29 votes

Gay Libertarian on Marriage Equality

I've been an avid reader of the DailyPaul for some time and I feel it has been lacking an outspoken voice from the gay community. Nothing frustrates me more than hearing that Libertarians don't care about gay rights, or minority rights, etc. There are no gay rights, there are no women's rights, there are no Black or Latino rights. There are only universal human rights that each of us is entitled to. I was, therefore, inspired to create this video. Thanks for watching! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6rTtkAyxT0



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Studies conducted in several

Studies conducted in several countries indicate that better-educated people are more likely to support the legalization of same-sex marriage than the less-educated, and younger people are more likely to support it than older generations.

Gayvideos

Cyril's picture

I am not gay.

I am not gay.

But I happen to be French (out of citizenship, feeling American otherwise). Hence, with favorable probabilities, I am also a eater of very stinky cheeses that even dear wife can't stand watching me eat (... let alone smelling, more specifically).

Do I claim my stinky cheese eater rights ?

Even though my habit probably OBJECTIVELY disgusts more than 95% of the total U.S. population ?

Just try to approach and eat the French cheese called "Vieux Lille". You better be tough :

http://www.teddingtoncheese.co.uk/acatalog/de433.htm

Well, heck NO, I DON'T have any "stinky cheese eater rights" :

because such thing doesn't exist, doesn't make sense, for it's NOBODY business, BUT MINE, what I willingly feed myself with. Especially since it appears disgusting to others. They just have to look elsewhere, thank you.

And I consider nobody's business, certainly not mine anyway, what happens in other people's bedrooms. Whether I'd like it happen in my bedroom OR NOT.

My advice, and it's just my advice :

Gay people ought to think the same about themselves and not let themselves trapped in the nice little LABELED JARS of THOSE who want to DIVIDE AND CONQUER **US ALL**, mind you, not just the gays.

THEREFORE, about the haters of gays, or haters of stinky cheese eaters :

them haters are not just the gays' / stinky cheese eaters' enemies, they are the enemies of THE FREE AMERICAN SPIRIT AND PEOPLE.

They are the ENEMIES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

This is how gay people ought to defend themselves : DENOUNCE THE ENEMIES of Liberty. Don't fight for false rights that the PLANNERS have invented to enslave you and others.

In life, all one needs is some love.

... AND LIBERTY. That is : SELF OWNERSHIP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psV6pOsW9YY

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

If the government gave

If the government gave preferential treatment to people who ate Cheddar cheese, it might be understandable that you (or people like you) would then claim that same preferential treatment for French cheese.

Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be fighting for no preferential treatment for any cheese-eating or any marriage decisions.

But let's not play dumb and try to pretend it was the gays who drew first blood, just randomly deciding to get themselves government approval and preferential treatment for their marriages.

Also, I'm not gay either.

Do you like to burp on people at parades?

Do you like to burp on people at parades?

Cyril's picture

No. But, granted, not parading ever, that probably helped.

No. But, granted, not parading ever, that probably helped.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

overuse of the word "gay"...

...from whoever, whenever; is ONLY meant to provoke a response from others ...

Then, the response will be picked apart, analyzed, and the individual will be cast into a collectivist GROUP for their viewpoint; pro-gay or homophobe ... PERIOD!

The issue is STATE LICENSING of relationships, and conditioning the people that government(through taxation) CONTROLS behavior - and,(this took me 10 years as a Christian to understand) - the state has no jurisdiction over managing relationships, or, "owning" children and placing them.

The bottom line, in this LOST and lazy society; TAX THE CHURCHES for abdicating their purported "role" in society to the government!!!

When will we LEARN "the game" - and turn it back on all of them who help GROW the STATE for their own self-interests?

I love everybody!

=)

This whole "Marriage" issue drives me crazy

Do we need government to write our dictionaries?

"Marriage" is just a word. People of different faiths should be able to debate it's definition without legal baggage.

Government shouldn't favor couples vs singles. Where such laws remain necessary, the now-ambiguous word "Marriage" should be replaced with the unambiguous "Civil Union".

It is not the job of government to bless or condemn homosexual unions, leave that to free people to advocate for or against.

If Marriage..

had remained away from government control, I don't believe we would be having this argument. Did anyone see Braveheart? William Wallace gets married out of bounds of the legal requirements, but I believe his marriage was completely valid,

Because, he was simply making a vow to God and to a person to be as one till death.

