Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.

"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l ... iscriminat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dbackjon wrote:While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.

"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l ... iscriminat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like a Libertarian/TeaParty schism coming down the track.........

houndawg wrote:

dbackjon wrote:While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.

"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l ... iscriminat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like a Libertarian/TeaParty schism coming down the track.........

Nice observation.

And since when are libertarians interested in a "just society"?

houndawg wrote:

dbackjon wrote:While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.

"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l ... iscriminat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like a Libertarian/TeaParty schism coming down the track.........

Schism implies that Tea Partiers and Libertarians were at one point one in the same. Not true. The Tea Party and Libertarian Party are not alike at all and never have been.

kalm wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Looks like a Libertarian/TeaParty schism coming down the track.........

Nice observation.

And since when are libertarians interested in a "just society"?

Libertarians are interested in a society in which all are equal under the law, with the same rights and responsibilities for all citizens. What libertarians are not interested in is equal outcomes and societal engineering that is in part designed to ensure those equal outcomes.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:

Nice observation.

And since when are libertarians interested in a "just society"?

Libertarians are interested in a society in which all are equal under the law, with the same rights and responsibilities for all citizens. What libertarians are not interested in is equal outcomes and societal engineering that is in part designed to ensure those equal outcomes.

So "just" does not neccessarily mean equal?

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Libertarians are interested in a society in which all are equal under the law, with the same rights and responsibilities for all citizens. What libertarians are not interested in is equal outcomes and societal engineering that is in part designed to ensure those equal outcomes.

So "just" does not neccessarily mean equal?

Has it ever? You're a football fan. Can't a game be justly conducted and officiated with an unequal outcome; one team scoring more points than the other?

dbackjon wrote:While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.

"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l ... iscriminat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, they are consistent.

And, kalm, your faux efforts to foment discord on the right are one big FAIL!!!

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.

"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l ... iscriminat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, they are consistent.

And, kalm, your faux efforts to foment discord on the right are one big FAIL!!!

I was being sincere with that queston. It's an important distinction that actually bolsters the right's position here. And Cgrad answered it well.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Well, they are consistent.

And, kalm, your faux efforts to foment discord on the right are one big FAIL!!!

I was being sincere with that queston. It's an important distinction that actually bolsters the right's position here. And Cgrad answered it well.

The Tea Party positions on social issues (to the extent you can attribute "positions" to that fluid group) are not necessarily incongruent with the libertarians' positions. In fact, they're closer than you think.

I am registered as "Libertarian" because it comes to closest to reflecting my views but as is always the case not everyone agrees with every party position. In this case I disagree with the idea that witholding recognition of one relationship as equivalent to another is an infringement upon Liberty. It's not.

But if you read between the lines and see what they're really getting at, I agree with the big picture. What they're really getting at would be satisfied if government got entirely out of the marriage business. There should be no such thing as a civil marriage.

Another thing is that, if you are really a Libertarian, you believe that private individuals should be able to associate with or not associate with whoever they wish. So private individuals should be free to discriminate as they wish.

For example: My Mother In Law is a fundamentalist Christian. She lives in a house with a little rent house in back. She should be free to rent or not rent that rent house to whoever she wishes. If she does not want to rent that house to a homosexual couple she should be free to choose not to. If she wants to advertise a rent house and indicate in her advertisment that she will rent it only to Christians who live by Christian values as she defines them, she should be free to do so.

Same with someone who owns a business. If they wish not to hire homosexuals, they should be free to make that choice.

So on and so forth.

JohnStOnge wrote:I am registered as "Libertarian" because it comes to closest to reflecting my views but as is always the case not everyone agrees with every party position. In this case I disagree with the idea that witholding recognition of one relationship as equivalent to another is an infringement upon Liberty. It's not.

But if you read between the lines and see what they're really getting at, I agree with the big picture. What they're really getting at would be satisfied if government got entirely out of the marriage business. There should be no such thing as a civil marriage.

And/or churches could get entirely out of the government business. That's all that this is about - liberty hating churches.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
I was being sincere with that queston. It's an important distinction that actually bolsters the right's position here. And Cgrad answered it well.

The Tea Party positions on social issues (to the extent you can attribute "positions" to that fluid group) are not necessarily incongruent with the libertarians' positions. In fact, they're closer than you think.

