|
It's silly to claim being anti-LGBT is religious because plenty of nominally atheist libertarians have called for an ending of all marriage.
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
rudatron posted:
That talking point only started showing up after gay marriage started being an issue. Unless you have citations for libertarians saying this during (eg) the miscegenation debate (which still doesn't really disprove the point about it just being white guys grossed out by a particular form of marriage).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Are you seriously asserting that libertarians called for the end of marriage because they didn't want gays to marry? Yep.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:That is just baffling. The Libertarian Party was formed in 1971 and was asserting that marriage should be a contract even back then. In 1972, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate was John Hospers, an openly gay man. In 1975, Ralph Raico wrote "Gay Rights: a Libertarian Approach" in which he wrote that he and the Party's candidates in 1976 supported, among other things, Things can change in 30 years. Also not all Libertarians are members of the Libertarian party.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:That is true and I am sure you can find some people who are libertarian and also anti-LGBT. Still I bet you'll find the vast majority of self-described libertarians are extremely pro-gay rights. Ron Paul wasn't/isn't and he was the face of that movement for quite a while.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Keep Autism Wired posted:I've wondered where this "religious right" phenomenon comes from where Christians (especially in the south) are super into regressive republican politics. Isn't christianity supposed to be all about helping the poor and needy, welcoming people, forgiving people, treating people well, and all that? The short version is that there are specific issues that Christians value (specifically abortion, but others too) that make them willing to partner with people who they would otherwise find repugnant. This is a side effect of the two party system; in a parliamentary system you would find parties that are just "promote Christian values". Do note that this is not universal - there are other issues which can even supersede things like abortion in importance. For example, a lot of black people are religious but value being treated equally more than opposing abortion, so they're still Democrats. so tl;dr - there's a Christian left, but they're not white. DeusExMachinima posted:You originally referred to marriage only and Ron Paul largely fell in line with the LP position on marriage being a private contract. If you'd specified other stuff like bakers not being allowed to discriminate against gays, that'd be something else. Ron Paul has demonstrated that he has many conservative Christian policies (such as trying to define life as beginning at conception). It's not a leap to conclude that he feels similarly about other topics, such as gays. The important factor is that many of his followers are not necessary Christian, but think his beliefs are still the "right" ones. Thus, you have atheists opposing abortion and the like. computer parts fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:I am still baffled at the idea that libertarians, a group as a whole that was pro-LGBT, slowly turned into LGBT haters between the 70s and the 2000s. This happened to evangelicals regarding birth control. DeusExMachinima posted:That... has nothing to do with whether replacing everyone's marriage licenses with civil union licenses and banning the government from using the word "marriage" is anti-gay though? You're focusing in on his reasons and you're probably correct in that. But there are other reasons to for getting government out of marriage besides a particular Bible interpretation. Yeah, like finding gays icky.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So do I secretly find gays icky because I think using the word "marriage" instead of "civil union" violates separation of church and state? No, but you are foolish for attributing a religious identification to a non-religious term.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:This has nothing to do with what libertarians did or did not do. It demonstrates a group that changed beliefs radically in only 30 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't have a good reason to think they're lying, so I think they actually believe what they're saying. The reason is that saying "gays are icky" is not an accepted reason anymore, especially among younger people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:I never denied this could happen. rebel1608 posted:
Unless you find Libertarians to be inherently special in some way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:They're not inherently special in that they can't radically change over time. However they did not turn anti-LGBT rights and gay marriage between 1976 and now. That is the specific claim you are making and it is wrong. Actually it's not, because you're conflating "Libertarians" with "The Libertarian Party". You actually haven't shown that Libertarians as a whole were pro-LGBT in the 70s and are still such today/ a decade ago. Again, remember that the face of the Libertarian movement (Ron Paul) was not a member of the Libertarian party. computer parts fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeah I'm kinda lost too. He mentioned Ron Paul as a transformative sort of figure, but I don't recall Paul making marriages/civil unions one of his big causes. Paul had also said that at the federal level he opposed “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[151] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking in support of the Marriage Protection Act in 2004, he urged those of his fellow congressional representatives who “believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage” to vote for the bill because its passage, requiring only simple majorities in both Houses of Congress, would be much more readily achieved than the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, as a Constitutional amendment, would require not only much larger majorities in both Houses but also ratification by the state legislatures.[151] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[94] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Again I want to state this as clearly as possible. Marriage privatization allows for gays to become a union, it does not allow for what they have to be legally declared "marriage". The fact that this is proposed as a solution when people were protesting for gay marriage is suspect. Put it this way - saying #AllLivesMatter is not itself inherently controversial. Saying #AllLivesMatter as a response to #BlackLivesMatter is controversial. Also remember: we've had people in this very thread who think marriage is an inherently religious term. They are wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
rebel1608 posted:But these unions would apply to heterosexual marriages too. No one would have a legally declared "marriage" that's the point. Put it this way - saying #AllLivesMatter is not itself inherently controversial. Saying #AllLivesMatter as a response to #BlackLivesMatter is controversial.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
rebel1608 posted:Man that is a weird way of looking at the world. Someone proposes a solution to the constant court and legal battles over gay marriage that gives everyone all the benefits of marriage - must be because they don't like the idea of gays marrying. Well, in the context of the leader of your movement trying to pass a law that "would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act " I think it's fair to assume you're not operating in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 02:22
|
|