Home > Uncategorized > My Views On The World

My Views On The World

Let me tell you about my horrible bigoted self and then explain why I’m not a bigot at all.

I think homosexuality is wrong and I’m against gay marriage.
I think drug use is wrong.
I think prostitution is wrong.
I think tattoos, while not wrong, are usually foolish.

I think a lot of other things as well, what I don’t think is that my views matter when it comes to your life, I don’t think I have the right to impose my beliefs on you.

I think the government should get out of the marriage game and leave it to churches and other non-governmental organizations to make their own rules. Gays shouldn’t be married in the Catholic Church, I don’t give a damn what baptists are doing, I’m not baptist! Atheist organization X doesn’t want to marry gays? Gays will have to go to atheist organization Y or just declare themselves married! Why does the government get to make the rules for you and I?

How does your drug use harm me? Answer: It doesn’t! Smoke the shit out of that crack, I don’t care. I’ll break your legs if I find you on my porch doing so, but that isn’t me imposing my ideas on you, it’s the opposite, that is my porch you crackhead.

I’m not buying any sex, but if you want to sell the sex that you have, I don’t see why that concerns me. Just don’t try and sell my sex and we won’t have a problem that will result in bodily or emotional harm to you.

I don’t think I need to explain this one, but his dumb ass choices don’t make me look like a moron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m not a bigot, I simply don’t care what others do, that doesn’t mean I’m a horrible person for having an opinion. If you wish to berate me for my views, have at it, but you are an idiot for being more concerned about what I think than I am with what other people do.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. 2012/08/06 at 22:44

    Bigotry is restricting the rights of a group of people based upon the inherent characteristics of that group, more or less. That’s what you’re doing when you vote to prevent one group from enjoying the same benefits as another, such as with gay marriage.

  2. 2012/08/06 at 22:44

    Also, your mother also thinks prostitution is wrong. That’s what she never charges any of her clients.

  3. 2012/08/07 at 12:35

    I want everyone less restricted and so I vote against things that would lead to more restrictions, or expanded government involvement where I don’t believe government should be, where I feel it is a negative actor.

    Yes, but my mother doesn’t have the low income outreach programs where she pays disadvantaged people to jump her bones, as does your mother.

  4. 2012/08/07 at 20:39

    Your position is fundamentally anti-libertarian. People want the ability to have government in their lives in a specific way. You think it’s your place to tell people that’s bad for them.

  5. 2012/08/08 at 02:09

    If people want the government involved, I don’t want to take that away from them, but if people want a legal marriage and no government meddling they shouldn’t have no other option but to do so. If the government stopped licensing marriage this gay marriage mess would have never been an issue.

    This is why I support government civil unions and not government marriage for gays, because the government has no business in marriage. It has all kinds of business if you want a civil union.

    And those are bold words coming from the guy who feels it is his place to deride those who wish to buy raw milk and feels the government has a duty to protect people from their own selves.

  6. 2012/08/08 at 15:09

    I don’t understand why you’re so stuck in this magic fairy dust fantasy that says people can’t declare themselves married without the government. If I want to declare that I’m married to this dog toy on the floor, then I can do so and no one will arrest me. I think this is the absolute worst argument you’ve ever made about anything.

  7. 2012/08/08 at 15:50

    Perhaps that is true, but as long as the government is the sole regulator of legitimate and legal marriages, you are always going to have discrimination. The government has a monopoly on marriage, so there are no other option to get married.

    I don’t know why you against getting government, literally, out of peoples bedrooms and relationships. If you want a legal marriage, you have no other options.

    I know you you have written in favor of marriages having an expiration date where you can just let the marriage expire with no fault. I doubt that will ever happen with government in charge. On the other hand, in a free “marriage market” where you could search for the contract you want, the fixed term marriage would definitely exist.

    As a curiosity, there is a sect of Islam that does this, go Muslims! (the marriage is called Nikah mut’ah)

    If you don’t like what the government offers, you go to the catholic church. Is it not there either? Okay, try another church, or some secular group that has decided to do their own marriages.

    Again, why you take issue with the concept of a market for marriage contracts is beyond me. Gays would have been able to marry a long time ago if this was the case, because they could officiate their own marriages.

  8. 2012/08/08 at 19:40

    You’re making the same argument over and over. It’s terrible. Check this out:

    I, Michael Hawkins, do take this squeaky whale dog toy to be my spouse.

    It’s official. I’m married, Nate. No one stopped me.

    If you want a legal marriage, you have no other options.

