Glenn Beck and Penn Jillette discuss libertarianism and the Constitution


#1

Where does Glenn stand on gay marriage? He sat down with Penn Jillette to discuss the role of libertarianism in the future of the country – Glenn Beck

Very good points. We need a big tent based on liberty, not oppression.

Left vs. Right authoritarinism means the destruction of limited government.


#2

+1 …Worth reading. Sounds a lot like the ORIGINAL TEA PARTY idea.


#3

Same tired hypocrisy.

1st, they say that they “Don’t want government involved in marriage”, a Straw Man since government has not been “involved in marriage” since no fault divorce, the State merely recognizes and taxes marriage just like the State recognizes and taxes every other legal activity.

Then, they say they have no problem with “same sex marriage” even though for this to happen the government must take the Religious Institution of Marriage by force from its rightful legacy in order to reverse its thousands of years old definition.

The “Small Government” Libertarians agree that the State should seize a private religious institution that the State had no role in creating or defining to begin with (as it predates the United States and every other historic nation) in order to reverse the definition for the sake of a few perverts.

I wonder what other private property these “Libertarians” want the Statist government to seize and give to their despicable constituents?


#4

No, its as simple as they say it…don’t get government involved in marriage. Government should not define marriage.

They are not going to arrest gay people because they *say *they are married.


#5

Government is not involved in marriage now beyond mitigating the Rights of married people in the event of divorce and government is not defining marriage now, they are merely recognizing the institution like every society in all human history.

Your “Libertarian” group wants this to change, you want government to take the institution by force for the purpose of reversing its definition so perverts who despise the religion that this institution was founded by can spit on it.

I wonder if you would support the government doing this to some of your property or is this only “Libertarian” when you like the idea of goring the particular ox that does not belong to you?

Thank you including this Straw Man, it is much easier to expose the real motivations of a movement when a completely unfounded comment without even an Extremist example in existence to justify it is introduced immediately.


#6

You argue but then you state what I said is true. People can enter government recognized contracts if they want to, but there should be no marriage licenses. Also, you left out all the tax scenarios the government is involved in.

Explain to me how government not being involved in marriage is taking it by force. More like releasing it by force.

Marriage licenses aren’t in the Bible. They are a blasphemy.

Thank you including this Straw Man, it is much easier to expose the real motivations of a movement when a completely unfounded comment without even an Extremist example in existence to justify it is introduced immediately.

You are the one that suggested I am advocating seizing marriage, when government already did so.

I don’t see how you want to deal with gays getting “married” if that isn’t recognized by the government.

The truth is, homosexuals would side with you over me because their end game is government defining marriage. They know it is a battle they will win, whether they should or not. If government is not defined they go in the waste bin of other failed activists.


#7

No I did not, I clearly stated that government taxes every legal activity so this is another Straw Man argument unless you are claiming that government owns every single person, place and thing in America. If that is your claim then it seems pretty ridiculous that you would even have marriage on your radar as something to worry about.

That is your spin, I said government was already completely out of marriage beyond providing a judicial system to protect the Rights of married people in the event of a divorce.

Government only recognizes marriage, government did not establish, create or define marriage.

Any change is increasing government involvement by force, the government has no Rights to the word marriage or the definition of marriage.

Why am I not surprised that a Libertarian would have NO idea what the Bible says “Blasphemy” is.

No, you and your Libertarian/Liberals want perverts to be able to spit on religion in one more way and you want to use your precious government to force everyone to except this.

There is not one thing stopping perverts from forming their own institution and naming it something to identify their own vision, nothing except their Atheist desire to spit on Christians that is.

I don’t want to “deal with it at all”, I never asked any pervert to recognize me or my faith and I have no intention or responsibility to “recognize” any perverts belief system.

Thousands of years of hard work is how the religious institution of marriage “earned” the respect of every society that has ever been formed afterward, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this recognition and no American is subject to any different criteria than any other American who desires to be married.

