Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

What liberties, choices and options .. and opportunities have been taken from you?

 

My marriage was recognized by the state, that couldn't have happened until 2015.

Everyone else

 

Yes, but you already considered yourselves married, right? Perhaps you even had a commitment ceremony in front of family and friends before 2015.

Marraige is equal to everyone else? That makes no sense.

 

Then there's no point in you participating in a forum if people can't understand what the hell you're talking about!

 

Holy carp you are lost and confused. The point of essential liberty is that you do not get to choose what is immoral and what is not - and then force your beliefs on others through law.

Essential Liberty has nothing to do with self discipline - and especially not in the way you are describing.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

What do you mean "compulsory acceptance?" Who is having to accept gay marriage?

Can't someone have the liberty to not be self disciplined?

The phrase isn't, being what I do is it? I'm not sure how being who and what I am is defining "who you are in terms of what you do."

 

that's how all marriages should be.

a sentence couple marriage is equal to everyone else's

 

Yes and my point is that they didn't NEED to wait for the government to pass same sex marriage in order for them to commit themselves to each other in front of their family and friends in a commitment ceremony! I cannot understand why they held off.

Yeah, no idea what you're talking about. The above makes no sense either. As far as I knew, a same sex civil union couple has no less rights than a married couple. True or false? If false, then what rights do civil union couples not have that married couples have?

 

Seems a dumb point

held off on what? Having their marriage legally recognized? in a lot of places that wasn't legal until 2015. as far as the commitment ceremony how do you know that they did that or not?

So why call It by another name?

Sounds like it's either a form of lip service, or a way to save we're going to pretend you're equal but you're not really.

the right to be married.

It's about the word. If you need lip service you should not get it.

 

Liberty has nohing to do with the law. From a strictly moral point of view there is no neutral position every body is shoving their version of morality at everyone else. Your view is neither inferior nor superior to mine. I can not stop you from going to hell if that is your preference but it is my duty as a Christian to inform you that you should turn back from the dark path you trod for your own sake and I can not do that if I am compelled by law to act as if it is perfectly fine. Please note I am not interested in throwing you in jail for engaging in homosexual acts as long as your partner in slavery to sin are consenting adults. Nor am I interested in celebrating your March down the path to hell.

 

NO! I couldn't have made it MORE clear! I'm talking about them holding off on the commitment ceremony!

After seeing footage from a bunch of commitment ceremonies on the TV and online in the months following same sex marriage becoming law. Do you not know one single gay couple who held off until it became law, either in their state or until Obergefell?

Well exactly, it's just a difference in terminology, but is that seriously all that the fight was about? This has nothing to do with equal rights. This is just about the relationship being given the same title by the government.

Well in a way, they're not equal are they - they're different. Opposite sex couples and same sex couples are not the same, they different. So I can't see why a difference in terminology was such a big deal. There was nothing stopping two men or two women from being 'husbands' and 'wives' to eachother. They didn't need the law for that, just like you didn't, but the difference is that you actually KNEW that! Other clearly did not. Were you and your husband in a Civil Union before 2015?

I should not get what?

 

From the top, legally right now everyone.
Nope, freedom and liberty as the founders saw it were not synonyms. One can be free to do something doing so can circumscribe liberty and Freedom in the future.

What if who you are is a thrief and what you are is a bank robber?

 

What happens to someone legally if they don't accept it?

What's that got to do with self discipline?

Wouldn't it also be the case that who you are is a bank robber and what you are is a thief? There's no difference is there?

 

first who says you need a ceremony? Second who says there wasn't ceremonies?

again why does there need to be a ceremony? You can commit to somebody without a ceremony. the ceremony's they were holding off on were marriage ceremonies which wasn't legal until that happened.

I don't buy for a second that it was just about terminology. The people fighting so hard for this civil union crap we're not fighting over for terminology.

with title comes privilege. That's what it was about.

difference doesn't equate to lesser.

I don't know either people were carrying on about how you can't call it marriage when two people of the same sex marry each other. I don't know why that difference is so important to you that you have to come up with new words to distinguish it. But it is you that is making it a big deal.

neither do opposite-sex couples. They don't need the wall for that but yet they insist upon it. Why is that?

no we couldn't do that it wasn't made legal until 2015 I don't know why I have to keep explaining this to you.

when someone says it at the end of a sentence which already had a subject they're referring to that subject is English not your first language?

 

That really depends on what it means to not accept it.

If it's just them telling themselves that it's not okay, nothing happens to them legally.

 

Nobody is saying that they NEED a ceremony. Obviously each couple will decide for themselves.

There doesn't, but when gay couple's DID have a ceremony, after holding off, I wondered why they held off when they could've just not bothered with legal marriage and just had a commitment ceremony, whether under a Civil Union or not.

Was there anything stopping them from calling it a "marriage ceremony" even if they couldn't legally be married?

Who was fighting hard for Civil Unions? Haven't Civil Unions been around for a long time? This fight would've been decades ago I assume.

