Same-Sex Marriage

Into statistics? Curious what everyone else thinks? Then start a poll here.

What is your stance on same-sex marriage?

I support same-sex marriage.
45
75%
I am against same-sex marriage but support civil unions.
4
7%
I oppose both same-sex marriage & civil unions, but I support some rights for same-sex couples (e.g., hospital visitation).
1
2%
I oppose any official recognition of same-sex couples, but I oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
2
3%
I support a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman and banning recognition of same-sex couples.
6
10%
I support a constitutional amendment to once again make homosexual acts illegal and banning same-sex marriage.
2
3%
 
Total votes : 60

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby spongebob » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:28 am

That's interesting, A37. Can you tell us how you came to that conclusion, particularly in only 5 minutes? What Libertarian ideals would contribute to feudalism?




Of course I was just joking about my reversal on homosexuality, a sarcastic attempt at humor on my part to demonstrate how quickly such prohibitions become absurd.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby NH Baritone » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:06 pm

spongebob wrote:Of course I was just joking about my reversal on homosexuality, a sarcastic attempt at humor on my part to demonstrate how quickly such prohibitions become absurd.

I'm glad that the waiter brought you the antidote, which returned you to your senses.

spongebob wrote:That's interesting, A37. Can you tell us how you came to that conclusion, particularly in only 5 minutes? What Libertarian ideals would contribute to feudalism?

I somewhat agree with A37, but without the snide-itude.

Unregulated free enterprise can lead to an oligarchy in which the masses are subject to false advertising and con jobs. In such a system, there is no regulation of drugs, medical procedures, or medical personnel. Building codes in earthquake, fire, and flood zones would disappear. Absolute personal freedom can leave children abandoned without fear of consequences. A flat-rate taxation system (often cited as a libertarian idea) leads to the poorer classes handing over a greater chunk of their base income (that required to fulfill basic needs) to support the government.

At a minimum, contracts would need to be enforced. Since marriage is, in essence, a contract, the government and society have a vested interest in seeing that the terms are fair, clear, and uniformly available to the population.


Image
Image
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby spongebob » Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:12 pm

That's a hillarious cartoon, NH. I think I've worked with those pasty-faced guys in suits.

But regarding your Libertarian comments. I agree with where you are coming from there. Maybe my perception of the party is a little different, but I don't believe it necessarily has to be so far removed from government regulation. In fact, I believe a more Libertarian government would be more likely to control monopolies and at the very least be much less influenced by large corporations, as our two major parties are. It isn't all bad, but surely it's obvious that government has gone crazy with regulation. If small business is the true generator of jobs and economic growth, as our lawmakers regularly quip, then why oh why are they so saddled with licenses and regulations for businesses as simple as a dog grooming parlor? Here are some factors I see advantageous in the Libertarian party:

1. Less "social" government intrusion.
2. Less military intrusion abroad.
3. Fewer wasteful government programs.
4. Lower taxes (due to the previous 2 points).

It's true that Libertarians would be less likely to tackle problems such as welfare, social security and social health care, but I haven't given up on the idea that these problems can be solved by something other than socialistic reforms.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby Char » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:02 pm

Atheist37 wrote:Libertarians, in my opinion, simply have not fully thought through the implications of their philosophy. I briefly considered myself a Libertarian until I thought about it for five minutes. If followed to its logical conclusion, a Libertarian society would end in feudalism. Wealth and power would be concentrated in the hands of a very few, with the rest of humanity consigned to ignorance, poverty, and servitude. If that's what you are really attempting to achieve, then I applaud your political choice. If instead you're interested in a progressive society where all people have equal opportunity to make the most of their abilities, then please consider the implications of a truly Libertarian society.



Libertarian doesn't imply 'no government', it implies 'small government'. Trade would still be regulated, any market must be to an extent. Also, I would support putting taxes into things that the private sector would not, investments in science as a key example. I suppose my views can be summed neatly up like this: Fiscally, I'm a conservative republican; socially, I'm a democrat.