Libertarians wanting to stop recognizing marriage is no different than Libertarians wanting to stop recognizing the Right to Life for babies and the Right to religious speech by anyone anywhere.

The effect is perverts taking an institution that does not belong to them, a million dead babies every year and criminal charges/lawsuits being filed against any Christian who does not hide their faith.

Queers want only to spit on Christians, any group that will help them spit on Christians is their friend.

That is why they defend Radical Islam and that is why they view Libertarians as “Useful Idiots”, you will find out that the same force they desire to use against Christians will be directed toward you as soon as they have exhausted their need for you.


#8

[quote=“RET423, post:7, topic:37456”]
No I did not, I clearly stated that government taxes every legal activity so this is another Straw Man argument unless you are claiming that government owns every single person, place and thing in America. If that is your claim then it seems pretty ridiculous that you would even have marriage on your radar as something to worry about.
[/quote] Government incentives marriage through the tax code.

That is your spin, I said government was already completely out of marriage beyond providing a judicial system to protect the Rights of married people in the event of a divorce.

Government only recognizes marriage, government did not establish, create or define marriage.

Any change is increasing government involvement by force, the government has no Rights to the word marriage or the definition of marriage.

Most government involvement is an involvement of the judicial system, and to recognize marriage it has to be defined. I think a change to recognize gay marriage would be increasing government involvement, whereas withdrawing involvement from straight marriage while also leaving gay marriage alone would be decreasing government involvement.

Why am I not surprised that a Libertarian would have NO idea what the Bible says “Blasphemy” is.

Marriage is between a man and a woman and God. Not Uncle Sam. That is akin to having Caesar approve Jewish weddings.

No, you and your Libertarian/Liberals want perverts to be able to spit on religion in one more way and you want to use your precious government to force everyone to except this.

There is not one thing stopping perverts from forming their own institution and naming it something to identify their own vision, nothing except their Atheist desire to spit on Christians that is.

Hello, I am a Christian who is advocating less government than you.

I don’t want to “deal with it at all”, I never asked any pervert to recognize me or my faith and I have no intention or responsibility to “recognize” any perverts belief system.

Thousands of years of hard work is how the religious institution of marriage “earned” the respect of every society that has ever been formed afterward, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this recognition and no American is subject to any different criteria than any other American who desires to be married.

Libertarians wanting to stop recognizing marriage is no different than Libertarians wanting to stop recognizing the Right to Life for babies and the Right to religious speech by anyone anywhere.

The effect is perverts taking an institution that does not belong to them, a million dead babies every year and criminal charges/lawsuits being filed against any Christian who does not hide their faith.

Correction, I will certainly recognize traditional marriage (not gay marriage). I said I don’t want the government involved.

It’s simple really. It isn’t the proper function of government, it isn’t in the Bible, and having government recognize marriage leaves the institution open to manipulation that you talk about.

Queers want only to spit on Christians, any group that will help them spit on Christians is their friend.

That is why they defend Radical Islam and that is why they view Libertarians as “Useful Idiots”, you will find out that the same force they desire to use against Christians will be directed toward you as soon as they have exhausted their need for you.

It would be interesting to see this play out in reality. In my scenario men and women would be getting married privately, and the gays would have no platform. Under your scenario marriage would be defined by the government as between a man and a woman, until the gay position won out and everything you condemn me for would be your fault.

I really don’t get a tingle up my leg at the thought of a marriage license. I would be perfectly fine getting married the Biblical way, getting my own legal contract in order with my wife, and then being done with marriage as a softball in the political arena. But you seem to think I am working for the gays and Muslims, or something.


#9

Government “incentives” and “discourages” lots of things, how does this constitute ownership?

For most of Americas tax history marriage was penalized, either way this has absolutely nothing to do with the argument that “Government owns the institution of marriage”.

Hogwash, until the perverts started trying to take the religious institution of marriage by force the government simply accepted the Christian tradition of one man to one woman.

Does the government own every business because we have a million laws regarding how businesses are licensed and must interact with other businesses and customers?