I cannot see how the title of 'Marriage' has anymore privilege than 'Civil Union.' I'm guessing that you don't mean legal privilege.

No, of course not. I can't see how the different titles make opposite sex couples and same sex couples lesser or more than eachother. Can you?

Well I didn't come up with any new words! I assume that you're referring to 'Civil Union.' Again, Civil Unions have been in law for a very long time haven't they? And it's not as if it was strictly conservatives who voted for Civil Unions as the legal solution for same sex couples. Even Barack Obama was against same sex marriage until about 5 minutes before he left office.

Presumably for the legal benefits. Other than that reason, being married in law is utterly pointless for both types of couples!

Didn't you say that you couldn't MARRY until 2015? I'm asking if you were in a Civil Union before 2015. Unless your state didn't even have Civil Unions before 2015!

 

So why are you asking me about ceremonies?

If they waited until after the 2015 decision to have a ceremony, it was a ceremony to celebrate getting married which they couldn't do prior.

dumb question

People that didn't want same sex marriage called marraige.

what is a civil union?

Civil Union doesn't exist.

Then why not just call them all marraige?

No. Civil union has never been law.

I didn't mention conservatives.

No civil unions never existed in this state or in most States. Maybe not even in a single state.

I don't even know what a civil union is.

 

That's odd, considering that you mentioned the term when you referred to, "the people fighting so hard for this civil union crap."

 

From the top they risk being sued if they're a business person.

Self discipline is the ability to refrain from that which is unprofitable short or long term the ability to say I'll wait.

Not really no it's different ways of saying the same thing.

 

You're referring to Public Accommodation laws?

And what does that have to do with freedom and liberty?

What was your point with the thief and bank robber?

 

I never mentioned law but - your claim is completely false. Essential Liberty has a whole lot to do with Law. The whole point declaring that liberty was "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't - in the Declaration of Independence- was to limit the ability of Gov't to make laws messing with individual liberty.

Changing the goal posts to some moral argument does not change the fact that your previous comments with respect to essential liberty were false.

1) The point of essential liberty is so that people are not allowed to force their version of morality on others.
2) You obviously do not understand Christian Doctrine and certainly not Protestant Doctrine which is Salvation on the basis of Faith Alone

3) Jesus states that there is one "unforgivable sin" - and it is not homosexuality. It is the sin you are committing by putting words in the mouth of God/Jesus.

4) Since I am not a homosexual - your inference is silliness. I am glad however that you do not wish to force your personal moral/religious beliefs on others through law.

5) It is you that is on the path to hell - by putting words in God's mouth.

 

JUST AN OBSERVATION: The law does restrict liberty in that it, by definition, requires us to do something or prohibits us from doing something that we might or might not otherwise chose to do or choose not to do whether that be jay walking, the side of the road we drive on, how we dispose of refuse, how we maintain our property, etc. etc. etc. Such laws are generally intended to increase safety and/or provide consistent and orderly conditions for the mutual benefit of all.

However, as a conservative/libertarian in all matters of what we might see as morality, I see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the central government any authority in that matter.

The states and/or local communities have, or should have, ALL the power in deciding whether they want to legalize or prohibit:
Prostitution
Gambling
Alcohol or other substance consumption
Various legal components of marriage contracts (age, familial relationships etc.) and that can include same sex marriage
Public prayer or prayer in the public schools, etc.
Public nudity
Public profanity
Lewd or obscene conduct
and so forth. . .

When it comes to social contract, i.e. how the various states and/or local communities choose to organize and manage their various societies, those choices can be based on conservative/libertarian values or modern day progressive/liberal values.

But what we think, believe, profess, confess in our own homes or otherwise in our private life about anything, so long as we do not demand that others agree with us or conform to our personal ideology, is our unalienable right. Conservatives/libertarians believe nobody should be attacked or punished for that ideology no matter how wrong most others think we are.

Agree or disagree.

 

From the top yes.
The man who always acts on impulse is never truly at liberty norTruly free.
The pool is you're not what you do.

Beginning at the top

You confuse liberty and Freedom.

You misunderstand Christian doctrine grossly. There is indeed only one unforgivable sin and that is to turn one's back on God. One does that by refusing to accept God's mercy by your refusal to repent To repent is to turn back from.

I have placed no words in God's mouth other than those He has clearly spoken. I, not having a copy of the book of Life, have no idea where any one will spend eternity. All I can safely judge is the path one's current actions place one upon and beg one to turn back from that path. In fact, ezekial 11 makes that incumbent upon me because biblically I am indeed my brothers keeper. A shame you do not seem to wish to be bothered.

 

I did no such thing... your claim that essential liberty has nothing to do with Law is patent falsehood.

Support the above claim - you are making things up as you go.

Yes you did .. you claimed defacto that salvation was based specific works - as in not doing homosexual acts. That is putting words in the mouth of Jesus - who said no such thing.

You are also in gross violation of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide "Salvation by Faith Alone".

 

yeah the only time I've heard of it is as an alternative for marriage for same-sex couples. It's never been a law.