This aligns with my view of the subject matter.

[Glen]

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/03/27/ben-carson-on-fox-no-group-be-they-gays-nambla/193282

 

Because gays are the same as pedophiles and animal-****ers.  I'm guessing in a few days there will be a half-hearted "apology" in which he says he wasn't saying gay marriage is the same as NAMBLA or bestiality, and then blames the media for distorting his message, thereby negating the "apology."

[Angelsjunky]

What an absolute moron.

[HaloMagic]

I don't think that the government should tell people who they can and cannot marry.

So I can marry my father? Sister? 1st cousin? Both brothers? My uncle Frank and his wife?

Why exactly would I care if you chose to marry your father? Does that have some sort of effect on me?

Why is it so easy for some people to tell others what they are allowed to do?

[2002_halos_II]

Why exactly would I care if you chose to marry your father? Does that have some sort of effect on me?

Why is it so easy for some people to tell others what they are allowed to do?

The point is there ARE restrictions on marriage.

[2002_halos_II]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage

[HaloMagic]

The point is there ARE restrictions on marriage.

My point is those restrictions ARE stupid. People should focus more on their's and less on other's.

[arch stanton]

The point is there ARE restrictions on marriage.

There is actual scientific proof that incest relationships produce severely damaged children so it's possible to argue a likely harm to the greater society from these marriages. You could argue any specific category individually. The point here is that giving legal status to same sex couples does not harm anyone outside the couple so the only purpose for banning it is discriminatory. In the balance between anarchy and police state you have to have a basis for creating law. You should have to prove that a law prevents potential harm and not just that you have done the math and think you can get 51% of the current Congress to vote your way. 

[Lifetime]

So laws only or should only exist for preventing potential harm?

[mtangelsfan]

If you want to I don't see why not, it has no effect on me.  But yeah, like Futch said, slippery slope.  Why can't we just consider one thing at a time?  Why does it have to slide right down to the more extreme examples?

So somebody makes a statement like "there should be no restrictions on marriage" and there should be no response to that? 

 

For somebody who likes to call out the smallest errors in other posts that is an interesting argument. 

[mtangelsfan]

My point is those restrictions ARE stupid. People should focus more on their's and less on other's.

 

You're right, how about everyone keeps their own money and just focus on themselves? 

 

No more taxes

[RallyMo]

You are all very welcome for this thread.

[RallyMo]

You're right, how about everyone keeps their own money and just focus on themselves? 

 

No more taxes

 

mt sees your apples (or oranges) and he raises you a freight train locomotive.

[acro2008]

That's it. You're in favor of gay marriage being legalized.

Actually I am personally in favor.  Although simply opinion I believe a certain sector of the media has flaunted it too much and do think accidental mutations in the womb a possibility.  Some scientists have pointed out that with all the other modern pollutives the modern pregnant mother has to deal with already, pharmecutical pollution, as in side effects has obviously risen and should be studied more in depth.  Pharmacuticals and poisonous food additives not the sole reason but maybe  exacerbating it.

[Glen]

So somebody makes a statement like "there should be no restrictions on marriage" and there should be no response to that? 

 

For somebody who likes to call out the smallest errors in other posts that is an interesting argument. 

 

Did you read the last two sentences of my post?  "Why can't we just consider one thing at a time?  Why does it have to slide right down to the more extreme examples?" 

[mtangelsfan]

Did you read the last two sentences of my post?  "Why can't we just consider one thing at a time?  Why does it have to slide right down to the more extreme examples?" 

 

Because the statement was pretty clear.  'there should be no restrictions on who marries who".  It wasn't, there should be no restrictions on gay marriage.  It was a completely logical response to such a broad statement and a fair question.

[RallyMo]

Actually I am personally in favor.  Although simply opinion I believe a certain sector of the media has flaunted it too much and do think accidental mutations in the womb a possibility.  Some scientists have pointed out that with all the other modern pollutives the modern pregnant mother has to deal with already, pharmecutical pollution, as in side effects has obviously risen and should be studied more in depth.  Pharmacuticals and poisonous food additives not the sole reason but maybe  exacerbating it.

 

That's all well and good, and you're certainly entitled to your beliefs as to cause (though I doubt research will ultimately bear them out), but precipitating factors are COMPLETELY irrelevant to the granting of rights. In a world where you're correct and such is used as the basis for the denial of rights, you might as well deny persons born with developmental disorders caused by radiation exposure while in utero.

 

The solution to your concerns is not a denial of rights, but a more careful examination of environmental and technological issues.

 

Stop conflating these two completely separate concepts, and if you aren't doing that, start using the ability to start different paragraphs more effectively.

[mtangelsfan]

mt sees your apples (or oranges) and he raises you a freight train locomotive.

Again, he made the statement.  Government is actually in the business of being in eveyone else's business.  I actually agree more with his statement than he does I bet. 

[HaloMagic]

Again, he made the statement. Government is actually in the business of being in eveyone else's business. I actually agree more with his statement than he does I bet.

You just lost that bet. I couldn't agree with my statement more,.

[mtangelsfan]

You just lost that bet. I couldn't agree with my statement more,.

 

So no welfare, no health care system, no taxes except for a a bare bones federal government?

[RallyMo]

So no welfare, no health care system, no taxes except for a a bare bones federal government?

 

You've read into and extended what he wrote as you see fit, and then you went the extra mile to say that you agree with his statement more than he does on the basis of your interpretation of his statement. That's impressive.

 

I suggest you take a closer look at his use of apostrophes.

[RallyMo]

...of course, I could be wrong. HM can obviously correct me (and you) if necessary.

[mtangelsfan]

People should focus more on their's and less on other's.

 

That is the quote.  I realize it was in the context of this marriage argument but he left the statement open.  But the fact that people seem to be able to embrace one part of libertarian philosophy and ignore the others is what frustrates me.

 

What should we leave alone and what shouldn't we? 

[Spirit]

...of course, I could be wrong. HM can obviously correct me (and you) if necessary.

 

 

Read:  I'm clearly wrong.

[RallyMo]

Read:  I'm clearly wrong.

 

Absolutely.

[HaloMagic]

What should we leave alone and what shouldn't we?

We should leave everything alone. What part of the libertarian philosophy do you believe I've turned my back on? Do you question my standing because I comment on how the government spends money without cursing them for doing so? Government and taxes are unavoidable. They will exist whether I like them or not. As it stands, I don't like them. I don't agree with the concept of telling someone else what to do. I don't believe I have the right to dictate others actions. The only exception I make is for people who willingly place themselves under me to be given direction (i.e. employees) and my children.

But the reality is the money is being taxed. And it is being spent. So yes, I do have an opinion about it beyond a simple angry grunt of disapproval whenever anything that has to do with the government is brought up.

Good to know you believe you're more libertarian than me, though. If I had known we were competing I would have tried harder. I'll wear my Ron Paul shirt next time.