Gary Johnson Comes Out in Favor of Gay Marriage
3rd December 2011
Which eliminates him as a possible Republican nominee. Glad to have that out of the way.
Now, let’s see him justify pretending to be a Republican. (Not impossible … look at Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham … but guaranteed to be somewhat amusing.)
It’s hard to argue with Johnson here if you dig liberty.
And that’s the kind of ‘reason’ you get at ‘Reason magazine’, a name that is about as oxymoronic as those of most left-liberal think tanks. The fact that ‘marriage’ is a term with an ancient established meaning that has never included homosexual relationships, and has nothing to do with ‘liberty’, is, apparently, not even on the radar with these soi-disant ‘libertarians’.
December 3rd, 2011 at 17:21
The libertarian who supports homosexual “marriage” believes he advocates for freedom from oppressive moral codes, but actually repudiates his own morality. Without the abolition of laws compelling the recognition of marriage as uniting two persons in one, the creation of homosexual “marriage” will coerce and compel people who do not believe in perverse and corrupt forms of “marriage” to obey and been seen to obey laws at war with their own mores, morals, traditions, religions, and customs. They will be unfree, and made unfree by phony “libertarians” who use true libertarians as fellow-travelers and dupes to achieve their totalitarian ends.
These impostors seek only obedience, not freedom. To coerce and compel citizens who fail to follow state-imposed morality is a repudiation of liberty, not its essence. The libertarian who supports homosexual “marriage” receives the same thrill from the violation of his own beliefs—the thrill of compelling those whom he hates to kowtow before his superiority—as the homosexual receives from his perversions of his reproductive desires. No libertarian can support homosexual “marriage” and claim to be or remain a libertarian until he first advocates and achieves the abolition of laws which compel the recognition of marriage itself: an anti-human goal that will never occur and should never occur.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:00
“To coerce and compel citizens who fail to follow state-imposed morality is a repudiation of liberty, not its essence.” Like prohibitions against rape, murder, theft, assault, fraud…that sort of state-imposed morality? What you really advocate for is that your version of morality should supercede that of others. And in support, you cite tradition and history.
“We’ve always done it this way” is not a sufficient argument. Slavery as an institution had an 8,000+ year history and tradition until we decided to end it in the nineteenth century. Women being excluded from voting has a shorter history, but was just as traditional until 1920. Just because something has always been a certain way does not ipso facto make it right. Time to grow up.
Oh, and I especially like the term “soi-disant ‘libertarians'”; since there is, to my knowledge, and objective criterion by which to determine whether a libertarian is bona fide or not, that render them all–by definition–soi-disant.