Ilegalizar el divorcio

Machaca · 12 Mar 2010

au contraire my quizzical friend. I understand perfectly and what you state would be ideal if every single one of us in this great society was a libertarian. that is not the case and I am just taking a pragmatic approach to reality. Otherwise it is just imposing my point of view on someone else, and I know that is not libertarian.

en el cole me fascinaban las clases de debate.

aherreracr · 12 Mar 2010

Machaca dijo:
pero ese mae es libertario hardcore. Mi respuesta ante eso que puso

y en eso SI estoy de acuerdo con peyistez. Si la sociedad costarricense no está lista para un cambio social como lo es la union civil entre gays, entonces quizá no es el mejor momento para proponerlo.

Cierto como sociedad debemos decidir esto, ya que bien es cierto y reconozco que no veo el por que real del que no se le tengan los mimos derechos y obligaciones a las relaciones homosexuales que las que tienen las heterosexuales, también toca un asunto de sociedad, si la mayoría de los ticos por X o Y razón no acepta esta acción se tiene que respetar. Somos un pueblo en democracia en esta la minoría pierde, injusto no tanto, o tal vez si, pero tampoco negar la voz de la mayoría.

Yo veo una realidad a futuro, es que ya sea dentro de 2, 5, 10 o mas años, en algún punto las sociedades como la nuestra tendrá que abrirse y de alguna forma legalizar las uniones entre homosexuales, para que queden protegidas bajo la ley, y no se cometan injusticias.

Les soy sincero soy heteresexual, y todavía este asunto tiene una gran disputa en mi, es muy dificil pensar racionalmente, sin meter las consideraciones personales que vienen de la formación que uno recibió en el pasado. Pero también debo de ser consciente que necesito expandir mis ideas y educación y no cerrarme al rechazo de nuevas cosas, como dije que pasaría si en un futuro tengo una hija o hijo, y se enamoran de una persona de su mismo sexo y quieran tener una relación formal en la cual desean el estado los ampare, podría yo como padre, rechazar tal petición a mi propia sangre, podre ser tan tonto para creer que mi propia sangre no tiene derechos ante la sociedad, no se, creo que es un tema sumamente delicado ya que confronta muchas ideas viejas y nuevas.

Briko20 · 12 Mar 2010

Machaca dijo:
en el cole me fascinaban las clases de debate.

UUUUUYYYY mae que respeto esa frase y ese mae ... apague y vamonos!!!

MZM · 12 Mar 2010

Entonces me aventuro a decir, que quedó demostrado que no todos los que dicen ser libertarios lo son... o bien dejan que ciertos prejuicios los nublen de su idealismo

Machaca · 12 Mar 2010

ya salí cagao...

It doesn't matter (or it shouldn't) what your political persuasion is. What you're saying is that you agree with the current power structure which seeks to regulate human intimate relationships and fuck anyone who disagrees.

The pragmatic reality is that government should eliminate any form of favoritism for married couples or singles or people with kids, issue an apology for fucking it all up so badly and back away from the issue.

MZM · 12 Mar 2010

Eso le pasa por hacerse pasar por otras personas

peyistez mecayo · 12 Mar 2010

The pragmatic reality is that government should eliminate any form of favoritism for married couples or singles or people with kids, issue an apology for fucking it all up so badly and back away from the issue

Ese es otro punto, pero, no es lo que dice Levy quien mas bien aboga por mas favoritismo, a la vez que deja por fuera a otros.
El tema del articulo de Levy es apoyar el matrimonio gay desde una perspectiva " libertaria".

Machaca · 12 Mar 2010

otra respuesta

The marriage "debate" enhances government power by giving it the appearance that they get to have an opinion. Further it diverts attention from the real culprit which is the corrupt tax system that institutionalizes discrimination.

The more angry the debate gets the more the government gets to play "mediator" and appear to be "the voice of reason" or a "fair arbiter". In reality the government's policies are the cause of the problems.

este es el punto de vista libertario del asunto

Machaca · 12 Mar 2010

no tienen idea de como me he reido con este tema. ojo estos posts

The libertarian principles do not include pretending to live as a hermit within a society, and society dictates certain rules of co-existance.

Correct. And under libertarian principles, those rules of co-existence are nothing more than the Zero Aggression Principle. Anything more would be distinctly un-libertarian. You are free, of course, to disagree with homosexuals marrying one another. But as a libertarian, you cannot support the use of force (i.e. government) to stop them. Furthermore, you cannot as a libertarian use government to favor one social group over another.

ahi esta lo de los grupos. tal vez ahora si le quede claro a peyistez

"As a libertarian I am appalled at the prospect of same sex marriages."

What does that even mean? That's like saying, "As a pacifist I'm appalled at the prospect of people drinking Sunny-D."

As a human being, you've every right to be appalled at whatever you want. As a libertarian, you have a right to be appalled at whatever you want. The former may allow you, ideologically speaking, to do something about it; the latter does not.