Are you sure about that?

i say leave it to the states

JohnStOnge wrote:I am registered as "Libertarian" because it comes to closest to reflecting my views but as is always the case not everyone agrees with every party position. In this case I disagree with the idea that witholding recognition of one relationship as equivalent to another is an infringement upon Liberty. It's not.

But if you read between the lines and see what they're really getting at, I agree with the big picture. What they're really getting at would be satisfied if government got entirely out of the marriage business. There should be no such thing as a civil marriage.

Another thing is that, if you are really a Libertarian, you believe that private individuals should be able to associate with or not associate with whoever they wish. So private individuals should be free to discriminate as they wish.

For example: My Mother In Law is a fundamentalist Christian. She lives in a house with a little rent house in back. She should be free to rent or not rent that rent house to whoever she wishes. If she does not want to rent that house to a homosexual couple she should be free to choose not to. If she wants to advertise a rent house and indicate in her advertisment that she will rent it only to Christians who live by Christian values as she defines them, she should be free to do so.

Same with someone who owns a business. If they wish not to hire homosexuals, they should be free to make that choice.

So on and so forth.

i agree with this, this is what rand paul was talking about when msnbc was ragging on him about a portion of the civil rights act

ming01 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I am registered as "Libertarian" because it comes to closest to reflecting my views but as is always the case not everyone agrees with every party position. In this case I disagree with the idea that witholding recognition of one relationship as equivalent to another is an infringement upon Liberty. It's not.

But if you read between the lines and see what they're really getting at, I agree with the big picture. What they're really getting at would be satisfied if government got entirely out of the marriage business. There should be no such thing as a civil marriage.

Another thing is that, if you are really a Libertarian, you believe that private individuals should be able to associate with or not associate with whoever they wish. So private individuals should be free to discriminate as they wish.

For example: My Mother In Law is a fundamentalist Christian. She lives in a house with a little rent house in back. She should be free to rent or not rent that rent house to whoever she wishes. If she does not want to rent that house to a homosexual couple she should be free to choose not to. If she wants to advertise a rent house and indicate in her advertisment that she will rent it only to Christians who live by Christian values as she defines them, she should be free to do so.

Same with someone who owns a business. If they wish not to hire homosexuals, they should be free to make that choice.

So on and so forth.

i agree with this, this is what rand paul was talking about when msnbc was ragging on him about a portion of the civil rights act

that's how what passes for journalism these days works. If, for example, someone is against all abortions on religious principles some disgustingly fat piece of shit like twindouche will have an ad on tv that says something like.

"ming1 is against all abortions" "ming1 is for rape and incest" "call ming1 and tell him that rape and incest is horrible and wrong" paid for by some shady group that no one knows exactly who we are but we have nothing to do with any candidate we swear. oh look unicorns......

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I am registered as "Libertarian" because it comes to closest to reflecting my views but as is always the case not everyone agrees with every party position. In this case I disagree with the idea that witholding recognition of one relationship as equivalent to another is an infringement upon Liberty. It's not.

But if you read between the lines and see what they're really getting at, I agree with the big picture. What they're really getting at would be satisfied if government got entirely out of the marriage business. There should be no such thing as a civil marriage.

And/or churches could get entirely out of the government business. That's all that this is about - liberty hating churches.

Well, not sure where someone gives up their rights once they associate with a church, so it's kind of hard to have churches (i.e. collections of various individuals) get entirely out of the government business.

JohnStOnge wrote:I am registered as "Libertarian" because it comes to closest to reflecting my views but as is always the case not everyone agrees with every party position. In this case I disagree with the idea that witholding recognition of one relationship as equivalent to another is an infringement upon Liberty. It's not.

But if you read between the lines and see what they're really getting at, I agree with the big picture. What they're really getting at would be satisfied if government got entirely out of the marriage business. There should be no such thing as a civil marriage.

Another thing is that, if you are really a Libertarian, you believe that private individuals should be able to associate with or not associate with whoever they wish. So private individuals should be free to discriminate as they wish.

For example: My Mother In Law is a fundamentalist Christian. She lives in a house with a little rent house in back. She should be free to rent or not rent that rent house to whoever she wishes. If she does not want to rent that house to a homosexual couple she should be free to choose not to. If she wants to advertise a rent house and indicate in her advertisment that she will rent it only to Christians who live by Christian values as she defines them, she should be free to do so.

