In response to:

Did Freedom Win?

KrankyMike Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:24 PM
How is voting for gay marriage a vote for freedom? Gay marriage is not the same thing as tolerance for private sexual practices. Marriage is a social institution, and gay marriage is an imposition on that society. It is an assault on freedom. Marriage is not a "right" but a privilege. It is an institution that benefits society by providing for the rearing of children, protection of women, and the civilizing of men. For that reason, society confers benefits upon it. Gay marriage does not benefit society but only the individuals concerned. It is nothing but another government sanctioned give-away program. You can do whatever you want in the bedroom -- just don't force the rest of us to participate.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:40 PM
Re: KrankyMike,

-- How is voting for gay marriage a vote for freedom? --

It eliminates a *restriction*, ergo it is a vote for freedom. Simple.

-- Marriage is a social institution --

Again with "society" - when will Townhallers stop relying on the same collectivist aguments used by the left? I have to wonder.

-- Marriage is not a "right" but a privilege. --

That is technically true - you do not have a right to a marriage, just like you don't have a right to a contract. What the State cannot do is STOP you from entering a marriage agreement another person if the other person voluntarily accepts your proposal. Many states place restrictions on this veyr human right to freely associate and freely contract.
SMyles Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:49 PM
Seems like I could agree with someone else to call ourselves married. I say I do have a right to form a marriage if that's what I want to call it. The privilage part comes in later in terms of law and religion.
mtcommons Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:56 PM
""""It eliminates a *restriction*, ergo it is a vote for freedom. Simple."""

Yes, simple and ridiculous.

People are free to do whatever they want NOW. There are no "restrictions", gay marrige is not "illegal". They can have this "contract" between individuals - just not with the state and all the rest of us. Removing a "restriction" about who the government will sanction in a government program (marriage) is not about enhancing freedom. Getting the govenment involved in your relationship is not freedom. You are profoundly confused.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:56 PM
Re: SMyles,

-- The privilage part comes in later in terms of law and religion. --

Maybe, but law should not be a vehicle to grant privileges, that distorts the reason of being of laws. As for religion, that is up to people and their religion. Like I said, a person does not have a right to a marriage, but he or she does have a right to enter into a marriage agreement with another person vountarily. A person does not have a right to a religious ceremony, but he or she has the right to seek one from a religious organization.

Understand that the nature of rights are negative - you cannot take, you cannot compel. It goes both ways, and that includes the State: It cannot compel, it cannot take, it cannot do something that we can't do.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:04 PM
Re: mtcommons,
-- People are free to do whatever they want NOW. There are no "restrictions", gay marrige is not "illegal". --

That's true, mt, but you miss the point: The State GRANTS PRIVILEGES to married people, so what gays are seeking is the recognition of their marriage contracts by the state. Either the privileges go away (which would solve all problems) or the state recognizes the marriages, which is what gays want. I believe they have a good argument since the law should not exist to grant privileges to anybody.
KrankyMike Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:12 PM
Voting for gay marriage does not remove a restriction. It adds another member to a socially privileged catagory. By your definition, allowing a man to marry his dog or his two sisters and brother would be a blow for freedom. Meh.

Recognizing that a social environment exists is not collectivist, just sensible. Society has existed since man came down from the trees or left the garden, depending on your point of view. Increasing the role of government with society is collectivism -- which gay marriage does.

Marriage has nothing to do with freedom of association. Go to bed with whomver you want. Marriage is about special treatment from government and burdens members of society to likewise confer special treatment and benefits.
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 4:10 PM
"Marriage has nothing to do with freedom of association."

Uh, yes. Freedom of association and freedom of contract.

"Marriage is about special treatment from government and burdens members of society to likewise confer special treatment and benefits."

Because government has made it into this scenario does not mean it always was. Marriage licensing has a history based in restricting marriage of "undesirables".
SMyles Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:07 PM
SMyles Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:40 PM
Marriage is a privilege? Where did that come from?
KrankyMike Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:02 PM
Of course it is a privilege. What planet are you from?

Rights are things that exist in and of themselves and do not burden any other individual, nor are they conferred by government. They are that which "nature and nature's God" entitle human beings. You have an inherent right to free speech, for example, but not a right to be listened to because that would burden others.

Marriage is, as gay activists define it, public recognition of a relationship with attendant social and government benefits. That is not a private matter and burdens other people. Thus, a privilege.

If gays want to "marry" in a liberal church, fine -- as long as it does not come with government recognition and benefits.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:43 PM
Kranky: I believe you have made the argument for all marriage to be a function of religion and/or contract and not a state "privilege". Why is it incumbent upon you to support the product of my union? i.e. children I produce take your taxes for schools. I don't believe you should be compelled to support my actions by giving me Head of Household, ADP, child exemptions and a host of other benefits conferred upon people in the name of marriage.
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:31 PM
You really don't grasp how your argument is the template of every statist argument demanding compliance to regulations based on the "good of society". "How is eating anything you wish a good thing? People become obese and unhealthy, which costs society in healthcare resources and diminished productivity. For that reason, society confers benefits from the health of the individual and thus can demand mandatory diet and exercise."
1375 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 12:58 PM
The LAST thing you want is the State in your bedroom or kitchen for that matter. Marriage did not originate with the State. The State is try ing to push gay marriage. Polygamy next? Also you can't eat that steak or ice cream because it is bad for you. We, the State, have decided that this tasteless gruel is suitable and that is what you will eat. You really want to go there?
nawlins72 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:02 PM
1375, you didn't comprehend my post, did you?
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:03 PM
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:17 PM
Re: 1375,
-- The State is try ing to push gay marriage.--

That's not true. If ever, the State has been adverse to accepting marriage contracts between gay people.

-- Polygamy next? --

Why not? Again, we're talking about free people engaging in freedom of association.

The objections against these forms of agreements stem more from biases and cultural differences than any real ethical or moral considerations (by moral, I mean actions that affect others)
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 1:30 PM
I disagree, the State has been pushing gay everything through schools, media, and every source they can.

And when people reject it judges (the State) impose upon them what they reject.
Democrats won big last week. So government will continue to grow. Individual freedom will yield.

At least some people with records of supporting liberty were elected: Sen. Jeff Flake in Arizona and U.S. Reps. Justin Amash and Kerry Bentivolio in Michigan and Thomas Massie in Kentucky.

Also, Washington and Colorado voted to allow any adult to use marijuana. (But users beware. Your newfound freedom may be short-lived thanks to that extraordinary human being in the White House -- you know, the one who smoked pot when he was in school. Despite promising that he wouldn't, he has cracked down on pot...