This is a problem that was caused by government meddling in the first place. We all have high taxes, and none of us like them. Therefore, the United States of Santa Claus will take more from some so that others can keep more — and the gullible sheeple will thank Santa accordingly, thinking they’ve really gotten some goodies.

Elephant’s basic problem is that he doesn’t understand libertarianism. He is indeed a closet socialist, as are many “social conservatives.” But on their way to establishing a United States of Soviet Santa America amenable to their ideals, they will of course lie and deny this.

Of course they get their argument garbled up, as liars usually do. If I wanted — as Comrade Elephant continually attempted to assert — to have the government subsidize my marriage, there is obviously no way I could hope to keep it out of my bedroom. The very reason government subsidizes certain activities is because it wants to invade and regulate them.

The difference, of course, is that I said I wanted it out of my bedroom. I never said anything about wanting it to subsidize my marriage.

Oh, what a tangled web is weaved by people who must desperately cast about for a foil for their deceptions.

You see any conservative worth spit knows that the more you reward an activity, the more you get, and the more you punish an activity the less you get.

The facts make very clear that rewarding marriage works, and we ignore it to our detriment. The less society emphasizes marriage and the more “accepting” society has become of alternatives, the less marriage we have gotten which invariably results in increased out of wedlock birth rates and all the social ills that go along with it– increased crime, violence, poverty, illiteracy, school drop outs, etc, etc, etc….

I hate to burst your losertarian bubble, but history has proven Dan Quayle right.

But I am sure conservatives, the vast majority of whom support marriage, and support supporting marriage will be very alarmed to find out that their position is indeed socialist. Either that, or they will just agree with me that you are a very angry woman who doesn’t have a clue what socialism is, or what shes talking about.

There, fixed that.

There, fixed that.

Like your hero, Saul Alinsky, you slime anyone who disagrees with you. Like most socialists, you’re more interested in attacking other people than in promoting your own ideas.

What a phoney.

he is either unwilling or unable to grasp what I am saying

Oh I suspect I grasp what you are saying better than you do. But I would hate to misrepresent the nuances of your position.

She seems to be arguing that because she has to pay for a power of attorney, while straights do not, that the government is therefore in her bedroom, and in order for the government to get out of her bedroom it should therefore subsidize her lesbian relationship stop subsidizing marriage which has absolutely nothing to do with her bedroom since she isnt married.

There, fixed it. And it’s still dumb. Possibly even dumber.

Meanwhile, in the real world, marriage matters deeply to society and we all benefit greatly by promoting it.

People need to remember that even if — and it’s a huge if — the libertarian position ever became accepted, it would, by necessity, be piecemeal and very gradual in its implementation. Nobody’s going to flip a switch. Human nature simply isn’t amenable to change that happens that suddenly.

Think, for a moment, about this. Libertarians KNOW there’ll be no flipping of a switch — that we’ll need to see our ideas implemented gradually. Which means…what? Well, that we’re pretty confident in them. If they don’t work, they’ll be strangled, so to speak, in the crib.

The other day, yet another of my many liberal friends was warning me of the Apocalypse to come if libertarianism were ever to succeed. All roads, he assured me, would be toll roads. Dogs and cats would be biting everybody and giving them rabies. We would have a Mad Max world.

I asked him to breathe a moment. Just breathe. Then I asked him to consider why, if people are so dumb they cannot be trusted to govern themselves without Nanny Sam, they could ever be trusted to run the government.

He had no answer. Then he started the stuff I usually hear, from the Left, about how the libertarians “shill for the rich.”

I reminded him that the rich (by whom I assume he means the legendary “evil rich,” as opposed to people who are merely successful because they serve society better than the average folks do) are quite savvy about politics. They know which parties serve their interests and which ones don’t. Which is why both the Republican and the Democratic Parties are major parties.

The Libertarian Party? Please. Follow the money.

No barking cats, no meowing dogs, no Mad Max, no rabies. We’re willing to put our ideas to the test. And given the constant statist propaganda blitz against us, we have quite an uphill climb.

I can respect (if not agree) with your stance when articulated that way.

I don’t tie those two issues (abortion and same sex marriage, or gay rights, in general) together. There is no contradiction inconsistency to hold any of the four combinations of opinions on these two issues as far as I’m concerned. Further, I don’t like it when gay organizations try to tie these two issues together.