Like in my pacifist example, you may be completely appalled by an activity someone chooses to engage in, but unless that activity is initiating force against you, you have no grounds on which to call yourself libertarian if you plan to use or delegate force to prevent them from doing so.

So, can you please explain to me how gay people marrying each other initiates force against you?

y ahora, uno que apoya "mis" principios.

I almost agree with machaca.

You must remember, first of all, that whenever the government 'recognizes' something, it regulates it and usually encourages it, one way or another, at my expense. I simply don't want money stolen from me and thrown at gays - and yes, if money must be stolen from me and thrown at someone, gays are pretty close to the bottom of the list of people I'd like it thrown at. 'Why' is irrelevant: if, as you say, their deviated preversions are none of my business, well, neither is it any of your business if I think they're a bunch of deviated preverts.

Second, as a matter of practical politics, if you want the government out of the marriage business, it's stupid and self-defeating to demand that they get more into it. Do you really believe that it's bad for government to regulate marriage? Do you really believe that markets and societies work? Well, here you have a test case. Make it work. If government interference keeps it from working, for God's sakes, if you really believe what you say you do, get the government to interfere less, not more - and if you can't swing that, then at least do your best to make sure everyone understands who's at fault. Frankly, the last thing any of us need are a bunch of fair-weather libertarians who, at the first sign of trouble, go squealing to their masters begging for their oh-so-benevolent rule under such dishonest banners as 'equal protection'. Do that, and you might as well be a Republican.

el punto en negrita me puso a pensar un poco.

hasta el momento, ha sido un ejercicio mental sumamente gratificante.

Machaca · 12 Mar 2010

Both of which in context seem to mean that he supports government recognition of hetero marriage, but not the same for gay marriage. I don't think you can have it both ways. You either support government recognition of all marriage, or you support it for no marriage. It is just as "un-libertarian" to call for government to support straight marriage as it is to call for them to support gay marriage.

realmente muy interesante lo que tienen que decir.

Machaca · 12 Mar 2010

simply put, the notion of government not recognizing marriages is farfetched for a number of reasons. Some of the most important were brought forward by zen I believe: right to decide medical treatment, inheritance, insurance etc.

The fact of the matter is that gays are not excluded from the institution of marriage. There is no law against a gay person from getting married, and sexual orientation is not a requirement for a government sanctioned marriage. A gay man can marry a woman to obtain all of the government "benefits" that have been discussed here. So why is it that gays want a "special" recognition from the government?

If anybody here can prove to me that gays are excluded from marriage due to their sexual orientation, be my guest. that is not the case nor it will ever be.

ahora si. guantes fuera con el argumento mas fuerte de peyistez. van a quedar callados ante el poder de razonamiento, como todos aqui quedamos callados.

Ponch 2.0 · 12 Mar 2010

De acuerdo, bastante interesante lo que dicen. Y qué raro que ninguno ha salido a defender la ocurrencia de Peyistez de que como un homosexual se puede casar (siempre y cuando sea con alguien del sexo opuesto), entonces no hay ninguna discriminación...

Pero el que me hizo escupir el café de la risa es este:

If Todd wants to poke Carl's shitter and call it marriage whythefuck should I care?

Maleante. · 12 Mar 2010

Bueno, interesante.

Oposición a las uniones gays refutada debidamente por liberales.

Con respecto a esto:

I almost agree with machaca.

You must remember, first of all, that whenever the government 'recognizes' something, it regulates it and usually encourages it, one way or another, at my expense. I simply don't want money stolen from me and thrown at gays - and yes, if money must be stolen from me and thrown at someone, gays are pretty close to the bottom of the list of people I'd like it thrown at. 'Why' is irrelevant: if, as you say, their deviated preversions are none of my business, well, neither is it any of your business if I think they're a bunch of deviated preverts.

Second, as a matter of practical politics, if you want the government out of the marriage business, it's stupid and self-defeating to demand that they get more into it. Do you really believe that it's bad for government to regulate marriage? Do you really believe that markets and societies work? Well, here you have a test case. Make it work. If government interference keeps it from working, for God's sakes, if you really believe what you say you do, get the government to interfere less, not more - and if you can't swing that, then at least do your best to make sure everyone understands who's at fault. Frankly, the last thing any of us need are a bunch of fair-weather libertarians who, at the first sign of trouble, go squealing to their masters begging for their oh-so-benevolent rule under such dishonest banners as 'equal protection'. Do that, and you might as well be a Republican.

Peyistez no está tan "solo" en esto, no crea. De hecho el libertarian party postulo a un carajo para las elecciones presidenciales(Bob Barr) que mantenía posiciones similares a las de peyistez. Incluso personajes como Glenn Beck de vez en cuando se reivindican como libertarios, por tanto el término se ha estado prostituyendo con propósitos politiqueros.

Sin embargo como nosotros no creemos en falacias de autoridad, del mismo modo, el señor Barr desde una perspectiva liberal está apoyando políticas antiliberales, por razones extensamente traídas a colación por los contrincantes de "machaca" en el otro foro.

Machaca · 13 Mar 2010

Machaca dijo:
ahora si. guantes fuera con el argumento mas fuerte de peyistez. van a quedar callados ante el poder de razonamiento, como todos aqui quedamos callados.

wow. otra vez sali cagao por usar la defensa de "pero si se pueden casar y se han casado todo el tiempo..."

You're playing a semantics game that is, quite frankly, retarded.

You know damn good and well what this is about. We're talking about the right of a man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman.

Machaca · 13 Mar 2010

punto para peyistez

Yet the m-word is used all the more forcefully, and there's the clue to the real issue. The push for gay marriage has little to do with 'equal rights'. They can get equal or better rights elsewhere. It is really about re-engineering society, whether you see it or not. Men have foolishly allowed the State to say what marriage shall be; now certain men wish to reforge all other men's definitions of marriage, with the State as their instrument. I say a plague o' both their houses - and since my definition of marriage happens to be the correct one, I oppose all efforts to 'officially' change it. They have already stripped marriage of real vows, and thereby, it seems, society of all valuing constancy and perseverance. Let that suffice them; they need not also strip it, and us, of the last thing that makes the word 'marriage' mean something intelligently recognizable as marriage.

este otra tambien me gusto

This is the best thread ever as Tobus and Zen once again show that people still do not get what being a libertarian is all about. No disrespect meant to the starter of this topic but this seems to be a reoccurring problem with those who claim to be libertarian. Somehow true libertarianism has become watered down and changed by those who are actually tea party members. Not saying that is what is going on here but the spin has to be unspun.

por el momento ya creo que fue suficiente. pueden seguir el post en www.freesteader.com

Ponch 2.0 · 13 Mar 2010

Hmmm...al que le caiga el guante...

The same thing happens at nearly every libertarian board I frequent, there are usually more social conservatives claiming to be libertarians than true libertarians.

Maleante. · 13 Mar 2010

This is the best thread ever as Tobus and Zen once again show that people still do not get what being a libertarian is all about. No disrespect meant to the starter of this topic but this seems to be a reoccurring problem with those who claim to be libertarian. Somehow true libertarianism has become watered down and changed by those who are actually tea party members. Not saying that is what is going on here but the spin has to be unspun.

Eso pasa quizás porque los liberales pasan el 99% del tiempo defendiendo libertades económicas y predicando un anti-estatismo visceral al respecto. Si bien es cierto, algunos think tanks también abogan por las libertades individuales más allá de las económicas, es claro que no lo hacen con tanta vehemencia como cuando el gobierno decide ponerle impuestos a los ricos.

Si los liberales están tan molestos de que los confundan con conservadores, deberían gastar más energías haciendo bulla con respecto a las cosas con las que están en desacuerdo. Y así de paso se quitan a uno que otro "poser".

peyistez mecayo · 13 Mar 2010

Maleante. dijo:
Bueno, interesante.

Oposición a las uniones gays refutada debidamente por liberales..

Jaja, oh Maleante y su imaginacion, ...de lo que han posteado aqui no vi a nadie defendiendo el matrimonio gay por "liberales" o es que ud si vio alguna? Tampoco vi a nadie defendiendo el articulo de Levy. La mayoria lo que hace es pedir sacar al Estado del matrimonio y que no reconozca a ningun tipo de union, otros dicen que apoyan a machaca , pero ninguno a defendido la figura del matrimonio gay.

peyistez mecayo · 13 Mar 2010

Maleante. dijo:
el señor Barr desde una perspectiva liberal está apoyando políticas antiliberales, por razones extensamente traídas a colación por los contrincantes de "machaca" en el otro foro.

cuales politicas anti-liberales esta apoyando,? podria nombrarlas?

peyistez mecayo · 13 Mar 2010

You know damn good and well what this is about. We're talking about the right of a man to marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman.

Eso mismo lo dijeron aqui, y no es ningun argumento para apoyar el matrimonio gay, ahi esta hablando del "matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo" eso tampoco tiene que ver con preferencias sexuales, sino con el sexo, esa sutil diferencia les cuesta entender a muchos.

Aqui otra opinion al respecto:

In any event, the libertarian can say that “the” libertarian view is that the state should get out of the way and out of the business of decreeing marital status, but it that all he can say?

Second, it also seems obvious that there is a mixture of motives among advocates of gay marriage. I think two of the primary motivations are (a) to use the power of the state to try to “officially authorize” the “normalcy” and “legitimacy” of homosexuality and homosexual unions, in turn to try to force society at large to see it as normal and acceptable; (b) to take part in various illegitimate welfare rights married couples have access to, like social security; and (c) to legally legitimize homosexuality and gay unions so as to remove one remaining obstacleto including homosexuality as a “protected minority class” who must have affirmative action and anti-discrimination law protection.
All these goals are unlibertarian and illegitimate, in my view.

“The” Libertarian View on Gay Marriage