Libertarians vs the Other Guys

[MXrider13]

Because if you change the definition of a word for "equality", you void its meaning. In other words, then the Left will be like "OMG WE SHOULD MARRY OUR PETZ" and stupid stuff like that.

It's ridiculous. I used to think it was k, though.

Yeah but pets aren't people and gays are. Besides what right doesn't the government have to control marriage anyway?

 

[Gimgak]

Because if you change the definition of a word for "equality", you void its meaning. In other words, then the Left will be like "OMG WE SHOULD MARRY OUR PETZ" and stupid stuff like that.

It's ridiculous. I used to think it was k, though.

Yeah but pets aren't people and gays are. Besides what right doesn't the government have to control marriage anyway?

According to republicans, gays aren't people but parasites.
The government can and will control anything that they want. There is no such thing as rights, they are called privileges that can be taken away at a moment's notice.

 

[MXrider13]

Because if you change the definition of a word for "equality", you void its meaning. In other words, then the Left will be like "OMG WE SHOULD MARRY OUR PETZ" and stupid stuff like that.

It's ridiculous. I used to think it was k, though.

Yeah but pets aren't people and gays are. Besides what right doesn't the government have to control marriage anyway?

According to republicans, gays aren't people but parasites.
The government can and will control anything that they want. There is no such thing as rights, they are called privileges that can be taken away at a moment's notice.

Yeah that sounds true

 

[Joshua Farrell]

Because if you change the definition of a word for "equality", you void its meaning. In other words, then the Left will be like "OMG WE SHOULD MARRY OUR PETZ" and stupid stuff like that.

It's ridiculous. I used to think it was k, though.

Yeah but pets aren't people and gays are. Besides what right doesn't the government have to control marriage anyway?

According to republicans, gays aren't people but parasites.
The government can and will control anything that they want. There is no such thing as rights, they are called privileges that can be taken away at a moment's notice.

Funny thing, The U.S. Bill of Rights are the 10 Main Rights (Not Privileges) that Citizens of the U.S. has. So, by saying that they are privileges, means that anyone and everyone can be forced into submission, because the Bill of RIGHTS (RIGHTS, not Privileges), can be taken away. 😛

Think about that for a moment there.

If they are the 10 basic rights Americans have, then they cannot be taken away, unless there was a constitutional convention, in which in itself is a bad idea, because people against freedom can totally alter rights of citizens to the point of loosing all of the rights that the Bill of Rights states we have.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

If they are the 10 basic rights Americans have, then they cannot be taken away...

That's assuming that the government is doing its job, which it has not been as of late.

 

[Gimgak]

Because if you change the definition of a word for "equality", you void its meaning. In other words, then the Left will be like "OMG WE SHOULD MARRY OUR PETZ" and stupid stuff like that.

It's ridiculous. I used to think it was k, though.

Yeah but pets aren't people and gays are. Besides what right doesn't the government have to control marriage anyway?

According to republicans, gays aren't people but parasites.
The government can and will control anything that they want. There is no such thing as rights, they are called privileges that can be taken away at a moment's notice.

Funny thing, The U.S. Bill of Rights are the 10 Main Rights (Not Privileges) that Citizens of the U.S. has. So, by saying that they are privileges, means that anyone and everyone can be forced into submission, because the Bill of RIGHTS (RIGHTS, not Privileges), can be taken away. 😛

Think about that for a moment there.

If they are the 10 basic rights Americans have, then they cannot be taken away, unless there was a constitutional convention, in which in itself is a bad idea, because people against freedom can totally alter rights of citizens to the point of loosing all of the rights that the Bill of Rights states we have.

It can be taken away, the fact that they're called 'rights' doesn't mean anything. We put Japanese citizens into concentration camps during WW2, where were their rights?

Same place ours are.

 

[Nuke]

A lot to reply to.

@MXR13: I think it's a state decision. Since they manage legal marriages.
@Gimgak: So basically you're pointing out that the government sucks and violates the Constitution rampantly. Thank you. Never heard the Republicans thinking gays aren't people, though. This is why I plan on running my own political party instead of joining the Republicans. They're way too leftist/authoritarian and they play too many political games.