While I can understand one changing their views on abortion (in either direction) as one gets older, I just don’t see that happening with same sex marriage, except in the direction of acceptance. At least this is what we have seen with other gay rights. Yes, I’m sure there are examples to the contrary, but it seems like there are significantly higher percentage of persons who are more accepting of gay rights as they become older than the other way around.

Time will tell which one of us is right, I suppose.

Except when the young folks grow up. This assumption is incorrect and I base it on the current abortion debate. It has been decades since abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court yet it is still controversial. Shouldn’t everyone have accepted abortion law by now? Not really. The young people have grown up and don’t support abortion today.

I don’t think people will ever support gay marriage in America based on demographics. Maybe we should ban abortions to get gay marriage, just saying!!!!

Thanks for the Libertarian reading suggestions. I am fairly well read on the libertarian concepts and I am always troubled by the Lyndon LaRouche, Bob Barr, Ron Paul aspects of it. If libertarians are going to achieve any level of influence they are going to have to discover a way to stop acting out the plot line of The Lord of the Flies.

I asked if you are a libertarian anarchist, because so far as I can see, true libertarians are destined to forming some isolated colony/commune where they all agree to disagree and then set about not killing one another.

I am a conservative and I have no interest whatsoever in your love activities. However, if you want to go all activist and mess up the playground or try to force it on public education or gross me out at church, I will confront you in full voice. Those saggy baggy geriatrics in Vermont who wander the village naked are no different than black flies. They are a reality, but you don’t have to love them. Decorum is usually not a minority construct.

Elephant has to see everything through the same, tired “liberal versus conservative” prism, so he is either unwilling or unable to grasp what I am saying. There are a wide variety of excellent books out there on libertarian philosophy. They can easily clear up everyone’s confusion.

I would recommend, as a starter, “Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression,” by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart. David Boaz’s “Libertarianism: A Primer” would also provide a good beginning.

I don’t want the government to “subsidize” my relationship. I want it to stop making me subsidize anyone else’s. As for “nationalizing the legal industry,” that remark is so ridiculous I won’t attempt to respond to it. I’m a libertarian. I support de-nationalization, rather than the other way around. Anyone who had even a kindergarten-level grasp of libertarian philosophy would understand that.

Yes, Livewire, if the lesbians in question are wealthy enough, they can buy buy just about any sort of legal protection they need. Legal protection under the law, in this country, is not supposed to be for sale. That it is is a matter that should be of concern even to straights.

Gays are the canaries in the mine. And you’re still not getting what I’m saying. This is not about caring what the government thinks about my relationship. It’s about getting it the hell out of my bedroom, out of my wallet and off of my back.

If we own ourselves, it shouldn’t matter what the government says about our marriages, because the only legitimate role the government has is to protect its citizens from force and fraud.

The right way to explain this to straights would be to remind them that every time a government has begun to treat one group as if it owned them, it soon becomes apparent that this entity also believes it owns others. It’ll get around to presuming that it owns straights, too (oh, wait…
it already has).

Wait! Not all gay couples! Speak for yourself!

Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans

More vapid boilerplate full of kisses and pats, but basically meaningless blather.

“Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights (….) accorded to all Americans.” They are. In fact, a harem of gays are.

“Gay couples are entitled to the same (….) respect and dignity accorded to all Americans” is just pure Hallmark prose. Do the cops respond if a gay couple is being harassed? If not, there is clear recourse.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/01/07/2010-01-07_the_moral_and_constitutional_case_for_a_right_to_gay_marriage.html?page=1#ixzz0c2fvbFSz

Bigots will foam at the mouth at the very suggestion, but fully fledged gay marriages are the mark of a civilised society.

Huh? All I can deduce from this carbuncle of witlessness is that if you suggest something that makes bigots foam at the mouth, you may enter the suggestion under “civilised society.”

The vast evidence that editors have come to such a low standard that they pass over such inane drivel is …… well …… a cause for the educated to foam at the mouth.

(As an aside, if you find someone foaming at the mouth, but he is wearing a “diversity” sweatshirt, is he a bigot?)

(Also, if the Society of Bigots come to the debate and carry forth without foaming at the mouth, is it a draw?)

(I could go on, but the thrill is gone.)

Bravo! I was wondering if anyone was keeping track of the Tano stinkbomb and vanish routine.