Why do people find my beliefs so offensive?

[Belmont31R]

No shit.

As a libertarian I don't believe in no government.



I just don't believe in government doing anything other than protecting our rights.


That means having a military to protect our nation, LEO's to enforce laws, ect.


Where I draw the line is using the rule of law to tell someone they cant do XYZ even though it doesn't infringe on anyone else.

[karmapolice]

Well, the most obvious one is demographics. Go ask the Soviets, er I mean Russians, how well their family policies with respect to the sanctity of marriage have worked out. Or go to China and see how their one child policy is about to detonate their society. The greatest indicator of financial and social stability is a man, a woman and children under one roof.

B_C

With the high rate of first marriages resulting in divorce that doesn't really add up in the US, on top of that in the "good ole days" as some people like to call them just because divorce was looked down on it didn't mean that there was a lot more unstable/separated nuclear families going on. While families are a social institution the nuclear family is not the only type and it is also a product of industrialization like adolescence. So the idea of a man, a woman, and a child living under one roof being the only type of family that stabilizes society is crap. The family is only one of the many social institutions that help maintain a balanced society but the social institutions can also be the harbingers of undoing for a society as history has shown us.

The fact of the matter dealing with family is that we live in a industrialized nation/society that is connected to a industrialized global economy and we have no clue what the largest amount of population it can support but that we are more than likely reaching and or already have surpassed the number and we do not know if what it's resilience level is nor it's ability to recuperate after a major fall out. History/Anthropology shows up the most stable form of Society is that of Hunter Gathers but it can only support a few million but it has the highest resilience rate and recuperation rate. Hunter Gather societies marry but not in the way that modern western/usa civilizations practice marriage.

The truth of the matter is we live in unknown times and eventually the current society will fall, history shows that they all do at some point. Will we be able to rebuild based on the current workings or will it be the start of a whole new type of society, no one knows for sure.

To talk about the original question of the thread it basically to me it is part of the human condition for some, the must have some false sense of control etc.

**This nothing more than an opinion and there fore its worth nothing more than any other opinion, I do have a Bachelors of Science in Sociology not that I am a sociologist/expert but I am fairly educated in the realm of Sociology.***

[Irish]

I hope Ron Paul runs again in 2012. I may not agree with everything he does but he's damn sure one of the only politicians who's read the Constitution and actually tries to work within it's limits. I think the majority of Libertarian's beliefs are a hell of a lot closer to our country's founders than any Republican or Democrat.

[Skyyr]

Who gives a shit whether they call themselves married or butt-buddies? It doesn't harm your marriage and it certainly doesn't "deteriorate the very sanctity of life". I have even less idea as to how you reached that conclusion than I do about why wanting to be free is offensive.

Read what you just wrote. It's not "wanting to be free." If it was about just "wanting to be free," then look around: they're GAY. They actually have the freedom to be gay and do all sorts of gay stuff that gay people do. Other countries kill people for doing that. They're about as free as they can get on this planet. They aren't happy with that. That should be an indicator right there.

And guess what? They made it clear that they didn't care about tax breaks in and of themselves. What do they want? They want the title of "marriage." They want to be the same as everyone else. That's not free, that's them wanting to enforce their lifestyle on everyone else.

Think about it. They want other people to recognize them. It's got nothing to do with freedom, it's simply a bunch of insecure dimwits who want to feel "special" by saying they're the same as everyone else.

[ChicagoTex]

The family (defined as one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, and their offspring) is the most basic, quintessential self-sustaining unit of the human race. Without it, there can be no life past this generation. The children of that relationship must rely on the parents to teach them how to survive and fend for themselves, ultimately starting their own family. Don't start a flawed argument with "well parents don't have to teach their kids." Yes, they do, and if they don't, then someone else has to and the parents ultimately have to pay for it in one way or another.

Two gays, regardless of how much they might love each other, cannot under ANY circumstances produce a child of their own. They are nothing more than two people who enjoy being together.

One of the above examples is an important, required, essential unit of life. The other is simply two messed up people (physically and/or mentally, per their own definition) who want an emotional fix.

They are not the same.

When the family is destroyed, then our future is destroyed. Want to argue differently? Take a look at the required "same-sex ed" classes that some schools have put into their curriculum. Look at how our 1A and 2A rights are being stripped away from us. At the very core, most every persisting problem in society stems from parents not raising and teaching their kids.

The "traditional" family is much more important than any other and must be held that way, regardless of how many sensitive wallflowers that fact offends, because no other type of family can sustain human life.

Your argument seems to imply that normal families and offspring are in short supply, or that no longer being intolerant of unconventional relationships will somehow doom the human race. The fact is that most people find the "traditional" family to be the most appealing package because most people are naturally hardwired for that and unless and until the laws of nature change, "holding the line" against homosexuality, singleness, and anything else non-traditional is, at best, entirely wasted effort.

The traditional family model has perpetuated itself by a large majority for millenia, it's not about to unravel just because we let homosexuals marry. And besides, even if it did, a population reduction would be a huge boon to this planet anyway.

[RancidSumo]

The family (defined as one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, and their offspring) is the most basic, quintessential self-sustaining unit of the human race. Without it, there can be no life past this generation. The children of that relationship must rely on the parents to teach them how to survive and fend for themselves, ultimately starting their own family. Don't start a flawed argument with "well parents don't have to teach their kids." Yes, they do, and if they don't, then someone else has to and the parents ultimately have to pay for it in one way or another.

