Why isn't this a flagship issue for a group of people so focused on true liberty? The Marriage Equality movement is about extending the same rights and liberties to everyone instead of making marriage the special right of heterosexuals. The fundamental argument against said equality seems to be that some people believe that all human beings are fundamentally heterosexual and that gay people simply choose to be gay(calling being gay a moral issue is like saying black folks are immoral for making the immoral choice to not be caucasian). So when did you hetero folks choose to be heterosexual? And since it's a 'choice' that means you guys can 'choose' to have an involuntary physiological reaction (sexual arousal) for members of your own gender, no? If it's just a choice then guys, choose to get wood thinking about a naked guy, right now. You can't because sexual orientation isn't a choice, it is hard wired in the brain. It occurs in a number of other members of the animal kingdom, it's not just humans. For a society to extend the right of marriage only to heterosexuals is a fundamental act of aggression against a group you decided are not worthy of the same rights you enjoy. And that is a direct contradiction of the principles to which we all subscribe.
Now before you try and dust off those tired old judeo-christian religious arguments against acceptance of all non heterosexual orientations, let me just remind you that freedom of religion, including the right to be free FROM religion is also a fundamental human liberty. I am an ordained Buddhist Priest, and a proud homosexual man. Sexuality is natural in all humans and cannot be changed in either direction. The only 'unnaturalness' in sexual orientation is when a person goes against their true nature by trying to conform to an orientation that is not their natural one, whether that be homo or hetero. So why aren't you guys all riled up about those folks who seek to oppress non heterosexual people and legally labeling them second class citizens unworthy of the same rights and protections as everyone else? If and when I am able to relocate into a Shire zone, I will perform marriages for any couple who desires it, regardless of their orientation. It is just the right thing to do for any freedom-loving person. :duh:
If you are going to stay in Florida and tell the freedom fighters in New Hampshire what political issues they should prioritize, maybe you should do some research first.
Just looking at Wikipedia would tell you that Same-sex marriage became legal in the U.S. state of New Hampshire on January 1, 2010,[1] replacing civil unions. On January 1, 2011, all civil unions in the state became marriages unless otherwise dissolved, annulled or previously converted to marriage.[1] New Hampshire was one of several New England states that legalized same-sex marriage in 2009.
But you guys are not a part of the State structure of New Hampshire are you? You are against them. I'm asking why marriage equality isn't something you strongly support.
The Government needs to 'equalize' marriage because the zealots sure aren't about to. You're probably too young to remember the miscegenation laws that said caucasians could not legally marry persons of color. Without government intervention, we would still be living in a segregated society today. Villainize government all you like, but it is necessary because you simply cannot count on people to do the right thing of their own accord.
The cause of LGBT equality is the Civil Rights Issue of the 21st Century and should be treated as such. How many people tried to use their religious biases to justify the subjugation of black people? They claimed that if the segregation and miscegenation laws were taken off the books it would result in the breakdown of American Society. They are trying the same thing with their justifications of hatred of non heterosexual people.
[quote author=perogi link=topic=7196.msg63236#msg63236 date=1376356939]
[quote author=osgaldor link=topic=7196.msg63234#msg63234 date=1376356761]
The Government needs to 'equalize' marriage because the zealots sure aren't about to. You're probably too young to remember the miscegenation laws that said caucasians could not legally marry persons of color. Without government intervention, we would still be living in a segregated society today. Villainize government all you like, but it is necessary because you simply cannot count on people to do the right thing of their own accord.
[/quote]
osgaldor - I hope things turn around for you but, to be quite honest, I don't think you're ready to join the Freedom Movement.
Peace and Liberty to you and I wish you all the best.
[/quote]
Well gee thanks for sorting me out.
So because I don't think like you I need to be turned around and I'm not 'ready' for the freedom movement? Silly me I thought freedom was about freedom for EVERYBODY. Not the first time I was wrong, won't be the last.
So then I guess I AM in the wrong place. I hope you guys get yourselves turned around and become ready to be part of a civilized world.
Since I'm such a great heretic, perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell me how to delete myself from your forum so that I may leave you in peace?
[quote author=osgaldor link=topic=7196.msg63244#msg63244 date=1376358116]
Since I'm such a great heretic, perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell me how to delete myself from your forum so that I may leave you in peace?
[/quote]
Done
Hello,
I can't speak for everyone, so I don't know what people's "flagship" issues for liberty are. Maybe some focus primarily on the police state, others on the crony economy, and others still on marriage issues. The beauty of the division of labor is that everyone's specializing in his own field increases productivity for all.
That said, "equality" is not the same as liberty. The issue with "marriage equality" is that supporting the conventional pro-marriage-legalization implies that one supports the expansion of government licenses and permission slips. As a support of liberty, I would argue that the government has no business in the personal lives of others at all. Marriage is a personal thing, and a bunch of civil "servants" have no role in it whatsoever.
This is the danger of conflating equality with liberty. It may result in the support of expanding government, which is the negation of liberty. As an example, what if there were a law that said all red heads must spend 5 years in jail? Would you support expanding this law so that all humans spend 5 years in jail? Or would you, more thoughtfully, fight for the repeal of the law altogether?
But, if it's equality you strive for, then how about this compromise? Let's abolish marriage licenses altogether and abolish all laws that depend on such a status.
Thanks
I find this thread incredibly confusing.