/liberty/ - Liberty

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

>>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.

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.

>>55680

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

>>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.

>>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.

>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>55732

>obstructing somebody

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

>non-violent

Your definition of violence is sheer law positivism

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>55750

>match my personal. arbitrary preferences or starve

>not coercion

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

we should have separation of marriage and state

>>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.

>>55766

First sentence should read:

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

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.

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>61372

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

>unfree

Are you an idiot?

>>55680

I don't care.

t. not religious

>>61392

What about the NAP tho

>>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.

>>61410

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

>>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.

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

>>55680

>Do you support it, yes or no?

No I do not support this at all.

>>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.

>>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.

>>55795

don't forget potential child support and alimony payments beyond the initial half

>>55680

>supporting state sanction of marriage

>libertarian

bait thread

>state marriage

>giving gays rights