5 ms·

I think you're missing Paul's philosophy on the matter. His perspective on Federal government is that it's outside their jurisdiction to dictate morality. The

by tempire 15y ago

I think you're missing Paul's philosophy on the matter. His perspective on Federal government is that it's outside their jurisdiction to dictate morality. The constitution already states that all people are made equal; more laws are not necessary to enforce the issue. It's not marriages that he wants to abolish, but government-issued licences for it. The government should have no say whatsoever in defining what a marriage is; it's an inherently personal and religious matter (I use the term religion to refer to a person's understanding of reality). Once you remove the government from the equation, any attempts to force others to believe what you do by law dissipates, and everyone gets to do whatever they want.

scarmig 15y ago
You're still totally ignoring the point. Marriage can be made equitable. It can be done either via abolishing marriage licensing altogether, or via making marriage licenses equitable. Ron Paul believes it's better to keep marriage licensing discriminatory versus equalizing them. If this were a world where government entitlements were available only to white people, and Ron Paul took the position "I'm opposed to doing anything to make government benefits race blind, so I'm going to work against people trying to make government entitlements race blind, because I believe all government entitlements are evil," that would be an effectively racist policy position, whatever his personal beliefs on race are. And Ron Paul goes further: he has gone so far as to sponsor and vote for legislation that prevents the federal government from recognizing state-legislated marriage equality. So in this case, he thinks states rights go too far in allowing them to define marriage, so federal legislation is necessary. And we're talking about a guy who not only is personally opposed to gay marriage. Do you really believe that plays no role whatsoever in his opposition to marriage equality?
- jswinghammer 15y ago
  Yes I believe that because as a libertarian he would oppose using state power to give one group an advantage over another. A libertarian is happy to allow any two or more adults to marry should they wish to do so. A libertarian just asks that no one's marriage is recognized by the state because it's not a matter that the state should be involved in. Can you really say that after gay marriage is legal everywhere (which will never happen) that marriage is actually equal? What about polygamists? I'm perfectly happy to allow them to obtain licenses to get married but it seems easier to just say government has no proper role in what is a private affair. This seems to make your case even better because it just removes from politics what is not a political issue.
- tempire 15y ago
  Marriage cannot be made equitable by the state so long as the definition of marriage differs from person to person. Ron Paul believes that marriage licensing should simply not be. If there are no licenses, there is no discrimination. Problem solved. It seems like you believe that everyone should know that gay marriage is ok, and that everyone should agree with your view on the matter, because it's clearly the right one. There are people who will never agree with you, no matter the position. Your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it. It doesn't need justification, it simply is. Attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry. That's what libertarianism is all about: freedom. Freedom for you, for me, for everyone, to do as they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. That's what Ron Paul is about: we all don't have to agree. We can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    Can you try to address my point instead of just repeating "freedom freedom freedom"? I understand that Ron Paul believes that the ideal world is not to have government licensing of marriages at all. I get it, and might even agree with it. Okay? What I've said is that Paul supports a discriminatory status quo over fixing the discriminatory status quo. This is true, and this makes him a supporter of homophobic discrimination, even if he has some theoretical plan that will never come to a vote that would be equitable. Remove your finger from the "auto downvote any critic of Paul" mode for a second and stop to understand this point: Ron Paul is supporting anti-gay discrimination. Answer me this: suppose we lived in a world where black people were banned from going onto public roads. There were multiple votes to make it legal for black people to use public roads. Ron Paul voted against those attempts multiple times, saying "I'm not racist, but I believe that public roads shouldn't exist as they're an inappropriate use of public funds." So the status quo remains indefinitely, as there's no actual chance that public roads will be abolished altogether. I argue that I get his position, but that it's still immoral to discriminate against black people, and so in the short term he should vote to make the situation equitable . And then you come along, and say, "your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it" and "attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry." That's narrow-minded and pigheaded, no? Ron Paul's the bad guy here, even if he has some idealistic long-term view of the perfect solution that one of the victims of his votes might even agree with. You say "we can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are": well, you can get legally married, get benefits from my tax money, and get special rights from the government, while I can't. That's shitty, and Ron Paul prefers to posture for his ideology over actually considering the day-to-day suffering of regular people resulting from that shittiness.

