You're right, I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain, if you don't mind.
Homosexaul Rights
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
You're right, I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain, if you don't mind.
Okay.
Equality before the law, such as equal voting rights, equal ability to own property, no discrimination by public employees or departments, and that sort of thing, is fine.
Socio-economic equality, which is trying to make equality of outcome, is immoral. This is when people tax the wealthy heavily in order to make them middle-class, or when people try to eliminate social classes. This is immoral, because you have no right to the fruit of another's labor.
Thus the government must protect our lives and liberty, and our properties and contracts, but it should not interfere in matters of mutual consent, either socially or economically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Minarchism
Why can't the government just be the arbiter of marriages? If gays want to get married they can go to a court sign a few forms, done married. heterosexuals can have a wedding, sign a few documents send them to a court, done married. Heterosexuals the same. By this account the gays are married under the law, but heterosexuals can get married under their anti-gay church's god's law also, of course the pro-gay churches can have weddings for gays though, but everyone fills out the same paperwork, so it all equal under man's law.
I thought we were talking about homosexual people, not taxes :bugeye:. Whatever I still like having a little bit of both. freedom and equality
That's an okay idea, but just don't call it "marriage". Call it civil union.....and it's fine. Marriage is reserved for the church, and the government has no right to tell private entities what they can and can't do, so long as they aren't hurting anyone.
Thus,
Homosexual couples can go to a court and sign documents and then they can be a civil union
Heterosexual couples can either do the same, or go through the proper ceremony and be "Husband and Wife"
We were talking about freedom and equality, and I said that you CANNOT have both if that equality is forced.
Marriage is not reserved to the church, you don't need to be married by a person of God or a person of any religion.
Define marriage.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities
-Dictonary.com
I'm not getting married at a church or by a priest/minister this summer. Would that make my marriage invalid to you?
Then we have no disagreements except for semantics. At any rate, that's fine: homosexuals can marry legally, but the "husband and wife" ceremony should be up to private entities.
and how is the government to protect from theft and rights violations without regulations? If a company steals from another company government can't help in your dream world, if a company enslaves it employees through schemes government can't help, no weekends no child labor, no worker safety all evil regulations enacted by evil liberals over a century ago. If the poor get sick, leave em to die in your dream world, if the poor children can't pay for educations leave 'em to remain ignorant in your dream world.
Of course. But I don't believe the government has ever been involved in the actual ceremony itself.
Well it has been to a degree. But anyway, that's why I'm a libertarian: you ought to be free.
Separate but equal you say? I will admit that a gay couple can only be "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" but I see no reason why what ever their union is, can't be called marriage: we can't allow private private entities to dictate the meaning of words that already exist, what if particular religious sect wants their god to be called god, then everyone else can't call their deities "god"? What if and this is a real example, one church allows gays to be united under the title of marriage and others do not? Should we have them vote over the word and thus does that not dictate the government must now tell two lovers what they must be segregated as? If all else fails I feel the government needs to maintain equality, to the government they all most be a "civil unions" or either "marriage" no matter if its between a man or a women, and the government will call them partners, partner 1 or partner 2 or even partner 3 (I'll allow polygamy between consenting adults of independent mind). They can call them selves what ever they want, a church can all them what ever they want, but on the legal document they will all be called something universal.
How does a government declare who is a thief and murderer, the world is not so cut and dry, if a person dumps toxins in a river that kills people is he a murdered, now if a company does it who is the murdered? If the government says to people be it individuals or companies "you can't dump toxins in a river" is that not a regulation on the company?, because that what all regulations are.
Nonsense. In a free market, you are free to do whatever as long as you don't infringe on the property rights of others. If you dump toxins into a river and it affects other people (which it will), then you cannot do that; they can take legal action against you on that basis.
And no company or person can "own" a river.
What did you think regulations on companies was for, to provides that very protection: to forbid compaines from infringing on the rights of others!
Of course..........which means social and economic freedom, but you like to ignore the latter.
We don't need those regulations........private property is the greatest regulation.