Even though the government may not view it as legal, he made a promise and that's what marriage was intended to be.

Government vs. community

In my humble opinion there is a distinction to be drawn between government and community. I see a marriage as a community covenant between two individuals. In most cultures, community has been reinforced by religion but that is not a necessary condition. Individuals swear commitment and fidelity to each other in front of their community. So, marriage is not merely an agreement between individuals. It means something more than that. It carries the sanctioning of the community. That is what makes it enduring and valuable. That is why it is such an important cross-cultural social institution.

So, in that sense, while I respect your opinion I disagree with your assertion that two people define marriage, absent from the community.

A committed relationship is a relationship. Any two people can do it. But when we say marriage, that is the term we have created to mean something particular.

A legal union is also acceptable but it holds no weight beyond the legal contract, thus it is less durable.

That is a beautiful

That is a beautiful understanding of marriage, and I definitely agree with it and support your right to your view... Up to one point:

"But when we say marriage, that is the term we have created to mean something particular."

Here you are claiming that "we" (everyone) has created and accepted the same meaning of marriage (yours) in their minds.

Say you came to my house, and said to me, "What a beautiful dog!." And I responded, "Oh, that's actually my bird, isn't he great?!"
You would likely be confused and say, "No, that's a dog, not a bird." I might continue to assert that he is a bird, and we could probably argue back and forth, with you insisting that I am speaking nonsense, and most people would agree that I am.
BUT! Is it not my right to speak nonsense if I wish? Is that illegal? Have I harmed anyone by referring to my dog as a bird? Have I infringed on your liberty? Are you going to go the courthouse and INSIST that I call my pet a dog?
My point is that language is fluid, and always changing. The same word can have multiple meanings to people in different areas. The word 'fag' comes to mind (go figure). In the US it is a slur, but in England its a cigarette.
So just as you call my dog a dog and I call it a bird, I may call the person I share my life with my Husband, and you might call him some dude that I live with. Either way, neither of us should be using the force of government to change how the other sees the world.

A problem

A problem with gay rights is that there is no way to determine who is gay other than self identification. individual rights are important, but the rights of parents to not have their kids indoctrinated with the celebration of aberrant sexual behavior is also important.

Are you saying you oppose free speech?

Or is there a government ad campaign claiming it's good to be gay?

not exactly

I'm saying I don't like the way public schools use tax payer money to promote celebration of it towards kids without the knowledge or consent of the parents. parental rights should not be nullified by the gay agenda.

Regarding free speech, I don't think pornography should be allowed in kindergarten either... is that a violation of free speech in your view?

I don't know what public

I don't know what public school system you are talkin about, cause growing up, what I got was homomphobia 101. Public schools do not promote homosexuality.

Fair enough on parental consent

though you are talking about a few isolated incidents at specific shools that should be addressed locally.

Your pornography response is in poor taste because you didn't make it clear in the prior post that you considered tax-funded schools as being the source of the "indoctrination", as opposed to say, mass media. Obviously public school teachers don't have total free speech in the classroom.

...

Would you want mass media to be allowed to market pornography to kindergarteners, like having porn magazine commercials during childrens programming, sending solicitations to them in the mail, or smut peddlers approaching them at the playground?

yes. 100%. you don't think

yes. 100%. you don't think they should be *allowed*?!!?!

And of course my wanting them to be allowed to do so obviously means that I endorse that activiety and wouldn't take private and personal steps to prevent my kids from viewing such ads.

After all, saying someone should have th right to do something is identical to saying you *want* them to and that you wouldn't act to minimize the impact of thei actions on your life.

egapele's picture

The stay at home mom community

is an unspoken voice here at the DP community, too.

I for one demand ... less demands.

I for one have enough demands to meet in one day, never mind someone else's!

:)

And this is a fundamental reason why I'm

a Conservative and NOT, nor ever will be a Libertarian.

You're not a conservative...

if you support the legislation of one narrow moral code onto our entire diverse population. You're no better than Frothy.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Conservatives have traditionally ALWAYS supported

one narrow moral code on our entire diverse population. That one narrow moral code is called the will of the people confined to the limits of the Constitution the people have prescribed to themselves and government. Methinks thou knowest not what is Conservatism.

Um...

note that the Constitution does not, in fact, ban gay marriage or even mention it anywhere in its text.