by tempire 15y ago

scarmig 15y ago

You're still totally ignoring the point. Marriage can be made equitable. It can be done either via abolishing marriage licensing altogether, or via making marriage licenses equitable. Ron Paul believes it's better to keep marriage licensing discriminatory versus equalizing them. If this were a world where government entitlements were available only to white people, and Ron Paul took the position "I'm opposed to doing anything to make government benefits race blind, so I'm going to work against people trying to make government entitlements race blind, because I believe all government entitlements are evil," that would be an effectively racist policy position, whatever his personal beliefs on race are. And Ron Paul goes further: he has gone so far as to sponsor and vote for legislation that prevents the federal government from recognizing state-legislated marriage equality. So in this case, he thinks states rights go too far in allowing them to define marriage, so federal legislation is necessary. And we're talking about a guy who not only is personally opposed to gay marriage. Do you really believe that plays no role whatsoever in his opposition to marriage equality?

jswinghammer 15y ago
Yes I believe that because as a libertarian he would oppose using state power to give one group an advantage over another. A libertarian is happy to allow any two or more adults to marry should they wish to do so. A libertarian just asks that no one's marriage is recognized by the state because it's not a matter that the state should be involved in. Can you really say that after gay marriage is legal everywhere (which will never happen) that marriage is actually equal? What about polygamists? I'm perfectly happy to allow them to obtain licenses to get married but it seems easier to just say government has no proper role in what is a private affair. This seems to make your case even better because it just removes from politics what is not a political issue.
tempire 15y ago
Marriage cannot be made equitable by the state so long as the definition of marriage differs from person to person. Ron Paul believes that marriage licensing should simply not be. If there are no licenses, there is no discrimination. Problem solved. It seems like you believe that everyone should know that gay marriage is ok, and that everyone should agree with your view on the matter, because it's clearly the right one. There are people who will never agree with you, no matter the position. Your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it. It doesn't need justification, it simply is. Attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry. That's what libertarianism is all about: freedom. Freedom for you, for me, for everyone, to do as they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. That's what Ron Paul is about: we all don't have to agree. We can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are.
- scarmig 15y ago
  Can you try to address my point instead of just repeating "freedom freedom freedom"? I understand that Ron Paul believes that the ideal world is not to have government licensing of marriages at all. I get it, and might even agree with it. Okay? What I've said is that Paul supports a discriminatory status quo over fixing the discriminatory status quo. This is true, and this makes him a supporter of homophobic discrimination, even if he has some theoretical plan that will never come to a vote that would be equitable. Remove your finger from the "auto downvote any critic of Paul" mode for a second and stop to understand this point: Ron Paul is supporting anti-gay discrimination. Answer me this: suppose we lived in a world where black people were banned from going onto public roads. There were multiple votes to make it legal for black people to use public roads. Ron Paul voted against those attempts multiple times, saying "I'm not racist, but I believe that public roads shouldn't exist as they're an inappropriate use of public funds." So the status quo remains indefinitely, as there's no actual chance that public roads will be abolished altogether. I argue that I get his position, but that it's still immoral to discriminate against black people, and so in the short term he should vote to make the situation equitable . And then you come along, and say, "your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it" and "attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry." That's narrow-minded and pigheaded, no? Ron Paul's the bad guy here, even if he has some idealistic long-term view of the perfect solution that one of the victims of his votes might even agree with. You say "we can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are": well, you can get legally married, get benefits from my tax money, and get special rights from the government, while I can't. That's shitty, and Ron Paul prefers to posture for his ideology over actually considering the day-to-day suffering of regular people resulting from that shittiness.