Gay Marriage.. A libertarian lesson on Constitutionality and Freedom.

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


I'm not sure if you're trying to insinuate that I'm against gay marriage.. but if you are you're completely mistaken. I have no problems with it, and even prefaced my post by saying that. To be honest, if nothing were to ever change with our current system. "Legalizing" gay marriage is probably in the best interest of the people.. But the act of legalizing a freedom or choice kind of goes against freedom in general. The point I'm making is that you don't have to legislate to create equality and freedom.. By trying to do so, we create more inequalities and put boundaries on freedom. It wasn't intended to work the way it does now.
edit on 27-3-2013 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2013 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


Of course not. It's just a way to get people to vote. If you can get them to vote on the simple to understand, dumbed down issues, you can keep the people from being aware of his both candidates are really terrible for the country and actually similar to each other.

These issues exist solely so people can vote pro choice or pro life, pro marriage equality or against gay marriage. Keep them arguing so they don't realize the candidates have all the same BFF's. If these were turned into state only issues people would actually have to start looking into candidates.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I don't think it would be a bad thing for people to start paying attention to who and what they're voting for. By creating a sense of "ownership" for the citizens it might make us more responsible. Since the process would be more complex and undoubtedly take more time, then it would also put pressure from the citizens to bring the REAL PRESSING issues to the table (Things like banking/economic practice and wars). Personal matters and preference wouldn't be nearly the discussion point that it is today..



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


While I agree that it SEEMS "too late" I don't know that it necessarily is. Change and reform can happen anywhere at anytime if there is a catalyst. I feel that people are growing tired more than ever with our government and economic status and people today are beginning to see through the deceptions and false promises. Again, the founding fathers saw all of this whether people would like to believe it or not. The Constitution was written in a way that was intended to keep the power of federal government in check and make sure the people were the keepers of their freedom even when it seems "too late".
edit on 28-3-2013 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
the only reason politicians are taking sides in this debate is to get the vote of a certain demographic!

just like supporting illegal immigration, its all about getting the vote!

most politicians dont care about anything, but getting the vote....to stay in POWER!



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The state governments shouldnt have any say in it either.

No external entity should ever have any opinion whatsoever on the interpersonal relations of consenting adults.

Marriage license? Really? I have to ask permission? So I have to assume then, marriage being a "holy" institution, that either the state is god now or that I am lowly property of the state. Last time I checked my name wasnt Kunta Kinte.

What's that massa? Pay a fee and ask permission to be with someone I've already been with and own property with with the past three decades?

The state can eat a big fat ,.....



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
"Libertarian lesson" Tuned it out right after that.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

As I've stated, what do you do when two or more states have differing opinions on what's constitutional? Just leave the issue resolved? That's not possible.



It's completely possible and it's how it was designed to be. The 10th amendment gives everything not specifically listed as a federal power to the states. The idea behind it was if you don't like the laws in your state, you move to a different one.




Originally posted by Hopechest

Without someone to make a definitive call the issue will never be resolved and you may end up with another Civil War. Somebody needs to have a final authority.


Actually forcing 50 different states, with different state cultures to all be identical clones of each other is what causes civil wars.

When I see what you and people who post comments like you say I get the impression it's not really equal rights you want for everyone, it's for everyone to be forced into identical cookie-cutter designs.... where there is only 1 design.... no orginality, no independence, no creativity, no differences, just sameness in every aspect of a person's life from birth to death, just like identical little people shaped drones.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


Like when people were free to be racist? Its not like we legislated that away.... o wait.

The constitution has been changed many times before.... and it will change again. seems logical right?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


Seems like there should be a thread having to do with ending federally recognized marriage then, why single out the group that doesn't have it yet?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I'm not singling anyone out. I even stated in the OP that this deals with several issues outside of marriage as well. I also indicated that regular marriage should be viewed the same way and handled at the state level as opposed to federal level. I used Gay Marriage specifically because it is the "Hot Topic" right now and it provides a great example of how intrusive the government is into our lives.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The state governments shouldnt have any say in it either.

No external entity should ever have any opinion whatsoever on the interpersonal relations of consenting adults.

Marriage license? Really? I have to ask permission? So I have to assume then, marriage being a "holy" institution, that either the state is god now or that I am lowly property of the state. Last time I checked my name wasnt Kunta Kinte.

What's that massa? Pay a fee and ask permission to be with someone I've already been with and own property with with the past three decades?

The state can eat a big fat ,.....


I agree entirely with this, and the people would decide at the state level if the state would even have a say. I think most people would agree that it isn't the government's business to involve themselves in marriage. We can't ever get to that point without first recognizing the problem that shouldn't even be occurring on the federal level.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join