Tenesse try to re ban gay marriage

[grbb]

Tennessee trying to re-ban gay marriage

I do not know what to say.

I am a moderate libertarian.

My position is government shouldn't have any business governing marriage. Let people decide what their private contract is. I also believe that marriage is obsolete and any libertarians should avoid marriage like plague anyway. Hence, I think banning or allowing gay marriage is irrelevant. Who wants to get married?

However, I do see 2 sides of discrimination here.

In one hand I saw it's discrimination against gay. Notice that even if gay is allowed there are still discrimination because polygamist and polyandrists still can't get married. So I am not seeing this as a lot of step back or forward.

On the other hand, I see another unnecessary intrusion either.

Tenesse is just a small state. Any gays that do not like the rules there can simply go to another state.

Why should federal government, a big state, trump the wish of the majority of people in Tenesse?

Why not let all local governments decide what the rules is? Anyone that don't like it can just not go there?

Now I do not like the second angle too much being libertarian. That means justifying smaller states to well discriminate.

However, I noticed that the smaller the states, the more easily people that don't like a rule get out, and hence, the more consensual a rule is.

To the opposite, insisting that every state, every country, in the globe to be libertarian would undermine another important freedom. Freedom to hang out with people you like.

My opinion is big states, like US, China, Indonesia, India, bla bla bla, should be libertarian. However, smaller states like Singapore, Myanmar, California, (yes I know, states here can means country or provinces) do not have to.

What do you think?

 

[bullwinkle]

Tennessee trying to re-ban gay marriage

I do not know what to say.

I am a moderate libertarian.

My position is government shouldn't have any business governing marriage. Let people decide what their private contract is. I also believe that marriage is obsolete and any libertarians should avoid marriage like plague anyway. Hence, I think banning or allowing gay marriage is irrelevant. Who wants to get married?

However, I do see 2 sides of discrimination here.

In one hand I saw it's discrimination against gay. Notice that even if gay is allowed there are still discrimination because polygamist and polyandrists still can't get married. So I am not seeing this as a lot of step back or forward.

On the other hand, I see another unnecessary intrusion either.

Tenesse is just a small state. Any gays that do not like the rules there can simply go to another state.

Why should federal government, a big state, trump the wish of the majority of people in Tenesse?

Why not let all local governments decide what the rules is? Anyone that don't like it can just not go there?

Now I do not like the second angle too much being libertarian. That means justifying smaller states to well discriminate.

However, I noticed that the smaller the states, the more easily people that don't like a rule get out, and hence, the more consensual a rule is.

To the opposite, insisting that every state, every country, in the globe to be libertarian would undermine another important freedom. Freedom to hang out with people you like.

My opinion is big states, like US, China, Indonesia, India, bla bla bla, should be libertarian. However, smaller states like Singapore, Myanmar, California, (yes I know, states here can means country or provinces) do not have to.

What do you think?

I think you have given this issue more thought than I have, and bring forward some things that have never crossed my mind. But at this time the general rule is that all states can have unique laws so long as they do not conflict or negate the national laws. I do not know how this works with issues like 'dry' states, for example, or if banning alcohol has ever been challenged. And the current flux among states concerning gun laws seems impossible to resolve nationally.

Sadly, at this time in our history, a serious discussion seems impossible. Emotion supersedes intellect on so many subjects these days. I think our kids will solve a lot of issues we can only rant about..emotionally and without reason sometimes. But I appreciate your effort to bring reasonable discussion forward, and I hope serious thinkers who care more for country than party (like the FF) step forward and participate.

 

[grbb]

Perhaps there is a middle way.

Libertarians think that private sector can discriminate and public sector shouldn't.

What about if the government, or local government itself, is privatized.


Should government discriminate? In general, we always discriminate. We discriminate based on grades in school, IQ, attitude, beauty. Some discrimination are "good" and some aren't.

Why do we need visa to go to most countries? Because the country discriminate. They want to see whether you are likely to be a terrorist, or seek for jobs, or invest in biz, or be a tourists. They accept and reject you based on that.

Under current democracy, if we allow government to discriminate, people would always discriminate against another. We will have tug of wars between discriminate him vs discriminate me.

In fact, allow a democratic country to discriminate and the discrimination will be about race, or religion, or drug usage, or sexual orientation. Those are things that have little merit and often lead to ugly precedent.

Look at US with it's affirmative action.

What about if the states themselves are like corporation? Imagine if states have owners and the shares can be traded in stock market and have valuation?

Then the state that discriminate well will prosper and their share valuation go up. State that discriminate in ways that are not good will go bankrupt and get acquired by state with better discrimination.