    This doesn’t even make sense. The very word “legal” implies the necessity of government. If you went to Antarctica, started a church, and declared a bunch of people married, would those be “legal” weddings? How could they be when they’re performed without regard to law one way or another?

    I know you you have written in favor of marriages having an expiration date where you can just let the marriage expire with no fault.

    I vaguely recall this. I think it was some proposal in some state or city. The only thing stopping it isn’t government. It’s all the people who gather together every Sunday in tax exempt buildings.

    On the other hand, in a free “marriage market” where you could search for the contract you want, the fixed term marriage would definitely exist.

    People are free to draw up whatever contracts they please. They can even say they considered themselves married for the purposes of the contract. All they need do is be clear that they are speaking of their own definition of marriage, as opposed to any other agent’s definition (namely the government).

    Again, why you take issue with the concept of a market for marriage contracts is beyond me.

    I don’t take issue with it. I take issue with you constantly pretending like there is anything currently stopping such a market from emerging.

  9. 2012/08/10 at 20:03

    The word legal doesn’t require the government to regulate and administer, just recognize and adjudicate.

  10. 2012/08/11 at 02:18

    Something just occurred to me, it might be my fault that I can’t get you to see what my objection is because I haven’t fully explained why I want government out and specifically out how. You touched on it just now.

    The government grants certain benefits to married couples, or penalizes them. I don’t like that. There is no reason why a married couples tax brackets should be any different than double the single rate when they file jointly. Depending on your income you can get penalized or rewarded for being married with no logical reason why.

    I want the government treating everyone the same, not penalizing some, or rewarding others for being in some type of relationship that the government has chosen to recognize. As long as the government is making the definitions you are always going to have groups being barred from marriage and that, I would have thought, would be unacceptable to you.

    Gay marriage, or any other marriage, shouldn’t be made legal or illegal by the whims of voters and those they elect. By a “legal” marriage, I;m talking about when one has a spouse. You can declare what you like, sign a contract, whatever, but how does that stand up when you claim person X is your spouse on the witness stand?

    The government can do what it likes with civil unions, leave people able to deal with the government rubbish and pay the government for absolutely nothing when they go to get a completely unnecessary marriage license. For those who don’t want that sort of interference, the government should just recognize ones declared spouse.

    The only way you will ever have any kind of lasting “marriage equality” is if the definition of marriage is no longer something defined by law on the whims of those who get to do that defining.

    “Deregulate Marriage” would be one hell of a nice bumper sticker, because that is what I’m talking about.

  11. 2012/08/11 at 03:25

    And with just a bit of googling…

    http://www.cafepress.com/libertariantea

  12. 2012/08/11 at 12:53

    The word legal doesn’t require the government to regulate and administer, just recognize and adjudicate.

    This dog toy and I have been very happy for these past few days. The government hasn’t a word to say of us, so I would say what I’ve done is perfectly legal.

    The rest of what you says amounts to using tax minutiae as an excuse to deny a group equal rights.

  13. 2012/08/11 at 19:36

    Now you are just being blatantly dishonest. Deregulation would grant more groups the ability to enter into marriages on par with straight people, rather than just gays now, while the rules continue to bar others.

  14. 2012/08/12 at 16:57

    There are only a few groups worth considering: men, women, and the combinations that can be achieved between them. For polygamists, that allows for criminal conspiracies because hundreds of people could get married and then just invoke marital privilege. That doesn’t exist with gay marriage.

    You’re just hell-bent on dutifully criticizing the government, right or wrong. That and denying equal rights to random groups because it’s easy to do that when not only does that not impact you in the least but when you also think what they’re doing is wrong anyway. (That last part is a good example of the sexual immaturity amongst Christians I’ve mentioned from time to time.)

  15. 2012/10/23 at 01:54

    Making it legal for Gay marriage makes as much sense as a making it legal for a man to beome pregnant.

  16. 2012/10/24 at 20:37

    First, I don’t know how I missed that comment Michael, but people are hardly barred from doing just that now. Theoretically you could already get married hundreds of times, just illegally. I’m hell bent on getting the government out of peoples personal lives and many other places where it has little right to be. And you are quite wrong, you and I could get married in Mass. and forevermore be protected from being compelled to testify against one another.

    You are just hell bent on state power and the quasi-magical world it would be if only leftist policies could be instituted everywhere.

    Nick, that doesn’t even make sense. I don’t think male pregnancy is illicit anywhere. If you can, than go for it. Though perhaps it’s a bad idea to talk too much about it because the government might just have a mind to stick it’s nose in there as well.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: