Maine's Question 1

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

The only marriage I support is no marriage. If Question 1 were about heterosexual marriage I would certainly vote yes, even if it kept gay marriages.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
[/quote]

Ironically, those same Mormons are now working hard to prevent others from marrying.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

[Alcon]

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

[Phony Moderate]

America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".

Or black, Latino, female, libertarian, liberal, anti-war, pro-equality, a fan of Michael Jackson, a freedom lover, a porn star, or a good looking person.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

[Mechaman]

America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".

Or black, Latino, female, libertarian, liberal, anti-war, pro-equality, a fan of Michael Jackson, a freedom lover, a porn star, or a good looking person.

I agree with everything except the last one. People don't have the right to be good looking.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

[Phony Moderate]

I'd also like to say that i wish the guy in my screen name was the President. Obama is proving himself to be a puppet of the Christian Establishment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

America: Land of the free, home of the brave, unless they are part of the evil "homosexual agenda".

Or black, Latino, female, libertarian, liberal, anti-war, pro-equality, a fan of Michael Jackson, a freedom lover, a porn star, or a good looking person.

I agree with everything except the last one. People don't have the right to be good looking.

If they did, Helen Thomas woul win one heck of a big lawsuit.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'd also like to say that i wish the guy in my screen name was the President. Obama is proving himself to be a puppet of the Christian Establishment.

And you are surprised? Obama was the corporatist candidate. Corporatism and authoritarianism go hand in hand.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

The fact that you actually believe that you are either an anarchist or a theocrat is just so astounding I really don't know how to respond - I can't think of anybody on this forum who would agree with you.

[Alcon]

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

What is wrong?  That gay marriage is "more viable"?  An issue that polls in the low twenties (no marriage) in the only poll I've seen is more viable because...gay marriage isn't viable (ignoring all trending) and therefore everything else is automatically more viable than it?  Again, what.

I also don't understand what you mean by "it comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do."  It's like you're regurgitating arbitrary parts of high school essays on the Federalist Papers.

[Scam of God]

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

When it comes to the modern Right, what's the difference? The days have long passed when American conservatives were genuinely opposed to mob rule. Today they encourage it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So was McCain.

[Mechaman]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

The fact that you actually believe that you are either an anarchist or a theocrat is just so astounding I really don't know how to respond - I can't think of anybody on this forum who would agree with you.

Go ask Mint or Mechaman, two other anarcho-cappies.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

[Alexander Hamilton]

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

What is wrong?  That gay marriage is "more viable"?  An issue that polls in the low twenties (no marriage) in the only poll I've seen is more viable because...gay marriage isn't viable (ignoring all trending) and therefore everything else is automatically more viable than it?  Again, what.

I also don't understand what you mean by "it comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do."  It's like you're regurgitating arbitrary parts of high school essays on the Federalist Papers.

Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

When it comes to the modern Right, what's the difference? The days have long passed when American conservatives were genuinely opposed to mob rule. Today they encourage it.

There are no more American conservatives. Only populists and liberals.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

[Scam of God]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

The secret bombing of Cambodia? Domestic espionage? Sending infiltrators into the isolationist camp to cause it to turn against itself?

[Alcon]

Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.

Yes...which is why I wish the government would butt out.  But that does not mean I find the arbitrary institutional disclusions of gays a moral non-issue.  To me, it's like being OK with banning blacks from buses because you don't like the government being involved in public transit.

That doesn't answer anything about your ridiculous comments about non-marriage being more "viable," or why we should completely ignore the ends and just pursue our utopian visions even if we know that it will result in more evil.