Those cartoons, while pretty funny, are straw-men with extra straw. Our health care system needs to be reworked, but some of the caricatured arguments used, when presented from an unbiased scope, are actually very valid. If everyone gets health care, the quality goes down, the doctors are paid less, and therefore there is less to push people to go through those years of education to become a doctor. Health care would be free for everyone, and pretty lame for everyone too; those with money would naturally pay for the good stuff, thus the rich would still get better care. The free market will prevail because people with money value their lives, and money talks.

Want an example of a parallel in our very country? Public schools. Teachers make very little, and (as a 'rule') do an exceptionally piss-poor job. I mean, really, look at the percent of Americans who believe the earth is six thousand years old. I contend that the same would happen to the medical field, and that is exactly what we do not want.
Char
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:08 am
Affiliation: Agnostic; Anti-Fundementalist.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby NH Baritone » Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:50 pm

:hijacked:

Remember? :smt057
:smt052
:smt058
:smt054 :smt053
:smt061 :smt061
:rubia: :rubia:
:spongeb: :patrick:
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby Char » Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:37 pm

Hah, my bad. I'm all for homosexuals getting married whenever they feel like it. :D
Char
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:08 am
Affiliation: Agnostic; Anti-Fundementalist.

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby nobody » Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:52 am

Atheist37 wrote:Libertarians, in my opinion, simply have not fully thought through the implications of their philosophy. I briefly considered myself a Libertarian until I thought about it for five minutes. If followed to its logical conclusion, a Libertarian society would end in feudalism. Wealth and power would be concentrated in the hands of a very few, with the rest of humanity consigned to ignorance, poverty, and servitude. If that's what you are really attempting to achieve, then I applaud your political choice. If instead you're interested in a progressive society where all people have equal opportunity to make the most of their abilities, then please consider the implications of a truly Libertarian society.

I think maybe you should have thought about it for another 5 minutes. But I'm curious how you ended up at that conclusion of yours. Care to elaborate?
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine. -John Galt
nobody
resident
resident
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby nobody » Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:05 am

NH Baritone wrote:Unregulated free enterprise can lead to an oligarchy in which the masses are subject to false advertising and con jobs. In such a system, there is no regulation of drugs, medical procedures, or medical personnel. Building codes in earthquake, fire, and flood zones would disappear. Absolute personal freedom can leave children abandoned without fear of consequences. A flat-rate taxation system (often cited as a libertarian idea) leads to the poorer classes handing over a greater chunk of their base income (that required to fulfill basic needs) to support the government.

Obvoiusly, if you have no faith in the free market then of course you believe that only govt regulation can solve those sorts of problems - but don't brush off the private industry that easily. When you do that, then you truly don't understand the free market.

And with the govt cut down to size, it will need much less money to run itself, so I'm not sure that your concern about the poor having to pay their fair share in taxes is really much to worry about.

And with govt taking less of my taxes, then I will be free to donate my earned money to charity myself. That's how we help those abandon children - we take care of those in our community. But we've lost those ideals as a country since everyone is now used to relying on the govt to take care of everyone (and it doesn't really do the best job does it)
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine. -John Galt
nobody
resident
resident
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby spongebob » Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:12 pm

Char wrote:Want an example of a parallel in our very country? Public schools. Teachers make very little, and (as a 'rule') do an exceptionally piss-poor job. I mean, really, look at the percent of Americans who believe the earth is six thousand years old. I contend that the same would happen to the medical field, and that is exactly what we do not want.


I disagree, Char. What you are saying can be true in a limited scope, but isn't necessarily true across the board. IOW, it's anecdotal. It's fashionable right now to bash public schools, but from my experience and data I've encountered, this bashing is unwarranted. Yes, there are poor schools and there are poor teachers, but little of this stems from the fact that they come from a public system. In fact, there is little evidence that the quality of teachers is a significant influence on education at all. And just so you don't think I'm spouting anecdotal or personal evidence, I'll explain how I come by this conclusion.

