so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?
To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:
my rights end where yours begin
your rights end where mine begin
In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
We concede when we make the choice of having a greater authority holding society together "for the greater good."
If you reject government entirely, that's fine if a little dumb. But I doubt you or most anyone does. So as long as we have laws in place constraining us, then we cannot pick and choose when to apply those laws and principles.
In this case, either the government shouldn't be involved in our relationships at all, and you should be marching against tax codes and marriage licenses long before you were ever pro/neutral-gay, or you are pro-Fed in our relationships because the "consenting adults" argument was always used by the LGBT movement to get the Federal Government to force the State and Local Governments to let them get married and get the Feds more involved in our relationships.
You can't have it both ways, and you can't just pipe off libertarian utopia slogans to dodge that fact.
I indeed believe the government has no business butting into our relationships when nobody is getting hurt. that's my point.
I am not picking and choosing laws or applications. Authorities 100% have a right to police behavior and actions that cause harm to those who did not/cannot agree to being involved. Things like public indecency, theft, assault, child exploitation, etc.
But when people of sound body and mind, and of legal age, agree to something, it is tyranny for authorities to stop them.
Then you work against your own beliefs, because you admitted to believing in the "Consenting Adults" line. Which was always a slogan for pulling the federal government into people's relationships by forcefully legalizing gay marriage after it was rejected by basically every state and local government.
Again, you are just piping off libertarian slogans to dodge around reality and how it works.
so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?
To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:
In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
We concede when we make the choice of having a greater authority holding society together "for the greater good."
If you reject government entirely, that's fine if a little dumb. But I doubt you or most anyone does. So as long as we have laws in place constraining us, then we cannot pick and choose when to apply those laws and principles.
In this case, either the government shouldn't be involved in our relationships at all, and you should be marching against tax codes and marriage licenses long before you were ever pro/neutral-gay, or you are pro-Fed in our relationships because the "consenting adults" argument was always used by the LGBT movement to get the Federal Government to force the State and Local Governments to let them get married and get the Feds more involved in our relationships.
You can't have it both ways, and you can't just pipe off libertarian utopia slogans to dodge that fact.
I indeed believe the government has no business butting into our relationships when nobody is getting hurt. that's my point.
I am not picking and choosing laws or applications. Authorities 100% have a right to police behavior and actions that cause harm to those who did not/cannot agree to being involved. Things like public indecency, theft, assault, child exploitation, etc.
But when people of sound body and mind, and of legal age, agree to something, it is tyranny for authorities to stop them.
Then you work against your own beliefs, because you admitted to believing in the "Consenting Adults" line. Which was always a slogan for pulling the federal government into people's relationships by forcefully legalizing gay marriage after it was rejected by basically every state and local government.
Again, you are just piping off libertarian slogans to dodge around reality and how it works.
redefining terms is not an argument.
Gay marriage was explicitly illegal. "Legalizing" it was simply removing that government intervention.