Poll for Libertarians

Well the concept of creator can be quite relative. IF you really think about it we can all agree that something unknown to us created this whole universe and by consequence it could be argued that everything that exists, even human creations, come from that creator(whatever it might be). That IS a logical statement in fact.
However claiming that the God of the Bible, who came down in a whirlwind and handed some stone tablets to a human and who also burned some Israelites with fire as punishment and commanded others to sweep clean entire populations of the middle east, and that traveled around in some ship made of metal wheels with animal headed Cherubs commanding it; IS actually that creator, that right there is a stretch my friend.

Last Edited by Manu-K on 01/30/2013 09:01 PM

Didn't see an answer saying something to the affect of "government shouldn't be in marriage in the first place" so I can't answer your poll as the others leave too many questions open (i.e. do I find homosexuality morally permissable?). The issue with discussing gay marriage is that it doesn't matter whether or not I think it is moral. My issue is with government being involved in marriage at all. Why should we have to ask government's permission through paying for marriage licenses for the chance to marry whomever we love. I'll be damned to the darkest level of hell before someone tells me I'm not allowed to marry the girl I love if she and I wish to do so (I'm a guy mind you).

I'll admit, I don't get homosexuality, I find it morally questionable and kind of revolting. But that being the said, you aren't harming anyone by getting married. You have every right to marry whom you love and that's that. Marriage is between you, your significant other, your respective families, and the spiritual deity/deities (or lack thereof) you acknowledge. Government has no place in that.

In regards to polygamy, I absolutely find it immoral. However, same applies, you have every right to do as you please so long as you aren't harming anyone. Sometimes you have to grow a thick skin and move along.

Government has no business in marriage. It's a personal arrangement between consenting adults and should not need the blessing of our lawmakers.

To pretend you live your life faith-free is outrageous. You might not have faith in God, but you do have faith in something, even if it is yourself. Even now, you have faith that there is no God. God being false is not something you understand to be true, it is something you believe to be false. You cannot prove the nonexistence of anything. To understand anything as false would require absolute knowledge, which only God has.

Newton said it this way:
A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.

So you, as I, are a man of faith. I have faith in God, you have faith in...

No, that right there is not a stretch, it is faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I would agree, belief in a creator is absolutely logical, existence at its core is axiomatic with a creator. It is like seeing a painting and someone asking "how do you know the painting had a painter?" The existence of the painting axiomatically proves it had a painter. The same principle applies to our existence. We exist, therefore we are proof that we had a Creator. To believe anything outside of that is logical suicide. To put a name on the Creator, as you said, takes faith.

It's not only that I don't have faith in the god of the bible, I have certainty that he is a man made lie, as the Bible is made up of outrageous stories only apt to have come out the minds of primitives as a form of population control. There's no reason why the world would have changed so drastically in 3000 years that the supernatural events the bible claims wouldn't be happening now to for us to be able to observe them and corroborate them, the only plausible explanation is that they're as false and human made as Harry Potter.
Regarding the existence of a universal creator of some unknown nature who created all that there is, that is indeed within the realm of possibility, but as that is impossible for me to corroborate and thus claim with any validity, i refrain from making any claims regarding that.

Consent is the key factor here-- in many bigamous marriages there is huge element of deceit accompanied by financial and emotional deprivation, as at least one or more spouses were usually unaware of the existence of the other marriages. I realize there is a difference in the definition of bigamy & polygamy.

Just because I would never put up with polygamy (I am not tempermentally inclined to it), doesn't mean I necessarily think others should be legally restrained from doing it.

But that type of relationship is fraught with difficulties and potential for abuse and neglect, very much more so than a traditional marriage. Women and children are particularly vulnerable. This would seem to be a major consideration in the legal reasoning behind outlawing such marriages. (I know, I know; that sounds somewhat like Bloomberg banning the sale of supersized soft drinks and trans fats for your own good)

Last Edited by Ralph--a house dog on 01/30/2013 09:40 PM

Exactly, we know something created all of this, but as we don't know for certain what was it, we support ourselves on man made assertions. There's plenty of these to choose and you decided to have faith in a particular one, but your choice doesn't automatically warrant any sort of validity, it's merely what you chose to believe in order to fill that void of knowledge that you can't fulfill due to the fact that you are a finite being.

People like me choose not to make outrageous claims regarding these matters, people like you choose to believe in ancient myths, whatever the case there's no place in civilized society for people to try to push their mythological faith based beliefs onto anyone else, at least not more than any schizophrenic has to try to push their deluded fantasies onto sane people.

A schizophrenic might have full faith in the idea that he is a King and has a right to rule over everyone as his subjects, but no one in their sane mind would grant the schizophrenic such power merely because he BELIEVES that to be the case, regardless of how strong the belief is.