For about 2 years I served on a community school improvement board and we interveiwed teachers, administrators, public leaders, business leaders and the like from all over our county and state about public, private, religious and home-school issues. I personally analyzed the published school performance and budgetary records for the state of Mississippi. The results were clear, the best performing schools were located in growing districts with a dense population of middle & upper class white families. The poorest performing schools were located in the poorest districts (the MIss Delta) and city schools where the middle class whites has fled to county or private schools or home schooled, leaving only poor black and hispanic families. Private schools routinely beat these poor public schools, but not the public schools in mostly white, middle class districts. Moreover, the teaches and administrators running the private schools were predominantly former public school teachers & administrators. And even though the college attendence rate was higher for private schools vs. public, the college graduation rate was no different. Even more interesting is that schools with the worst performance are also the highest funded. So, on a dollar per child, it is far more expensive to educate poor kids in poor districts than middle class white kids, yet the poor kids still don't come close to the same performance. :!: What all these data mean is that a child's quality of education is far more dependent on their family's finances and stability than on the quality of the teachers and administrators. Bad teachers do exist, but they are not the driving for behind the disparity in education. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that bad teachers exist at any higher rate than bad engineers or doctors. These are anecdotal foils, fun for conservatives to bash, but when analyzed, these arguments do not hold water.

Now you can have your thread back, NH. :-D
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby Atheist37 » Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:33 am

nobody wrote:
Atheist37 wrote:Libertarians, in my opinion, simply have not fully thought through the implications of their philosophy. I briefly considered myself a Libertarian until I thought about it for five minutes. If followed to its logical conclusion, a Libertarian society would end in feudalism. Wealth and power would be concentrated in the hands of a very few, with the rest of humanity consigned to ignorance, poverty, and servitude. If that's what you are really attempting to achieve, then I applaud your political choice. If instead you're interested in a progressive society where all people have equal opportunity to make the most of their abilities, then please consider the implications of a truly Libertarian society.

I think maybe you should have thought about it for another 5 minutes. But I'm curious how you ended up at that conclusion of yours. Care to elaborate?

It starts with education. Providing free education to all children is our most important tool for building and maintaining a free society. Those who are thriving have an obligation to provide a larger share of the funding. The educated adult population deserves a well regulated and safe workplace, free of discrimination and harassment, and with fair wages. People should expect to have clean water and a safe sewage system, well regulated disposal of garbage and toxic waste, environmentally sustainable consumption of natural resources, food that is safe from spoilage, disease, and contamination. We should all expect a legal system that is fair to all citizens, and that actively investigates corruption and fraud. This is a partial list of the basic services we require from our government. A truly libertarian system would keep government out of education, employment, utilities, and industry -- and just about everything else. People would be expected to turn to some other, private, institution when looking to solve difficult problems.

Power abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of a strong democratic government, power will accumulate in the hands of a few. It might take the form of an oligarchy, or a corporate monopoly, or a theocracy. The powerful become stronger leaving most everyone else to struggle for basic subsistence. The only way political and economic power is smoothed more evenly across the population is with government enforcement. And the only form of government that can properly perform this function is a representative government that answers only to the population at large. We're not there yet, but these last three hundred years have seen great progress. Keep in mind that Europe experienced true libertarianism in the post-Roman era, and that gave rise directly to feudalism and the dark ages. Eventually even the most powerful saw the terrible limitations of this, and we entered the Age of Enlightenment.

There is a simple check and balance that prevents our slide back into the feudal warlord system. The least among us have the greatest liberty. As we grow in power, influence, and wealth, so also we must endure ever greater regulations and restrictions.

I raise pigs on my little farm, and I've noticed that it's always the pig with his snout in the trough that squeals the loudest.
User avatar
Atheist37
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:21 am
Location: Tualatin, Oregon
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby nobody » Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:53 pm

Atheist37 wrote:It starts with education. Providing free education to all children is our most important tool for building and maintaining a free society. Those who are thriving have an obligation to provide a larger share of the funding. The educated adult population deserves a well regulated and safe workplace, free of discrimination and harassment, and with fair wages. People should expect to have clean water and a safe sewage system, well regulated disposal of garbage and toxic waste, environmentally sustainable consumption of natural resources, food that is safe from spoilage, disease, and contamination. We should all expect a legal system that is fair to all citizens, and that actively investigates corruption and fraud. This is a partial list of the basic services we require from our government. A truly libertarian system would keep government out of education, employment, utilities, and industry -- and just about everything else. People would be expected to turn to some other, private, institution when looking to solve difficult problems.