 

[MXrider13]

A lot to reply to.

@MXR13: I think it's a state decision. Since they manage legal marriages.
@Gimgak: So basically you're pointing out that the government sucks and violates the Constitution rampantly. Thank you. Never heard the Republicans thinking gays aren't people, though. This is why I plan on running my own political party instead of joining the Republicans. They're way too leftist/authoritarian and they play too many political games.

But why should the government have any control over any ones marriage state or Federal? Why does it matter?

 

[Gimgak]

But why should the government have any control over any ones marriage state or Federal? Why does it matter?

So we dont make Gawd angry.

If we have religious freedom there should be no such limits. It's just that we're run by a bunch of hypocrites. This one Brazilian church is allowed to make mushroom tea and import it but rastas can't grow weed. Which is more dangerous 😛

 

[MXrider13]

But why should the government have any control over any ones marriage state or Federal? Why does it matter?

So we dont make Gawd angry.

If we have religious freedom there should be no such limits. It's just that we're run by a bunch of hypocrites. This one Brazilian church are allowed to make mushroom tea and import it but rastas can't grow weed. Which is more dangerous 😛

Very true, I actually now a few minsters who don't hate gays. I don't even think theres anything in the bible against gays either.

 

[Nuke]

But why should the government have any control over any ones marriage state or Federal? Why does it matter?

So we dont make Gawd angry.

If we have religious freedom there should be no such limits. It's just that we're run by a bunch of hypocrites. This one Brazilian church are allowed to make mushroom tea and import it but rastas can't grow weed. Which is more dangerous 😛

Very true, I actually now a few minsters who don't hate gays. I don't even think theres anything in the bible against gays either.

You're implying marriage in itself isn't registered in the government. Though I do see where you're going with this; the government shouldn't regulate much at all.

 

[MXrider13]

But why should the government have any control over any ones marriage state or Federal? Why does it matter?

So we dont make Gawd angry.

If we have religious freedom there should be no such limits. It's just that we're run by a bunch of hypocrites. This one Brazilian church are allowed to make mushroom tea and import it but rastas can't grow weed. Which is more dangerous 😛

Very true, I actually now a few minsters who don't hate gays. I don't even think theres anything in the bible against gays either.

You're implying marriage in itself isn't registered in the government. Though I do see where you're going with this; the government shouldn't regulate much at all.

It shouldn't be the governments business at all who anyone marry's

 

[Deleted member 1609]

But why should the government have any control over any ones marriage state or Federal? Why does it matter?

So we dont make Gawd angry.

If we have religious freedom there should be no such limits. It's just that we're run by a bunch of hypocrites. This one Brazilian church are allowed to make mushroom tea and import it but rastas can't grow weed. Which is more dangerous 😛

Very true, I actually now a few minsters who don't hate gays. I don't even think theres anything in the bible against gays either.

You're implying marriage in itself isn't registered in the government. Though I do see where you're going with this; the government shouldn't regulate much at all.

It shouldn't be the governments business at all who anyone marry's

I see that the fact that we are both small "l" libertarians means that we will agree on most social issues. I completely agree with your stance on gay marriage. It's not the right of the government to regulate love. They should only be able to regulate sexual relationships in which the rights of one person involved are violated (e.g. child molestation, rape).

 

[MXrider13]

But why should the government have any control over any ones marriage state or Federal? Why does it matter?

So we dont make Gawd angry.

If we have religious freedom there should be no such limits. It's just that we're run by a bunch of hypocrites. This one Brazilian church are allowed to make mushroom tea and import it but rastas can't grow weed. Which is more dangerous 😛

Very true, I actually now a few minsters who don't hate gays. I don't even think theres anything in the bible against gays either.

You're implying marriage in itself isn't registered in the government. Though I do see where you're going with this; the government shouldn't regulate much at all.

It shouldn't be the governments business at all who anyone marry's

I see that the fact that we are both small "l" libertarians means that we will agree on most social issues. I completely agree with your stance on gay marriage. It's not the right of the government to regulate love. They should only be able to regulate sexual relationships in which the rights of one person involved are violated (e.g. child molestation, rape).

Yeah I agree with that one