Actually "existence" is dependent on an "exister", NOT a "creator". A painting has a painter, yes. A squirrel has WHAT AGAIN? A tree has WHAT?

Your argument is invalid.

Exactly. Very good point. Consent is the benchmark of acceptable human behavior.

Consent is the basis of the concept of rights in civilized society.

After viewing the results of the vote poll. I have come to the conclusion that this thread is gay!

Indeed. Breach of consent is the basis of criminal law.

theft
rape
murder
assault
kidnapping
etc

And after viewing your reply, I have come to the conclusion that you are not a libertarian and have no business in this thread.

fuck this fucking poll. i dont give a fuck who can fucking fuck who. gays, palygomists, zoophiles, necrophiles, i dont fucking care. let a man marry a rock if he wants, this shit does not fucking matter. STFU about these non-issues.

I voted neither because I don't think marriage is the government's business.

This poll is not about the government. It is about "rights" which are independent of government.

There's a slippery slope here with regards to pedophilia, as some people may argue that if children would consent to having sex with an adult then they should have that right. One may argue that children are not mature enough to consent but this is not really something that can be fully substantiated (point being, a 10 year old girl who is already sexually developed consenting to having sex with an adult). My point against pedophilia, in a libertarian spirit, is that while minors are the financial responsibility of their parents it's the parents who should have the last word regarding what their children do.

It's hard to argue the point against pedophilia without trying to support oneself on relative moral grounds and I suspect this will become the next controversy in the years to come. It's a good example of a case that is hard to argue without recurring to emotional or relative argumentations. In fact even religious arguments may fail as in the Bible the Jewish God told the Israelites to take as wives the female virgins of the enemy, regardless of age.

I am against pedophilia and I would like to arrive to an argument of absolute and overwhelming logic to dismantle the pedophile agenda while respecting the idea of consent being the basis of civilized interaction, but I haven't arrived there so far.

Govt needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.

Why aren't they in the baptism business?

Or the confession business?

Or the Bar mitzvah business?

Because marriage is not only a religious issue, it's also a civil issue.

"age of consent" is debatable. This is very true and represented in regional laws here in the US.

It can be successfully argued that "ability to express consent" is independent of age. Therefore, another benchmark is necessary.

Financial independence is a viable alternative, as you suggest. However, I would restate that as:

Rights and responsibilities are proportionately applied in a libertarian society.

Last Edited by simultaneous_final on 01/30/2013 09:48 PM

You see, it is a problem, because as children are nowadays being indoctrinated to follow hypersexualized role models, it ensues that they will eventually begin craving for sexual stimuli at younger ages, and perverts bent on satisfying themselves on children WILL attempt to exploit this situation. So there must be a way for people to factually argue their right to keep their children from becoming sexual playthings of lustful degenerates, even if the government wishes to alter the laws to allow such thing based on the fact that their children themselves may be willing to consent on such activities. This is the next stage of affairs.

I've had debates with pedos and it's hard as hell to logically counter them believe it or not. It's highly frustrating.

Last Edited by Manu-K on 01/30/2013 09:48 PM

I had added more to my reply and put it below---The consent issue is not always a clear one in circumstances where some are at a disadvantage in the relationship in some manner. It can get messy. But so can many other things that are perfectly legal.
-------------------------------


Just because I would never put up with polygamy (I am not tempermentally inclined to it), doesn't mean I necessarily think others should be legally restrained from doing it.

But that type of relationship is fraught with difficulties and potential for abuse and neglect, very much more so than a traditional marriage. Women and children are particularly vulnerable. This would seem to be a major consideration in the legal reasoning behind outlawing such marriages. (I know, I know; that sounds somewhat like Bloomberg banning the sale of supersized soft drinks and trans fats for your own good)

Last Edited by Ralph--a house dog on 01/30/2013 10:02 PM

I agree. Believe me, I have long searched for logical consistency in this matter.

It's possible that we can settle this once and for all. Let's try to break it down:

1. Ability to imply or express consent is not inherent to all conscious beings at all times.

example: trees, non-humans, infants, the mentally unsound

2. Ability to consent is dependent on _________

?????

there's the tough one. Ideas?

Though I do not condone either behavior as a Christian, I cannot, as a Constitutionalist impede with their right to enter into contracts.

Marriage is a pact made between a man and a woman where they make promises to God. If you don't meet those qualifications, then you get a civil union.

It's tempting to say "it's not morally right" but then you fall on the trap of relative morality. This is a very tricky one and it will be exploited soon by the pedophile groups.

I agree. Believe me, I have long searched for logical consistency in this matter.

It's possible that we can settle this once and for all. Let's try to break it down:

1. Ability to imply or express consent is not inherent to all conscious beings at all times.

example: trees, non-humans, infants, the mentally unsound

LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION:

What do the above examples have in common that make them unable to render consent?

As long as the women are not forced into polygamy, they should have the right to marry. Why not?