Should we discriminate against gays, straight, white, infidel, heretics, bla bla bla, christians, muslims, communists, liberal, atheists, or capitalists? Why not let each of those corporations/privatized state try and see whether they are profited or not. Simple right?

And that's what CDZ - Why I think the state itself should be more like private companies

What do you think?

 

[grbb]

There are many things where privatized states can do that normal libertarianism cannot. Should people tell in front they are transgender? It's a touchy issue.

We can argue about forced speech or disclosure bla bla bla.

Why not let each privatized state decide CMV: It’s polite for a person with different genitals than expected to disclose to a partner at some point before sex : changemyview

I personally would not want to have sex with transgender people and I would like to know if my sex partner may be transgender. I would go to a state where such things are discussed openly.

In fact, I've heard that Miss America allow transgender people in. My solution is simple. Just don't watch. Out of a risk that some of the hot girl may be transgender, I wouldn't watch miss America. The girls are not nude anyway.

 

[TNHarley]

The govt has no right to discriminate.
The govt is involved in marriage, so yes, gays should be able to marry.
We need govt out of marriage. We need govt out of MANY things

 

[DOTR]

TN already banned gay marriage. Their rulers imposed gay marriage.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The govt has no right to discriminate.
The govt is involved in marriage, so yes, gays should be able to marry.
We need govt out of marriage. We need govt out of MANY things

That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Gov recognition of hetero marriage, providing tax breaks to offset burdens of child rearing, is a good thing. Homo marriage can’t result in procreation so those subsidies are moot and become an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer. That’s the only extent to which this discussion needs to go. But the homo lobby won’t stand for that. They want to push their fascism.

 

[martybegan]

Tennessee trying to re-ban gay marriage

I do not know what to say.

I am a moderate libertarian.

My position is government shouldn't have any business governing marriage. Let people decide what their private contract is. I also believe that marriage is obsolete and any libertarians should avoid marriage like plague anyway. Hence, I think banning or allowing gay marriage is irrelevant. Who wants to get married?

However, I do see 2 sides of discrimination here.

In one hand I saw it's discrimination against gay. Notice that even if gay is allowed there are still discrimination because polygamist and polyandrists still can't get married. So I am not seeing this as a lot of step back or forward.

On the other hand, I see another unnecessary intrusion either.

Tenesse is just a small state. Any gays that do not like the rules there can simply go to another state.

Why should federal government, a big state, trump the wish of the majority of people in Tenesse?

Why not let all local governments decide what the rules is? Anyone that don't like it can just not go there?

Now I do not like the second angle too much being libertarian. That means justifying smaller states to well discriminate.

However, I noticed that the smaller the states, the more easily people that don't like a rule get out, and hence, the more consensual a rule is.

To the opposite, insisting that every state, every country, in the globe to be libertarian would undermine another important freedom. Freedom to hang out with people you like.

My opinion is big states, like US, China, Indonesia, India, bla bla bla, should be libertarian. However, smaller states like Singapore, Myanmar, California, (yes I know, states here can means country or provinces) do not have to.

What do you think?

I think you have given this issue more thought than I have, and bring forward some things that have never crossed my mind. But at this time the general rule is that all states can have unique laws so long as they do not conflict or negate the national laws. I do not know how this works with issues like 'dry' states, for example, or if banning alcohol has ever been challenged. And the current flux among states concerning gun laws seems impossible to resolve nationally.

Sadly, at this time in our history, a serious discussion seems impossible. Emotion supersedes intellect on so many subjects these days. I think our kids will solve a lot of issues we can only rant about..emotionally and without reason sometimes. But I appreciate your effort to bring reasonable discussion forward, and I hope serious thinkers who care more for country than party (like the FF) step forward and participate.

Best thing Obergfell could could have done is just make States recognize a marriage license from another State under full faith and credit, just like they do now. Leave the requirements for issuing a marriage license up to the States again, and let progress happen naturally, not via judicial fiat.

Tennessee should have crafted their law to recognize this, and let the courts try again.

 

[TNHarley]

The govt has no right to discriminate.
The govt is involved in marriage, so yes, gays should be able to marry.
We need govt out of marriage. We need govt out of MANY things

That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Gov recognition of hetero marriage, providing tax breaks to offset burdens of child rearing, is a good thing. Homo marriage can’t result in procreation so those subsidies are moot and become an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer. That’s the only extent to which this discussion needs to go. But the homo lobby won’t stand for that. They want to push their fascism.

