet, but I won't slap the cheeseburger out of your hand.

I don't approve of drug abuse, but I won't pull the needle out of your arm.

I don't approve of people of the same sex marrying, but I won't pull the ring off your finger.

What is so hard to understand?

>>55741

>>55749

>you are entitled to buy my shit

>LOL U SUPPORT POSITIVE RIGHTS

If you're going to argue on our terms (that a store is a piece of private property owned by a person) then why is it controversial to deny someone a service or transaction? Why is one man entitled to help another when there are plenty of alternatives to achieving "basic living standards"? At its core, it's legally enforced Samaritan behavior.

>You see, you adhere to a very vulgar distinction between social issues and economic issues, completely ignoring that these two are interconnected.

Only by separating these can long-term, peaceful coexistence be possible.


 No.55759

we should have separation of marriage and state


 No.55763

File: 635b450d893b610⋯.gif (1.52 MB, 400x255, 80:51, complete miss.gif)

>>55752

Well, it's his property. He doesn't need to serve anyone anything as it implies that they have some sort of right to it when really, they do not.

>>55749

>. I simply said denying somebody access to the basic living standards established in a society is violence

They have no inherent right to 'basic living standards', especially when these 'basic living standards' consist of other people providing certain aspects of these standards as a means of earning wages for themselves (ie: the aspect is sold as a good or a service). You have a right to your own property, but not anyone else's property.

> The same way trade boycotts is a form of economic terrorism.

You're actually retarded if you think trade boycotts are actually anything remotely close to resembling any form of terrorism whatsoever. By this logic, me boycotting a service because I don't like the way the company in question provides it's service is violence. We could even use this logic to justify theft as it implies that my resources could be taken from me without my consent and be completely legitimate.

Me not buying someone's products is not violence at all, nor is my refusal to serve anyone else with my goods or my services.

>you see, you adhere to a very vulgar distinction between social issues and economic issues, completely ignoring that these two are interconnected.

Irrelevant point, should it even be taken seriously.


 No.55766

>>55749

>You see, you adhere to a very vulgar distinction between social issues and economic issues, completely ignoring that these two are interconnected.

Not sure how that plays any role here. The distinction I draw is between the denial of a voluntary transaction and coercion. There's nothing wrong with the former, the latter is immoral except under narrow circumstances.


 No.55767

>>55766

First sentence should read:

>Not sure hwo that is supposed to play any role here.


 No.55795

File: 4fedca2de0ff789⋯.jpg (67.13 KB, 684x710, 342:355, 06d6d0b616bc5237c9f9542528….jpg)

This premise is awfully similar to the thread we had about the transgender bathroom question where it seemed to be agreed upon that freedom of dissociation is a two-way street and that business owners had the right to blockade transsexuals from their preferred bathroom as much as transsexuals had the right to not provide business for the owner in retaliation. As long as both parties consent, than a transaction must be allowed to be made without the need of an approval by a third party no matter what or the core concept of "voluntary exchange" falls apart, this is as true for social phenominons like weddings as much as in a free market. This thread had potential before people let the tone of some of the comments transform this thread into a (you) factory and bait emporium.

Tl;dr: gays can get married but ministers dont have to provide their services, honostly in todays society marriage is like one long standing bet of "I bet half my stuff that I wont cheat on you."


 No.55797

I do, but that is because I am a faggot so I have a bit of a bias toward wanting to marry my qt bf. Do I think churches, mosques, or banks should be forced to do it? No, not at all.


 No.55798

Regarding getting married in a church. The Unitarians probably would do a gay wedding.


 No.55801

>>55706

No, there is no difference.

The thing is, arguing about whether gay marriage should be legal or not from a libertarian context is stupid, because in essence it's arguing whether the state should sanction such an arrangement, and by doing so it's legitimising the state as the sole arbiter of marriage. Marriage in this day and age is a state institution, it's not Libertarians job to argue about the policies of various state institutions. If people want to have a wedding ceremony, wear a ring and call themselves married, as far as I know the state will not forcibly stop those people. And if there isn't a initiation of force then there isn't a problem.


 No.61372

>>55703

You should allow them to refuse to bake the cake.

I want to see how fuck up, illiberal and unfree the USA can get.


 No.61373

>>61372

>You should allow them to refuse to bake the cake.

>unfree

Are you an idiot?


 No.61377

>>55680

I don't care.

t. not religious


 No.61392

File: 6011abd875f586f⋯.jpg (201.67 KB, 660x751, 660:751, 1427452145860.jpg)

Gays should be hung from trees. They do not deserve to live let alone have sex.


 No.61404

>>61392

What about the NAP tho


 No.61410

>>61404

The NAP applies to well meaning and mentally sound individuals. Gays like other mentally disabled people do not have the mental capacity to make proper informed decisions. As such, they are inherently unable to uphold the NAP, thus being inherent violators that must be purged and slaughtered.


 No.61411

>>61410

You the same former ancap that couldn't into basic economics?


 No.61424

>>55680

Considering that I don't think marriage should be a government matter to begin with and should honestly just be a contract between two consenting adult human beings… I don't really care. Marriage has no sanctity - straight couples have been screwing the pooch for decades now with marriage, there is no damage that gays could do to it that would equal the damage done to the institution of marriage by perfectly straight people.

In a stateless society there's no reason for marriage period to be worth mentioning. Two people want to enter into a contract? Ask me if I care. They want it recognized by their church of choice? Up to the church. Church won't recognize it? So fucking draw up your own contract. It's a fucking non-issue without the state.


 No.61426

Forcing people to participate is bad, forcing people not to participate is also bad.


 No.61505

>>55680

>Do you support it, yes or no?

No I do not support this at all.


 No.61522

>>55795

Marriage has two major benefits in most countries, that gays want, and it's the main reason why they advocated for marriage rights in the first place. These are, reduced taxes, and the right to adopt children.


 No.61524

File: e979a3288957a24⋯.png (13.64 KB, 432x445, 432:445, 1462150266812.png)

>>61522

Reduced taxes are to facilitate child production and societal stability, both of which gays contribute negatively to. Gays have no right to adopt children as any interaction between them only leads to harm. The only real solution for gays is to kill all of them and keep the rest of the subhumans too scared to dare peek out the closet.


 No.61526

>>61524

> The only real solution for gays is to kill all of them and keep the rest of the subhumans too scared to dare peek out the closet.

I agree with this. Gays spread corruptions so the corruptions must not be allowed to spread.


 No.61543

File: 2ee83ca4ac0d256⋯.png (77.65 KB, 793x794, 793:794, redditgassed.png)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / chaos / islam / kpop / misr / newbrit / u / wai ]