Video Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"; Gets booed

[Just_Believe18]

This woman deserves no respect, nor public recognition. She is a terrible human being.

 

[itsmejeff]

The funny thing is that this is the exact same argument supporters of "marriage equality" use against polygamy and incest.

This is apparently one of those "only wrong when someone else does it" things.

Her philosophy, such as it is, can be reduced simply to "government should use its power to force people to do what I want". This was evident from her argument that we'll never get government out of marriage, yet she wants to fight to get government out of business.

Simple hypocrisy. She doesn't believe in freedom at all.

is that not pretty much every political ideology though?

Liberalism and conservatism (both in the modern sense) are all about using government power to "encourage" action that members believe are correct. Compulsion is required as people will not make the "right" decision on their own (smoking, drugs, diet, education, finances, etc).

the parties around neither ideology are fighting to protect rights of other people to do things that the party does not agree with.

 

[Rolyo85]

It's so sad when someone is so busy "exposing" others that he fails to actually notice what they stand for...

 

[rareboy]

The funny thing is that this is the exact same argument supporters of "marriage equality" use against polygamy and incest.

This is apparently one of those "only wrong when someone else does it" things.

is that not pretty much every political ideology though?

Liberalism and conservatism (both in the modern sense) are all about using government power to "encourage" action that members believe are correct. Compulsion is required as people will not make the "right" decision on their own (smoking, drugs, diet, education, finances, etc).

the parties around neither ideology are fighting to protect rights of other people to do things that the party does not agree with.

Incest is only problematic and not recognized for straight marriage because of the potential issues with genetic abnormalities with the resultant children. In and of itself...who cares? Incestuous marriage has been employed through the centuries in many cultures. It isn't even a sin. I notice you didn't mention incest between adults and minors, which of course, is fundamentally wrong because it is not a balanced relationship and lacks the proper consent of one party.

Polygamy? what is the problem? Certainly for economic and political reasons, we have adopted the notion that using women as brood mares in a culture where they are utterly subservient to the male is not what we think is ideal for western society.

There is a huge difference though, in what a society will generally agree is acceptable and what is simply imposed. So at the moment, many western countries are accepting that homo marriage is okay and that it provides a societally recognized pact between two people who love each other.

 

[Stardreamer]

The funny thing is that this is the exact same argument supporters of "marriage equality" use against polygamy and incest.

This is apparently one of those "only wrong when someone else does it" things.

is that not pretty much every political ideology though?

Liberalism and conservatism (both in the modern sense) are all about using government power to "encourage" action that members believe are correct. Compulsion is required as people will not make the "right" decision on their own (smoking, drugs, diet, education, finances, etc).

the parties around neither ideology are fighting to protect rights of other people to do things that the party does not agree with.

The issue is marriage currently is a specifically monogamous arrangement. It is two people coming together to create a monogamous lifetime bond, creating a new family unit where one did not exist before. In our society in this day and age, that bond is formed by two people who wish to to be family, they love each other and want to live the rest of their lives together. It is the basic unit of our social structure, everything else revolves around that. It provides a safe environment for sexual relations, child rearing, and mutual support. This is very beneficial to society and the reason all the benefits accrue to marriage in order to encourage and support it.

Alternative forms of marriage undermine the institution by introducing the very 'anything goes' idea into it. Most of the alternatives are not desirable. Polygamy can work but there is an inherent instability in its structure since it almost impossible for all members of the group to be equal. It works well in societies where women are second class citizens and thus the inequality of the structure is expected but in Western societies it is a formula for social instability. Incestual marriages have the same instability problems, trying to establish a family inside a family, especially if it generational, can introduce power and domination issues that are dangerous as well as the genetics issues. There is also the alternative type of marriage called 'shacking up' where a marriage type relationship is formed without any of the bonds or promises that define a traditional marriage. The social benefit of marriage is stability and structure for a family, shacking up provides none of this.

The marriage equality issue comes in that gays have no equivalent structure for their relationships. There is an effort to provide an equivalent with the 'civil unions'. The problem with that, one it doesn't provide all the things real marriage provides, two it is an 'alternative' form of marriage!

Here now is why conservatives should be SUPPORTING gay marriage. Gays exist, whether they are formed by nature, nurture or both doesn't matter, they exist and they are going to form relationships. All the reasons society encourages and promotes marriage as the means of establishing heterosexual relationships apply just the same to homosexual relationships, INCLUDING THE SAFE HAVEN FOR CHILD REARING. Yes homosexuals have children as much as that may shock some people. There needs to be a means for gays to form socially acceptable family relationships.