Power abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of a strong democratic government, power will accumulate in the hands of a few. It might take the form of an oligarchy, or a corporate monopoly, or a theocracy. The powerful become stronger leaving most everyone else to struggle for basic subsistence. The only way political and economic power is smoothed more evenly across the population is with government enforcement. And the only form of government that can properly perform this function is a representative government that answers only to the population at large. We're not there yet, but these last three hundred years have seen great progress. Keep in mind that Europe experienced true libertarianism in the post-Roman era, and that gave rise directly to feudalism and the dark ages. Eventually even the most powerful saw the terrible limitations of this, and we entered the Age of Enlightenment.

There is a simple check and balance that prevents our slide back into the feudal warlord system. The least among us have the greatest liberty. As we grow in power, influence, and wealth, so also we must endure ever greater regulations and restrictions.

Thanks for elaborating. I think it's safe to say that we simply disagree. I have much more faith in the free market than you do and you seem to have much more faith in govt than I do. Let's just leave it at that for now. But if you have any reading material on that post-Roman libertarianism, send it my way.

Ok NHB, you can have for your topic back...again
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine. -John Galt
nobody
resident
resident
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby lorryfach » Fri May 30, 2008 5:11 am

I support same-sex marriage, and I'm not touching the libertarian argument. :-D

I'm sorry to hear that happened to you, NHB. :( I just don't see how anyone could argue that is right or fair.
Hi. I'm Lorry.
It's is a contraction of it is or it has.
Its is the possessive of it.
Thank you.
lorryfach
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:51 am
Location: Denmark
Affiliation: agnostic atheist

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby Shadrach » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:46 am

i dont care if two guys or two gals want to get hitched, as long as they dont affect my paycheck or come to my house and tell me what to do.

i do have a question, does it stop at gay marrage?

do plural relationships get the spotlight next?
Not all religions can be right but they can all be wrong.
User avatar
Shadrach
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:12 am
Location: The Federal City
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby emily4189 » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:06 pm

NH Baritone wrote:Image

From http://www.bettybowers.com/


Hey guys, I'm new here. This is my first post. Hooray! =P

Anyway. Your picture made me laugh. I was thinking about that last night, about the whole same-sex marriage thing (I'm for it, by the way; I really don't see how the government thinks it can get away with actively denying rights to its citizens--but I guess that's the government for you), and I wondered, Isn't it worse for heterosexual people treat marriage flippantly than for same-sex couples to treat it with dignity? Take Brittany Spears and the twenty-four-hour, or however long it was, marriage to her friend on a whim. I'd say that's worse than two same-sex people who want to make a public and legal commitment to one another.
emily4189
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: This crazy mixed-up world we live in.
Affiliation: Some kind of God stuff

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby whoosanightowl » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:28 pm

emily4189 wrote:
NH Baritone wrote:Image

From http://www.bettybowers.com/


Hey guys, I'm new here. This is my first post. Hooray! =P

Anyway. Your picture made me laugh. I was thinking about that last night, about the whole same-sex marriage thing (I'm for it, by the way; I really don't see how the government thinks it can get away with actively denying rights to its citizens--but I guess that's the government for you), and I wondered, Isn't it worse for heterosexual people treat marriage flippantly than for same-sex couples to treat it with dignity? Take Brittany Spears and the twenty-four-hour, or however long it was, marriage to her friend on a whim. I'd say that's worse than two same-sex people who want to make a public and legal commitment to one another.


Hi Emily and welcome to the forum! I couldn't agree with you more. The whole sanctity of marriage is a joke as long as religious people condone divorce and remarriage without blinking an eye. And the collapse of the family unit has nothing to do with gays/lesbians being allowed to adopt children either.
Sue
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

PreviousNext

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest