Poll- Marriage Equality

[Votto]

Nice goal post moving there.

Just noting the inherent contradiction of wanting the government out of marriage....while demanding government programs and assistance related to marriage.

It's just another entitlement program for a select few people.

If you don't want the government involved...why are you demanding government involvement?

As I said, if you want a marriage that the government isn't involved in nor even recognizes exists.....you can have it.

You obviously have some sort of learning disorder.

Those not married should be able to have the same rights of those who are married.

You just said that the government shouldn't be involved. And now you're demanding elaborate government involvement.

If there is going to be elaborate government involvement for the married and unmarried.....why should the government be 'out of the marriage business'?

The government needs to do away with all the entitlements or let everyone have equal access to them

How hard is that to understand?

 

[daws101]

another nut job and homophobe....you can rally pick the winners,

Lol @ "homophobe"! Another non-existant, made up fairytale from the left.

tell me there slapdick what words aren't made up ?

The ones that refer to real things.

homophobia is real as it gets .
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[4]

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.[1][2] Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

Forms of homophobia toward identifiable LGBT social groups have similar yet specific names: lesbophobia – the intersection of homophobia and sexism directed against lesbians, biphobia – towards bisexuality and bisexual people, and transphobia, which targets transsexualism, transsexual and transgender people, and gender variance or gender role nonconformity.[1][3][5]

In the USA, according to the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States "were motivated by a sexual orientation bias."[6] Moreover, in a Southern Poverty Law Center 2010 Intelligence Report extrapolating data from fourteen years (1995–2008), which had complete data available at the time, of the FBI's national hate crime statistics found that LGBT people were "far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime."[7]

Homophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A word is meaningful because a society gives it meaning. That's really all it takes to make a "real" word. Since the commonly understood meaning for the word is someone who has some sort of fear involving gay people, I'd say it's a real word.

He was probably violated by one of his fellow white supremacists in prison and liked it but is currently in denial.

it's not gay when you do it in prison!

 

[daws101]

Figures.......

What do you know about Hoppe?

Unlike you I read even that which is fantasy rantings, I'm a lifelong student of humanity.

I have read more than you could in your lifetime, fag lover.

another statement the ignorant always use.
they forget the reading involves understanding what words mean not just the ability to pronounce them.

Besides, exclusively reading comic books doesn't count.......

you beat me to it ,you bastard!

 

[Skylar]

Just noting the inherent contradiction of wanting the government out of marriage....while demanding government programs and assistance related to marriage.

It's just another entitlement program for a select few people.

If you don't want the government involved...why are you demanding government involvement?

As I said, if you want a marriage that the government isn't involved in nor even recognizes exists.....you can have it.

You obviously have some sort of learning disorder.

Those not married should be able to have the same rights of those who are married.

You just said that the government shouldn't be involved. And now you're demanding elaborate government involvement.

If there is going to be elaborate government involvement for the married and unmarried.....why should the government be 'out of the marriage business'?

The government needs to do away with all the entitlements or let everyone have equal access to them

How hard is that to understand?

You said that the government should grant unmarried couples access...which involves tremendous government involvement.

You get that, right? As the entire premise of your argument is that the government shouldn't be involved, its an odd demand.

 

[WinterBorn]

Simple question. How does gay marriage personally affect you legally and financially?

There's no such thing, so it doesn't.

Obviously there is, at least in the real world down here on planet Earth.

No, that's just in the minds of sheep who worship the state. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" in real life.

Government doesn't govern minds.

And with 60% of our population being in favor of recognizing gay marriage, it is not just the gov't.

But you keep insisting that it doesn't exist. I am sure all those happy gay couples will be devastated that you don't believe they are married.

I don't believe 60% supports it.

Yeah, and you don't believe gay marriage is really a marriage. I guess if you have your own definitions of things, and deny other people the same ability, life is easier for you. More people to hate.

 

[WinterBorn]

Maybe you should join, you seem the type....... That's not a compliment......

Maybe I should. What do they stand for and what do they do to promote what they stand for?

They used violence to promote their ideology. Murder, bank robbery ect ect. There were 4 of them. All are in prison.

Yeah, not into the bank robbery or murder either.

They're a violent version of Westboroans........

Meh, I'm not really that religious. Doesn't sound like my sort of thing.

that's odd !as everything you spew reeks of a twisted religious view.

Well it's not coming from a religious point of view. Sorry to break it to ya.

false! you may know believe it isn't but in fact it is..

False! No it's not. It's coming from a Hanns Hermann Hoppeian point of view actually.

The so called Libertarian (or anarchist) who is a social conservative and wants the gov't involved in all sorts of nonlibertarian things? lol

I don't agree with him. But at least he is not hoping for a junta by the US Military and wishing gays would be murdered.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's just another entitlement program for a select few people.

If you don't want the government involved...why are you demanding government involvement?

As I said, if you want a marriage that the government isn't involved in nor even recognizes exists.....you can have it.

You obviously have some sort of learning disorder.

Those not married should be able to have the same rights of those who are married.

You just said that the government shouldn't be involved. And now you're demanding elaborate government involvement.

If there is going to be elaborate government involvement for the married and unmarried.....why should the government be 'out of the marriage business'?

The government needs to do away with all the entitlements or let everyone have equal access to them

How hard is that to understand?

You said that the government should grant unmarried couples access...which involves tremendous government involvement.

You get that, right? As the entire premise of your argument is that the government shouldn't be involved, its an odd demand.

I think what Votto means is that the benefits would be for all citizens equally. Not reserved for those who are married. That would get the gov't out of the marriage business.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Maybe I should. What do they stand for and what do they do to promote what they stand for?

They used violence to promote their ideology. Murder, bank robbery ect ect. There were 4 of them. All are in prison.

Yeah, not into the bank robbery or murder either.

Meh, I'm not really that religious. Doesn't sound like my sort of thing.

that's odd !as everything you spew reeks of a twisted religious view.

Well it's not coming from a religious point of view. Sorry to break it to ya.

false! you may know believe it isn't but in fact it is..

False! No it's not. It's coming from a Hanns Hermann Hoppeian point of view actually.

The so called Libertarian (or anarchist) who is a social conservative and wants the gov't involved in all sorts of nonlibertarian things? lol

I don't agree with him. But at least he is not hoping for a junta by the US Military and wishing gays would be murdered.

He doesn't want "the government" to do anything. It's obvious someone knows next to nothing about what Hoppe has said when they confuse the idea of 'covenant communities' and how they would work, with an endorsement of a centralized government.

My stance on a junta is not his, correct...because I have moved past pondering the idealistic aspect of negative-rights libertarianism and am more interested in the quickest ways to get there.

 

[WinterBorn]

They used violence to promote their ideology. Murder, bank robbery ect ect. There were 4 of them. All are in prison.

Yeah, not into the bank robbery or murder either.

that's odd !as everything you spew reeks of a twisted religious view.

Well it's not coming from a religious point of view. Sorry to break it to ya.

false! you may know believe it isn't but in fact it is..

False! No it's not. It's coming from a Hanns Hermann Hoppeian point of view actually.

The so called Libertarian (or anarchist) who is a social conservative and wants the gov't involved in all sorts of nonlibertarian things? lol

I don't agree with him. But at least he is not hoping for a junta by the US Military and wishing gays would be murdered.

He doesn't want "the government" to do anything. It's obvious someone knows next to nothing about what Hoppe has said when they confuse the idea of 'covenant communities' and how they would work, with an endorsement of a centralized government.

He wants communities to be able to kick anyone they dislike out. Those "communities" are, in fact, miniature governments.

And if the actions of those communities are endorsed by a central gov't, the actions are of the gov't.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The OP is a loaded question.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Yeah, not into the bank robbery or murder either.
Well it's not coming from a religious point of view. Sorry to break it to ya.

false! you may know believe it isn't but in fact it is..

False! No it's not. It's coming from a Hanns Hermann Hoppeian point of view actually.

The so called Libertarian (or anarchist) who is a social conservative and wants the gov't involved in all sorts of nonlibertarian things? lol

I don't agree with him. But at least he is not hoping for a junta by the US Military and wishing gays would be murdered.

He doesn't want "the government" to do anything. It's obvious someone knows next to nothing about what Hoppe has said when they confuse the idea of 'covenant communities' and how they would work, with an endorsement of a centralized government.

He wants communities to be able to kick anyone they dislike out. Those "communities" are, in fact, miniature governments.

And if the actions of those communities are endorsed by a central gov't, the actions are of the gov't.

No they are voluntary communities that have made agreements as to how society will function within them. There is no democracy, it is all based on a voluntary covenant. It isn't government.

 

[WinterBorn]

false! you may know believe it isn't but in fact it is..

False! No it's not. It's coming from a Hanns Hermann Hoppeian point of view actually.

The so called Libertarian (or anarchist) who is a social conservative and wants the gov't involved in all sorts of nonlibertarian things? lol

I don't agree with him. But at least he is not hoping for a junta by the US Military and wishing gays would be murdered.

He doesn't want "the government" to do anything. It's obvious someone knows next to nothing about what Hoppe has said when they confuse the idea of 'covenant communities' and how they would work, with an endorsement of a centralized government.

He wants communities to be able to kick anyone they dislike out. Those "communities" are, in fact, miniature governments.

And if the actions of those communities are endorsed by a central gov't, the actions are of the gov't.

No they are voluntary communities that have made agreements as to how society will function within them. There is no democracy, it is all based on a voluntary covenant. It isn't government.

So there isn't an endorsement from a central gov't?

And if someone in one of those communities owns their home and property, and refuses to sign the agreement banning Jews or gays, what happens then? Are they allowed to disagree?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

False! No it's not. It's coming from a Hanns Hermann Hoppeian point of view actually.

The so called Libertarian (or anarchist) who is a social conservative and wants the gov't involved in all sorts of nonlibertarian things? lol

I don't agree with him. But at least he is not hoping for a junta by the US Military and wishing gays would be murdered.

He doesn't want "the government" to do anything. It's obvious someone knows next to nothing about what Hoppe has said when they confuse the idea of 'covenant communities' and how they would work, with an endorsement of a centralized government.

He wants communities to be able to kick anyone they dislike out. Those "communities" are, in fact, miniature governments.

And if the actions of those communities are endorsed by a central gov't, the actions are of the gov't.

No they are voluntary communities that have made agreements as to how society will function within them. There is no democracy, it is all based on a voluntary covenant. It isn't government.

So there isn't an endorsement from a central gov't?

And if someone in one of those communities owns their home and property, and refuses to sign the agreement banning Jews or gays, what happens then? Are they allowed to disagree?

They wouldn't be in that particular community from the jump because they would have already agreed to this hypothetical banning of Jews or gays.

But let's say they have a change of heart and wish to leave, they would be compensated for their homestead and then kicked out. That's how it would work. These things would be hashed out in the agreements before being signed.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Hoppe was not saying pro-homosexual or pro-jew or whatever combination of communities cannot exist...he was actually giving an example of a more socially conservative covenant community.

 

[WinterBorn]

The so called Libertarian (or anarchist) who is a social conservative and wants the gov't involved in all sorts of nonlibertarian things? lol

I don't agree with him. But at least he is not hoping for a junta by the US Military and wishing gays would be murdered.

He doesn't want "the government" to do anything. It's obvious someone knows next to nothing about what Hoppe has said when they confuse the idea of 'covenant communities' and how they would work, with an endorsement of a centralized government.

He wants communities to be able to kick anyone they dislike out. Those "communities" are, in fact, miniature governments.

And if the actions of those communities are endorsed by a central gov't, the actions are of the gov't.

No they are voluntary communities that have made agreements as to how society will function within them. There is no democracy, it is all based on a voluntary covenant. It isn't government.

So there isn't an endorsement from a central gov't?

And if someone in one of those communities owns their home and property, and refuses to sign the agreement banning Jews or gays, what happens then? Are they allowed to disagree?

They wouldn't be in that particular community from the jump because they would have already agreed to this hypothetical banning of Jews or gays.

But let's say they have a change of heart and wish to leave, they would be compensated for their homestead and then kicked out. That's how it would work. These things would be hashed out in the agreements before being signed.

Your idea would only work if everyone was starting from scratch in a completely new area. That is completely impossible.

It would mean a community would already exist, and then these "voluntary agreements" would be drawn up. And everyone who was gay, Jewish or whatever, would be kicked out. Along with those who refused to sign the agreement.

That is not Libertarianism. That is anarchy. And the only way that sort of crap would happen would be the complete overthrow of the US Government and the removal of the US Constitution.

Not happening, sparky. So you may as well get used to there being people around that you don't agree with.

 

[Syriusly]

The OP is a loaded question.

Yes it is.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

He doesn't want "the government" to do anything. It's obvious someone knows next to nothing about what Hoppe has said when they confuse the idea of 'covenant communities' and how they would work, with an endorsement of a centralized government.

He wants communities to be able to kick anyone they dislike out. Those "communities" are, in fact, miniature governments.

And if the actions of those communities are endorsed by a central gov't, the actions are of the gov't.

No they are voluntary communities that have made agreements as to how society will function within them. There is no democracy, it is all based on a voluntary covenant. It isn't government.

So there isn't an endorsement from a central gov't?

And if someone in one of those communities owns their home and property, and refuses to sign the agreement banning Jews or gays, what happens then? Are they allowed to disagree?

They wouldn't be in that particular community from the jump because they would have already agreed to this hypothetical banning of Jews or gays.

But let's say they have a change of heart and wish to leave, they would be compensated for their homestead and then kicked out. That's how it would work. These things would be hashed out in the agreements before being signed.

Your idea would only work if everyone was starting from scratch in a completely new area. That is completely impossible.

It would mean a community would already exist, and then these "voluntary agreements" would be drawn up. And everyone who was gay, Jewish or whatever, would be kicked out. Along with those who refused to sign the agreement.

That is not Libertarianism. That is anarchy. And the only way that sort of crap would happen would be the complete overthrow of the US Government and the removal of the US Constitution.

Not happening, sparky. So you may as well get used to there being people around that you don't agree with.

No, we could have a junta, there could be a civil war...the latter looking very likely thanks to your beloved government. No new land mass required.

As I said, I am interested in the quickest way to get there and past the whole idealistic debate.

That is why in my introduction thread I made it clear that I am a right-wing, neo-reactionary with an end goal of a propertarian and voluntaryist society.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

You can have your fag-happy community..just not on this land mass if I and people like myself have a say.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hoppe was not saying pro-homosexual or pro-jew or whatever combination of communities cannot exist...he was actually giving an example of a more socially conservative covenant community.

Where each community gets to write their own laws, despite teh fact that those laws would be blatantly unconstitutional. It simply means that if the bigots get together, they get to pretend they are the only ones around. It is called anarchy.

He wants communities to be able to kick anyone they dislike out. Those "communities" are, in fact, miniature governments.

And if the actions of those communities are endorsed by a central gov't, the actions are of the gov't.

No they are voluntary communities that have made agreements as to how society will function within them. There is no democracy, it is all based on a voluntary covenant. It isn't government.

So there isn't an endorsement from a central gov't?

And if someone in one of those communities owns their home and property, and refuses to sign the agreement banning Jews or gays, what happens then? Are they allowed to disagree?

They wouldn't be in that particular community from the jump because they would have already agreed to this hypothetical banning of Jews or gays.

But let's say they have a change of heart and wish to leave, they would be compensated for their homestead and then kicked out. That's how it would work. These things would be hashed out in the agreements before being signed.

Your idea would only work if everyone was starting from scratch in a completely new area. That is completely impossible.

It would mean a community would already exist, and then these "voluntary agreements" would be drawn up. And everyone who was gay, Jewish or whatever, would be kicked out. Along with those who refused to sign the agreement.

That is not Libertarianism. That is anarchy. And the only way that sort of crap would happen would be the complete overthrow of the US Government and the removal of the US Constitution.

Not happening, sparky. So you may as well get used to there being people around that you don't agree with.

No, we could have a junta, there could be a civil war...the latter looking very likely thanks to your beloved government. No new land mass required.

As I said, I am interested in the quickest way to get there and past the whole idealistic debate.

That is why in my introduction thread I made it clear that I am a right-wing, neo-reactionary with an end goal of a propertarian and voluntaryist society.

And the few who believe as you do would not survive any armed conflict. There are more armed people willing to defend the USConstitution than there are idiots who want a lily white, conservative, heterosexual exclusive community.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Winter...I suggest you read up on these things. Your constitutional argument means diddly squat...There would not be a federal government or federal constitution anymore at the point of establishing covenant communities.