All expenditures are a burden to the tax payer

 

[OldLady]

The govt has no right to discriminate.
The govt is involved in marriage, so yes, gays should be able to marry.
We need govt out of marriage. We need govt out of MANY things

That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Gov recognition of hetero marriage, providing tax breaks to offset burdens of child rearing, is a good thing. Homo marriage can’t result in procreation so those subsidies are moot and become an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer. That’s the only extent to which this discussion needs to go. But the homo lobby won’t stand for that. They want to push their fascism.

Almost every married gay couple I know is raising children. Either theirs by previous hetero marriage or by adoption.

 

[mdk]

Just checked again. Homos can still marry in Tennessee. Get over it. Or don't. Either way they will continue marry with or without your blessing.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The govt has no right to discriminate.
The govt is involved in marriage, so yes, gays should be able to marry.
We need govt out of marriage. We need govt out of MANY things

That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Gov recognition of hetero marriage, providing tax breaks to offset burdens of child rearing, is a good thing. Homo marriage can’t result in procreation so those subsidies are moot and become an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer. That’s the only extent to which this discussion needs to go. But the homo lobby won’t stand for that. They want to push their fascism.

All expenditures are a burden to the tax payer

Not those that pay dividends.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The govt has no right to discriminate.
The govt is involved in marriage, so yes, gays should be able to marry.
We need govt out of marriage. We need govt out of MANY things

That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Gov recognition of hetero marriage, providing tax breaks to offset burdens of child rearing, is a good thing. Homo marriage can’t result in procreation so those subsidies are moot and become an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer. That’s the only extent to which this discussion needs to go. But the homo lobby won’t stand for that. They want to push their fascism.

Almost every married gay couple I know is raising children. Either theirs by previous hetero marriage or by adoption.

And that contributes to the problems of social demise generated by unstructured families. That’s a phenomenon manifested post-1960’s.
Empirical.

 

[Chuz Life]

So many thoughts at the same the on this. . .

I find it sad, hilarious, a bit scary, interesting, disturbing, worry some, revealing, telling (yes, some are redundant) ludicrous, insane and unbelievable that many of the same people who think the U.S. Government has no role or authority to arbitrarily decide what the legal conditions for marriage recognition is to be. . . . can (at the same time) have all the authority it needs to decide and define when a child's PERSONHOOD and Constitutional rights actually begin.

Heh.

LEFTARDZ!

Fuck-em-all!

 

[Likkmee]

God bless TN. May the meth-heads and fruitloopz leave together
I'm an ol VA boy but lemme tell ya somethin..... TN was a fine fine state.
Back when the laws came from the bible(mostly) TN.KY,NC,,VA.WV.SC.AL.Its was some good places to be.60 years or so back there was no better place to be.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Tennessee trying to re-ban gay marriage

I do not know what to say.

I am a moderate libertarian.

My position is government shouldn't have any business governing marriage. Let people decide what their private contract is. I also believe that marriage is obsolete and any libertarians should avoid marriage like plague anyway. Hence, I think banning or allowing gay marriage is irrelevant. Who wants to get married?

However, I do see 2 sides of discrimination here.

In one hand I saw it's discrimination against gay. Notice that even if gay is allowed there are still discrimination because polygamist and polyandrists still can't get married. So I am not seeing this as a lot of step back or forward.

On the other hand, I see another unnecessary intrusion either.

Tenesse is just a small state. Any gays that do not like the rules there can simply go to another state.

Why should federal government, a big state, trump the wish of the majority of people in Tenesse?

Why not let all local governments decide what the rules is? Anyone that don't like it can just not go there?

Now I do not like the second angle too much being libertarian. That means justifying smaller states to well discriminate.

However, I noticed that the smaller the states, the more easily people that don't like a rule get out, and hence, the more consensual a rule is.

To the opposite, insisting that every state, every country, in the globe to be libertarian would undermine another important freedom. Freedom to hang out with people you like.

My opinion is big states, like US, China, Indonesia, India, bla bla bla, should be libertarian. However, smaller states like Singapore, Myanmar, California, (yes I know, states here can means country or provinces) do not have to.

What do you think?

My God, learn how to spell "Tennessee"!

 

[Rustic]

People can marry whoever/how many/whatever they want no matter how fucked up the concept is… That should be none of the governments business....

 

[22lcidw]

The govt has no right to discriminate.
The govt is involved in marriage, so yes, gays should be able to marry.
We need govt out of marriage. We need govt out of MANY things

That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Gov recognition of hetero marriage, providing tax breaks to offset burdens of child rearing, is a good thing. Homo marriage can’t result in procreation so those subsidies are moot and become an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer. That’s the only extent to which this discussion needs to go. But the homo lobby won’t stand for that. They want to push their fascism.

Almost every married gay couple I know is raising children. Either theirs by previous hetero marriage or by adoption.

Just cut the taxes in half in all ways for all the people then.