And actually, the 14th Amendment could easily be used against your precious gay marriage ban - specifically the parts about how the states cannot make laws that deprive the people their life, liberty, and property, and the federal government can't deny any American citizen equal protection of the laws.

I don't play, I commission the league.

The Fourteenth amendment can be used for a lot of things.

Pro-lifers are wanting to use it to make abortion in all cases and instances illegal in all fifty states and they make a pretty good case for it too. The 14th amendment has been and I imagine will continue to be abused by social engineers to mold society to their image. I'm a strict Constitutionalist, meaning, I believe the Fourteenth amendment should mean absolutely nothing more than the Framers of that amendment believed it meant at the time of its ratification. And I assure you that not a one of them were trying to legalize homosexuality in 1868, much less give queers the right to have legally-recognized marriages.

I doubt they even thought of it.

Since sodomy and marriage aren't mentioned or enumerated in the Constitution, they were reserved to the states and the people.
Here's a little tidbit of the sentiment in 18th century America.

"In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy,[1] however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

there is a difference between

there is a difference between rebellion against tyranny and rebellion against God.. sorry. Having said that,rebellion against God is between God and the person rebelling against God. It is no ones elses business. As believers we are to speak out against sin but it is not our right to force another person to our will. UNLESS it is hurting me or my property.

The only problem I see here is what happened to Isreal. They repeated the same cycle we are in. The people walked with God, they were blessed, the people rebelled and the nation as a whole went into hard times , war (invaded),slavery or all 3. Nations are judged.

Giving "rights" to perversion is wrong. But as the author states, no one has special rights. This is the problem.

It's only 'narrow' (note

It's only 'narrow' (note value judgment with emotionally primed word) when you don't like it. I'm sure there are plenty of other groups who also despise 'narrow' moral codes that inhibit their behaviour. But that's life. Other than the continual claim to 'equalise' the uneqalisable, there is no other reason for doing this, and every reason for an statist lobby group to push it through. This is not about rights, equal or otherwise, but about government intervention. You wouldn't expect the government to prop up the dollar, so why do LINOs suddenly go dewy eyed when the idea of government enforcement of a 'narrow' moral code upon a majority comes into view, an enforcement that will legislate the teaching of a minority view in schools, etc, regardless of the moral choices of the parents, just like the HHS now provides abortion, contraception, and sterilisation regardless of parents choices.
Get parity between marriage and civil partnerships; that's all that is needed, instead of pissing off every religious, ethnic, and conservative group 'just because you can'. (Although the experience in the UK and elsewhere shows that even that is not enough for the gay lobby, because this is not about equal rights, but about a left wing agenda). Yet still we hear the Orwellian attempt to redefine the terms. LINOs will swallow any hype if it seems to be libertarian.

This space available

You're wrong about the majority rejecting gay marriage.

The latest polls show that 54% of Americans support gay marriage. Those who are against it are clearly in the minority now.

I don't play, I commission the league.

So you believe people should

So you believe people should need government permission to marry? Ron Paul has the same view as this guy that government should not be involved in marriage period.

Anyone who advocates government has a right to dictate who marries who simply wish government to use its monopoly on force to enforce their belief on others.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

I would LOVE to get the government out of marriage.

But, you and I both know that's not ever going to happen. If we work hard, we might be able to repeal the federal income tax within twenty years. If we continue to work harder, we might end the state income tax in all fifty states within forty years. All that's got to be done before government can get out of the marriage business because of family tax breaks. But, then we've got the messy issue of adoption. If a mother bequeaths her child to a homosexual couple, she and they should have the right to contract. But, what if homosexuals want to adopt out of the foster care system? In a libertarian paradise all foster care programs are private-run. Good luck getting the liberals on board with letting private foster care programs and orphanages discriminate against "gays." Then we've got the issue of contracts. A lot of lawyers will not want to have anything to do with contracts between homosexuals that the homos consider marriage contracts. Now we've got to wipe all the civil rights laws off the books. Good luck trying to repeal the CRA of '64 along with all subsequent court rulings.

As you can see, getting government out of marriage is a libertarian pipe dream. Government has technically been involved with marriage since the nation's founding. Right now, we're just trying to take us back to the classic liberalism of that era. Once we're there, then we can worry about trying to improve on what the early U.S. had.