Two gays, regardless of how much they might love each other, cannot under ANY circumstances produce a child of their own. They are nothing more than two people who enjoy being together.

One of the above examples is an important, required, essential unit of life. The other is simply two messed up people (physically and/or mentally, per their own definition) who want an emotional fix.

They are not the same. Trying to make them the same is a disgrace to the human race itself. The gays don't want tax deductions or new filing statuses - if they did, they would have pressed for it instead of marriage. The only thing they want is to say that their the same as everyone else. They want to bring heterosexual marriage down to their level so that everyone feels all fuzzy and warm about their sexual choices. In the process of doing so, we're publicly stating that we value two random sexual deviants as much as the only unit known to mankind that can reproduce a human life. It's disgusting and it's a disgrace to life itself.

When the family is destroyed, then our future is destroyed. Want to argue differently? Take a look at the required "same-sex ed" classes that some schools have put into their curriculum. Look at how our 1A and 2A rights are being stripped away from us. At the very core, most every persisting problem in society stems from parents not raising and teaching their kids.

The "traditional" family is much more important than any other and must be held that way, regardless of how many sensitive wallflowers that fact offends, because no other type of family can sustain human life.

For the record, I have nothing against gays. If they want to be gay, then they can have at it. I know they'll burn in Hell for it, so I could care less how they waste their earthly lives.

So how does gay people finding a church that will marry them, wearing a pair of rings, and living that same life harm your family or any other family at all?

[Skyyr]

So how does gay people finding a church that will marry them, wearing a pair of rings, and living that same life harm your family or any other family at all?

Gays wearing rings, having a ceremony, and joining together in union doesn't hurt anything. I would have to point out the irony in any of them requesting a Christian ceremony, because Jesus said explicitly in the Bible that "homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" and that they will burn in hell forever, but that's neither here nor there.

The problem happens when they start claiming that it's "marriage." If we took the term "marriage" and threw it away completely, and then assigned heterosexual marriages the term "child-bearing unions" and gays "non-reproductive union," or "domestic union," I personally guarantee you that the gays would have a huge issue with it. They've already done it with the numerous other terms that were coined out of respect for their relationships (domestic partners, "gay" marriage, etc). They want to be "the same," and that's the problem. They can never be the same because they can never be reborn as the sex they want to be. You cannot and will not ever be able to give them what they want without destroying the definition of every other heterosexual family.

If we say that gay "marriage" is the same as a child-bearing and rearing relationship, then it starts deteriorating the very sanctity of life. We're literally saying we value political correctness over human life.

The two relationships have absolutely nothing in common, aside from the fact that there's two consensual adults involved.

[120mm]

The problem is, the idea that marriage is a "right" is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Marriage is a restriction, forced by society on people who otherwise will whelp their young and then abandon them, forcing greater society to pay for it.

The fact that we've lost the bubble on this makes it no less true.

Arguing marriage as a "right" is the height of moronitude.

Having said that, since we've abandoned the very foundation of why marriage (or sex, for that matter) exists, I see no purpose toward restricting anyone from marrying anyone or anything they want.

Personally, I'd make abandoning a child a criminal offense. Reenact debtors prison, for both men and women and seize children and raise them by the state.

If I gotta pay for them anyway, I want control in how my money is spent.

If not, do away with any and all tax monies spent toward Other People's Kids, up to and including public schools.

Either way is ok with me.

[ALCOAR]

Lets assume we all agree that the male/female=another human equation is the way to continue the human race.

So let me get this straight....the reason why gay marriage should not be sanctioned is because:

Gay marriage becomes sanctioned......

We all instantly turn gay and marry our same sex......

Thereby we end the human race because we stop procreating......

I am a strange bird I guess because if a cpl. of gay guys/gals want to get married, I am proof positive my sexuality will not change in the least.

Framing the reason for not allowing gays to marry because the human race will end or as some refer to as the destruction of the family unit(mother/father/child) could be construed as homophobia.

[RancidSumo]

Gays wearing rings, having a ceremony, and joining together in union doesn't hurt anything. I would have to point out the irony in any of them requesting a Christian ceremony, because Jesus said explicitly in the Bible that "homosexuals shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" and that they will burn in hell forever, but that's neither here nor there.

The problem happens when they start claiming that it's "marriage." If we took the term "marriage" and threw it away completely, and then assigned heterosexual marriages the term "child-bearing unions" and gays "non-reproductive union," or "domestic union," I personally guarantee you that the gays would have a huge issue with it. They've already done it with the numerous other terms that were coined out of respect for their relationships (domestic partners, "gay" marriage, etc). They want to be "the same," and that's the problem. They can never be the same because they can never be reborn as the sex they want to be. You cannot and will not ever be able to give them what they want without destroying the definition of every other heterosexual family.

If we say that gay "marriage" is the same as a child-bearing and rearing relationship, then it starts deteriorating the very sanctity of life. We're literally saying we value political correctness over human life.

The two relationships have absolutely nothing in common, aside from the fact that there's two consensual adults involved.

Who gives a shit whether they call themselves married or butt-buddies? It doesn't harm your marriage and it certainly doesn't "deteriorate the very sanctity of life". I have even less idea as to how you reached that conclusion than I do about why wanting to be free is offensive.