Same with someone who owns a business. If they wish not to hire homosexuals, they should be free to make that choice.

So on and so forth.

So you are ok with any type of private discrimination? If a business doesn't want to serve whites, that is ok?

Or if the only gas station in 30 miles doesn't want to serve you because of your religion, that is fine?

dbackjon wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I am registered as "Libertarian" because it comes to closest to reflecting my views but as is always the case not everyone agrees with every party position. In this case I disagree with the idea that witholding recognition of one relationship as equivalent to another is an infringement upon Liberty. It's not.

But if you read between the lines and see what they're really getting at, I agree with the big picture. What they're really getting at would be satisfied if government got entirely out of the marriage business. There should be no such thing as a civil marriage.

Another thing is that, if you are really a Libertarian, you believe that private individuals should be able to associate with or not associate with whoever they wish. So private individuals should be free to discriminate as they wish.

For example: My Mother In Law is a fundamentalist Christian. She lives in a house with a little rent house in back. She should be free to rent or not rent that rent house to whoever she wishes. If she does not want to rent that house to a homosexual couple she should be free to choose not to. If she wants to advertise a rent house and indicate in her advertisment that she will rent it only to Christians who live by Christian values as she defines them, she should be free to do so.

Same with someone who owns a business. If they wish not to hire homosexuals, they should be free to make that choice.

So on and so forth.

So you are ok with any type of private discrimination? If a business doesn't want to serve whites, that is ok?

Or if the only gas station in 30 miles doesn't want to serve you because of your religion, that is fine?

Yup, true Libertarians tend towards goofieness.

All sissys are going to hell.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
So you are ok with any type of private discrimination? If a business doesn't want to serve whites, that is ok?

Or if the only gas station in 30 miles doesn't want to serve you because of your religion, that is fine?

Yup, true Libertarians tend towards goofieness.

JSO is just a good ol' fashioned bigoted racist.

dbackjon wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I am registered as "Libertarian" because it comes to closest to reflecting my views but as is always the case not everyone agrees with every party position. In this case I disagree with the idea that witholding recognition of one relationship as equivalent to another is an infringement upon Liberty. It's not.

But if you read between the lines and see what they're really getting at, I agree with the big picture. What they're really getting at would be satisfied if government got entirely out of the marriage business. There should be no such thing as a civil marriage.

Another thing is that, if you are really a Libertarian, you believe that private individuals should be able to associate with or not associate with whoever they wish. So private individuals should be free to discriminate as they wish.

For example: My Mother In Law is a fundamentalist Christian. She lives in a house with a little rent house in back. She should be free to rent or not rent that rent house to whoever she wishes. If she does not want to rent that house to a homosexual couple she should be free to choose not to. If she wants to advertise a rent house and indicate in her advertisment that she will rent it only to Christians who live by Christian values as she defines them, she should be free to do so.

Same with someone who owns a business. If they wish not to hire homosexuals, they should be free to make that choice.

So on and so forth.

So you are ok with any type of private discrimination? If a business doesn't want to serve whites, that is ok?

Or if the only gas station in 30 miles doesn't want to serve you because of your religion, that is fine?

Yes. If an entreprenuer is more interested in ideology than conducting business, he doesn't deserve my money. While that might leave me in a lurch being the only gas station for miles around, I'd make damn sure everyone knew how they conduted "business" and would even be interested in investing money in a competing business across the street that wasn't as concerned with ideology and interested in serving ALL paying customers, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. Wherever there is hardcore ideology mingling in business, there is an opportunity to start a competing business. Government should have responsibility for insuring access for all to all public property & publicly-run services. Private companies on private property should be allowed to serve who they want when they want...

dbackjon wrote:While supporting steps taken over the past several years to end the unequal treatment of gays in the area of marriage, Libertarians say a just society is one in which no law depends on one's sexual identity.

"Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all," said LP Chair Mark Hinkle. "Frankly, the idea that someone's legal rights should depend on whether they've entered a government-approved relationship ought to be repugnant to all of us."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l ... iscriminat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jon, does this sound familiar at all? Have you ever heard anything like this before?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Well, they are consistent.

And, kalm, your faux efforts to foment discord on the right are one big FAIL!!!

I was being sincere with that queston. It's an important distinction that actually bolsters the right's position here. And Cgrad answered it well.

Yes. CitadelGrad ripped the tits off that one.