[scarmig]

You're still totally ignoring the point.

Marriage can be made equitable. It can be done either via abolishing marriage licensing altogether, or via making marriage licenses equitable.

Ron Paul believes it's better to keep marriage licensing discriminatory versus equalizing them.

If this were a world where government entitlements were available only to white people, and Ron Paul took the position "I'm opposed to doing anything to make government benefits race blind, so I'm going to work against people trying to make government entitlements race blind, because I believe all government entitlements are evil," that would be an effectively racist policy position, whatever his personal beliefs on race are.

And Ron Paul goes further: he has gone so far as to sponsor and vote for legislation that prevents the federal government from recognizing state-legislated marriage equality. So in this case, he thinks states rights go too far in allowing them to define marriage, so federal legislation is necessary.

And we're talking about a guy who not only is personally opposed to gay marriage. Do you really believe that plays no role whatsoever in his opposition to marriage equality?

[jswinghammer]

Yes I believe that because as a libertarian he would oppose using state power to give one group an advantage over another.

A libertarian is happy to allow any two or more adults to marry should they wish to do so. A libertarian just asks that no one's marriage is recognized by the state because it's not a matter that the state should be involved in. Can you really say that after gay marriage is legal everywhere (which will never happen) that marriage is actually equal? What about polygamists? I'm perfectly happy to allow them to obtain licenses to get married but it seems easier to just say government has no proper role in what is a private affair. This seems to make your case even better because it just removes from politics what is not a political issue.

[tempire]

Marriage cannot be made equitable by the state so long as the definition of marriage differs from person to person.

Ron Paul believes that marriage licensing should simply not be. If there are no licenses, there is no discrimination. Problem solved.

It seems like you believe that everyone should know that gay marriage is ok, and that everyone should agree with your view on the matter, because it's clearly the right one.

There are people who will never agree with you, no matter the position. Your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it. It doesn't need justification, it simply is. Attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry.

That's what libertarianism is all about: freedom. Freedom for you, for me, for everyone, to do as they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. That's what Ron Paul is about: we all don't have to agree. We can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are.

[scarmig]

Can you try to address my point instead of just repeating "freedom freedom freedom"?

I understand that Ron Paul believes that the ideal world is not to have government licensing of marriages at all. I get it, and might even agree with it. Okay?

What I've said is that Paul supports a discriminatory status quo over fixing the discriminatory status quo. This is true, and this makes him a supporter of homophobic discrimination, even if he has some theoretical plan that will never come to a vote that would be equitable. Remove your finger from the "auto downvote any critic of Paul" mode for a second and stop to understand this point: Ron Paul is supporting anti-gay discrimination.

Answer me this: suppose we lived in a world where black people were banned from going onto public roads. There were multiple votes to make it legal for black people to use public roads. Ron Paul voted against those attempts multiple times, saying "I'm not racist, but I believe that public roads shouldn't exist as they're an inappropriate use of public funds." So the status quo remains indefinitely, as there's no actual chance that public roads will be abolished altogether.

I argue that I get his position, but that it's still immoral to discriminate against black people, and so in the short term he should vote to make the situation equitable . And then you come along, and say, "your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it" and "attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry." That's narrow-minded and pigheaded, no?

Ron Paul's the bad guy here, even if he has some idealistic long-term view of the perfect solution that one of the victims of his votes might even agree with. You say "we can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are": well, you can get legally married, get benefits from my tax money, and get special rights from the government, while I can't. That's shitty, and Ron Paul prefers to posture for his ideology over actually considering the day-to-day suffering of regular people resulting from that shittiness.

[tempire]

The difference we have here is that I don't think it's anti-discrimination laws that change society. It's communication and confrontation of evil that changes society, and that happens over time.

Anti-discrimination laws didn't pop out of nowhere; the idea had been building over time, and when they hit the courts, new laws where made, instead of addressing the issues with the laws that were already made.

You argue that the status quo remains unless something is done - I agree, however that something is not law. There's a word for forcing morality on people: bigotry.

Allowing black people to use public roads is a matter of upholding existing law: All people are created equal. It took a lot of time, but eventually America began to understand the inconsistency of that law - A law that wasn't forced on people, but rather one that people chose to support when they supported the revolution. Change didn't happen by law. The change happened by people no longer standing for it.

The fact is, whether the group of people is gay, black, or whatever, there will always be a people group that is being discriminated against by someone. 20 years from now, we'll be coming up with more laws about group x, and pundits will say, "This is just like the gay rights wars of the early 21st century - we need more laws!", just as much as gay rights pundits are making comparisons to mid-20th century race relations, and demanding more laws to address an issue that people are already changing.

The point is this: laws don't change people. You can't enforce morality on people. Enforcement only creates bitterness and more problems. Change happens because of cultural influence, and that cultural influence is the input to the change function, not the output of f(law).

Your last point is that state-recognized marriages get tax benefits, but that's an issue with the tax code, not marriage. Attempting to fix the problem by defining/redefining marriage is like spraying air freshener without flushing the toilet. The problem is the tax code, not marriage. If you remove the concept of a marriage license, there are no tax benefits, for anyone, no matter their sexuality. The state simply has no jurisdiction over marriage. It's an inherently personal matter. Subsequently, Ron Paul's removal of the IRS also addresses the larger problem.

This is why I keep touting "freedom freedom freedom", because that's the core principle from which the solution is grown. Get the government out of the way, so that people, together, can work out problems. Enforcing morality by law encourages segregation. Staying out of it, thereby forcing people to deal with themselves and others without running to mommy government...that's the long term solution.

Freedom solves all problems. It's arguably the ether of human relationships.