Does the government own every car company and car because they pass laws regarding what standards the cars must be built to and operated by?

Or is this “proof” only applicable for convenience when you want to help perverts spit on someone?

You want a perfectly legitimate and earned recognition of a perfectly acceptable thousands of years old tradition to be officially abandoned when absolutely nothing or nobody is harmed just so a bunch of perverts who are too lazy to form their own institution can spit on it with impunity.

There is not one single defensible argument for this, this change would require an entirely new set of laws be written to restore the legal Rights and protections of those who enter these “partnerships” that are already in place.

“Uncle Sam” is not involved in marriage since no fault divorce, “Uncle Sam” merely make a judicial system available to married citizens to insure parental and property Rights are protected in the event of a split. This provision and the Rights of married citizens are no different than partnerships between anyone else in America, it is a Constitutional Right that ALL citizens are entitled to.

You are advocating a way to complicate and increase government laws for no reason but to help perverts spit on Christians, you can call that anything you want but it won’t result in “less government” or resemble any Christian or “small government” opinion I have ever heard of.

So whoever is stronger just takes the kids and the property in the event of divorce? That is the only “involvement” that government has so you are advocating either an Islamic concept of marriage or a whole new set of laws and definitions that must be written and passed to replace all the existing stuff.

Just so some Atheist perverts can spit on Christians in one more way.

It is absolutely the “proper function of government” to provide legal protection for the fundamental Rights of its citizens, the United States Constitution demands it and rules defining the marriage institution were spelled out in every Biblical culture along with a justice system to enforce them.

Only Anarchist’s think otherwise and Anarchy is the philosophy of drunks and children.

I am sure you would be “interested” in witnessing one more collapse of another moral barrier that harms nobody as would most Libertarians and Democrats, that is always the goal of these invented issues.

Justice and decency must be eradicated for the agenda of the evil to gain traction, the agenda of evil must be advanced for the concept of Individual Inalienable Rights as defined by an authoritative constitution to be disposed of.

My “position” is that you and your Statist hate mongers have invented a fake issue on a premise that cannot stand up to any comparative contractual relationship so you can apply deceptive deceptive language to justify one more method of spitting on Christians and removing one more element of shame from those who willingly choose perversion.

Based on your absurd attempts to justify the eradication of the recognition of a thousands of years old religious institution that is harming nobody I have no doubt that what “tingles” you is not anything decent or innocent.

It is your band of perverts and Atheists who threw this softball into an arena without any conceivable justification beyond spitting on Christians, if you want this “softball” done away with you should not have thrown it to begin with.

If I took your property by force and you decided to fight me via the legal/political system to keep what is yours, then I said after forcing you defend what is yours “Just drop it so this will go away” as if I you were the source of the mess how would you take it?

If your side succeeds in spitting on everyone else who is doing nothing wrong enough times, you will see how much the “tingle up your leg” that you get from helping perverts and Atheists spit on Christians can cost.

History declares nothing if not the fact that there is a limit to how much government abuse the “Christians” will tolerate before they conclude that they owe posterity a fight.


#10

I am a Libertarian, and against gay marriage.


#11

Your “Libertarian” group wants this to change, you want government to take the institution by force for the purpose of reversing its definition so perverts who despise the religion that this institution was founded by can spit on it.

You want a perfectly legitimate and earned recognition of a perfectly acceptable thousands of years old tradition to be officially abandoned when absolutely nothing or nobody is harmed just so a bunch of perverts who are too lazy to form their own institution can spit on it with impunity.

There is not one thing stopping perverts from forming their own institution and naming it something to identify their own vision, nothing except their Atheist desire to spit on Christians that is.

This is not conservatism. This is not Republicanism. This is paranoid lunacy (as well as kind of icky).


#12

Look…it doesnt matter…when the dollar blows out this stuff is not gonna matter. You all should be concentrating efforts on exposing ghe treasonous bastards infiltrating our government and turning us all to debt slaves vs worrying about what Adam and Steve want the government to call their sin.