Civil unions is not the conservative means to do that. The reason is it is socially acknowledging that an alternative to marriage is acceptable. Doing that is saying that marriage itself is not important and we can have many other types of marriage. That is the path to group marriage, contract marriage, to validating 'shacking up', incestual relationships, etc.

 

[itsmejeff]

Oh so incest is the same as homosexuality? Here is a word of advice... go take that right wing, homophobic agenda elsewhere. Perhaps on the Newsmax forums they might appreciate that kind of attitude. Polygamy and incest have nothing to do with this. I personally see nothing wrong with polygamy. That's been around a long time longer than gay marriage.

Where is that written or implied?

My statement was rather clear. And the responses to this thread are evidence of its validity. the view is that people should be only free to enter into the unions that certain individuals find acceptable.

Slippery slope? Huh? I am more liberal than Jesus and Buddha combined. All marriage should be legal, including unions to take advantage of nationality law (so called "sham marriages"). The state should not be in the position of determining which contracts willfully entered into by all parties are more or less valid than others. A legal contract between eight persons is no less valid than one between two persons.

sorry, bro, but I want actual equality. You would not understand. You also would not like it. Authoritarians never do.

polygamy = polygyny

That is inherently false. Would homosex marry females? I doubt it.

I disagree also with claims of inequality. People who willfully enter into agreements can make decisions. It happens with other contracts. Start a business with multiple persons. Oh, noes. Unequal! Damn that contract to hell! Polygamy, like regular marriage, is a problem when people are not given a choice. A forced polygamous union is no better or worse than a forced monogamous union.

Incest is only problematic and not recognized for straight marriage because of the potential issues with genetic abnormalities with the resultant children.

Polygamy? what is the problem? Certainly for economic and political reasons, we have adopted the notion that using women as brood mares in a culture where they are utterly subservient to the male is not what we think is ideal for western society.

There is a huge difference though, in what a society will generally agree is acceptable and what is simply imposed. [...] love

The "issues" with progeny from incestuous unions are exaggerated. It does not even matter. Other people who will definitely produce r-person children are allowed to marry.

Love does not matter. There is no test or requirement for love. There is only a contract and benefits provided to those who are in that contract.

 

[chrisrobin]

Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"

Do I look like a libertarian?

 

[CoolBlue71]

Why does anyone give Ann Coulter attention?

I figure she's well-connected. And has stayed that way. She is part of the Conservative Entertainment Complex. It doesn't matter which party is winning with elections. She has a gig. She's going to continue with it. And she will continue to get exposure.

 

[Stardreamer]

I disagree also with claims of inequality. People who willfully enter into agreements can make decisions. It happens with other contracts. Start a business with multiple persons. Oh, noes. Unequal! Damn that contract to hell! Polygamy, like regular marriage, is a problem when people are not given a choice. A forced polygamous union is no better or worse than a forced monogamous union.

Businesses and relationships are two different things. In engineering, a tripod is the beginnings of stability but in relationships three is the beginnings of instability. You can make it work but it is HARD work and more likely to fall apart than the more stable monogamous relationship.

 

[xbuzzerx]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

Actually it does.

This same topic is going on in Hot Topics and someone brought up a point-- can people add others to polygamous marriages at will, or remove them? If they can add people, what happens if the primary income earner suddenly dies and the pension is now split 6 ways? What if kids are involved? Who needs to give consent to add to a polygamous marriage? How will that affect pensions, social security benefits, etc.? Many divorce laws at the moment in the case of an income disparity between the two parties recognize that the party making lesser should be supported in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed via financial support for a period of time or until remarriage. How will that work if a marriage has 8 spouses?

 

[itsmejeff]

I presume that the current form of marriage is correct and that people are too stupid to change it.

People can make those determinations as necessary. Those who seek such arrangements can determine how assets should be succeeded.

claims of difficulty are no reason to promote discrimination [Text: Removed]

And, again, if these are major issues, then the state should prevent poor people from marrying or having children.

 

[xbuzzerx]

People can make those determinations as necessary. Those who seek such arrangements can determine how assets should be succeeded.

claims of difficulty are no reason to promote discrimination [Text: Removed]

And, again, if these are major issues, then the state should prevent poor people from marrying or having children.

[Text: Removed]

At any rate, you're just handwaving that none of those things I mentioned will impact things like the welfare of children involved in a multi-party marriage, the ability of a non working spouse to survive in the case of the end of a marriage or the death of a primary income earner, and a ton of other considerations. Those things will all have real impact on real people, including people who don't have a say in the matter (such as various children of members of a polygamist marriage) which is why the precise same argument made for gay marriage cannot be made for a polygamist marriage.

 

[Kulindahr]

The funny thing is that this is the exact same argument supporters of "marriage equality" use against polygamy and incest.

This is apparently one of those "only wrong when someone else does it" things.

is that not pretty much every political ideology though?

Liberalism and conservatism (both in the modern sense) are all about using government power to "encourage" action that members believe are correct. Compulsion is required as people will not make the "right" decision on their own (smoking, drugs, diet, education, finances, etc).

the parties around neither ideology are fighting to protect rights of other people to do things that the party does not agree with.

No, it isn't. Libertarians want to have people make their own decisions instead of telling them what to do -- thus, no law about merely personal issues are considered valid. Marriage? Not the government's business to decide who can marry who. Recreational drugs? Not the government's decision to tell people what they can't put in their bodies.

 

[Rolyo85]

No, it isn't. Libertarians want to have people make their own decisions instead of telling them what to do -- thus, no law about merely personal issues are considered valid. Marriage? Not the government's business to decide who can marry who. Recreational drugs? Not the government's decision to tell people what they can't put in their bodies.

Bullied kids at school? Not the government's job to protect them. Let them learn to work it out.

At least that's what the last libertarian I talked to told me.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies while saying: "if gay people want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex"; Gets booed

Alternative forms of marriage undermine the institution by introducing the very 'anything goes' idea into it. Most of the alternatives are not desirable. Polygamy can work but there is an inherent instability in its structure since it almost impossible for all members of the group to be equal. It works well in societies where women are second class citizens and thus the inequality of the structure is expected but in Western societies it is a formula for social instability. Incestual marriages have the same instability problems, trying to establish a family inside a family, especially if it generational, can introduce power and domination issues that are dangerous as well as the genetics issues. There is also the alternative type of marriage called 'shacking up' where a marriage type relationship is formed without any of the bonds or promises that define a traditional marriage. The social benefit of marriage is stability and structure for a family, shacking up provides none of this.

By this reasoning, democracy can't work.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bullied kids at school? Not the government's job to protect them. Let them learn to work it out.

At least that's what the last libertarian I talked to told me.

That's a very strange libertarian you talked to. Extending that reasoning, we shouldn't send kids to school, just let them work it out on their own.

 

[Just_Believe18]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

I know you want to challenge and redefine human nature in all of your posts; however, when it comes down to the subjective reality we live in for the society we are a part of, marriage equality is important to us. If heterosexual relationships are recognized by their government and are afforded benefits and protections, then homosexual relationships are equally as deserving. Everything else you're ranting about is irrelevant to the topic that genuinely affects the members of this community.

 

[rareboy]

I figure she's well-connected. And has stayed that way. She is part of the Conservative Entertainment Complex. It doesn't matter which party is winning with elections. She has a gig. She's going to continue with it. And she will continue to get exposure.

The funny/annoying thing is that just about everybody in the media is in on the joke.

The liberals actually love her because she gives them something to attack and rally around and the conservatives, because she's just so damned good at making liberals mad.

But everyone knows that she is only in it for the $$$$

 

[Rolyo85]

I know you want to challenge and redefine human nature in all of your posts; however, when it comes down to the subjective reality we live in for the society we are a part of, marriage equality is important to us. If heterosexual relationships are recognized by their government and are afforded benefits and protections, then homosexual relationships are equally as deserving. Everything else you're ranting about is irrelevant to the topic that genuinely affects the members of this community.

I really respect you for not engaging his bullshit. This is exactly the core of my issue with all the weirdos ranting about definitions and how things "should" be - they always seem to ignore the actual reality and its implications for regular people.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I really respect you for not engaging his bullshit. This is exactly the core of my issue with all the weirdos ranting about definitions and how things "should" be - they always seem to ignore the actual reality and its implications for regular people.

And somehow in that off-topic process they wind up directly or indirectly offering justifications for the status quo, which I presume to be the actual intent.