Homosexuality

[lspooner]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral. 

True, but good luck arguing that something is immoral without a victim, either. 

What about cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend?  What about yelling at your children?  What about spreading false rumors about somebody else?

Cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend is a violation of trust, because you have broken the agreement that you had with them of being mutually exlusive lovers.

Yelling at your children is emotional abuse. Stefan Molyneux has some excellent podcasts on that.

Spreading false rumors about someone else is slander and as such damages their reputation.  In this case you are committing fraud, which is considered force

Are you saying that cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend and/or yelling at one's children should be a crime?

As far as slander another's rep. goes, think about it this way.  You don't own your reputation.  Your rep. is by definition what others think of you.  Slander laws and libel laws for that matter have no place in a free society.

[lspooner]

No, I don't.  Not in the context we are talking about.  And this is exactly my point.  None of the scenarios I proposed involved violating the NAP, i.e., nobody's rights were violated.  Hurting someone's feelings is not the same as hurting somebody's person.  However, those actions are definitely immoral in my book. 

Exactly, and my  point was that it's certainly possible for something to be immoral without violating the NAP, but not unless it actually hurts somebody.  For example, homosexuality is neither immoral nor criminal because it doesn't hurt people in either  sense you're talking about. 

That was my point, too.Then we agree.  BTW, I never said that homosexuality is immoral.  I do think it's gross and disgusting but not immoral.  I also think its a choice for most and inborn for a minority.  Either way, it doesn't change their rights.

You and I may not think its immoral but Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others do.

[Low-Eight]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral. 

True, but good luck arguing that something is immoral without a victim, either. 

What about cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend?  What about yelling at your children?  What about spreading false rumors about somebody else?

Cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend is a violation of trust, because you have broken the agreement that you had with them of being mutually exlusive lovers.

Yelling at your children is emotional abuse. Stefan Molyneux has some excellent podcasts on that.

Spreading false rumors about someone else is slander and as such damages their reputation.  In this case you are committing fraud, which is considered force

Are you saying that cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend and/or yelling at one's children should be a crime?

As far as slander another's rep. goes, think about it this way.  You don't own your reputation.  Your rep. is by definition what others think of you.  Slander laws and libel laws for that matter have no place in a free society.

No, I don't think that cheating on one's boyfriend or girlfriend should be a crime.  Actually, in a free society, open relationships would probably become popular. 

As far as yelling at your children goes, I don't see where you have the right to go about yelling at your children, but I also don't see where anyone else has the right to stop you.

Slander and Libel laws.  .  .that's a sticky subject.  I don't have any answers for you, but I do think that that is fraud and should be considered as such.

[SamR]

You have a Constitutional right to turn gay. Its what the founding fathers intended.

I.  Congress shall not forbid the right to keep bare arms, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof,  the right of the people peaceably to assemble, in time of peace be quartered in any house.

II.  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and shall not be violated without the consent of the owner, opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.  

III.  No person shall be held, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, without just compensation.

IV.  Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves; nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

V.  Congress shall not call together bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures, nor shall be erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Homosexual Marriage would have the same outcome. Since homosexuals being married would not physically harm anyone, preventing it using force would be in violation of the rules. Marriage may have certain religious and cultural significance, forcing a certain religion or culture upon someone else would be tyrannical. Since all Men and Women are inherently equal, it would be improper to place requirements based on gender, Just as it is improper to place requirements on race. Therefore, Gay Marriage must be allowed through the rules of Volunteerism.




This is where your article begins to suffer. You pull marriage out of a hat and mention its connotations. Sure it has social and religious connotations, but it also has legal implications as well. To not impose one anothers beliefs onto others its far more simple to remove the legal implications of marriage then anything else.

[Low-Eight]

Homosexual Marriage would have the same outcome. Since homosexuals being married would not physically harm anyone, preventing it using force would be in violation of the rules. Marriage may have certain religious and cultural significance, forcing a certain religion or culture upon someone else would be tyrannical. Since all Men and Women are inherently equal, it would be improper to place requirements based on gender, Just as it is improper to place requirements on race. Therefore, Gay Marriage must be allowed through the rules of Volunteerism.




This is where your article begins to suffer. You pull marriage out of a hat and mention its connotations. Sure it has social and religious connotations, but it also has legal implications as well. To not impose one anothers beliefs onto others its far more simple to remove the legal implications of marriage then anything else.

I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry.

[mikehz]

That was my point, too.Then we agree.  BTW, I never said that homosexuality is immoral.  I do think it's gross and disgusting but not immoral.  I also think its a choice for most and inborn for a minority.  Either way, it doesn't change their rights.

You and I may not think its immoral but Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others do.

You may THINK it's a choice, but current research certainly does not back this up. In any case, what about it is disgusting? Sex acts? Those very same activities you'd condone between partners of the "right" sex. What IS a "choice" is one's response to homosexuality.

[Richard Garner]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral.  Some libertarians consider the non-aggression principle as their moral code.  For others, the NAP is only a minimum. 

Forcing your morality upon someone else would break the NAP

Let me just say, as somebody who also thinks that homosexuality is not immoral, the issue isn't about forcing morality on people. Sure, it is true that forcing morality on you may violate the NAP. But that just means that I shouldn't force you to be moral, not that what you are doing is not immoral.

[Low-Eight]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral.  Some libertarians consider the non-aggression principle as their moral code.  For others, the NAP is only a minimum. 

Forcing your morality upon someone else would break the NAP

Let me just say, as somebody who also thinks that homosexuality is not immoral, the issue isn't about forcing morality on people. Sure, it is true that forcing morality on you may violate the NAP. But that just means that I shouldn't force you to be moral, not that what you are doing is not immoral.

Well, if there is anyone on here that thinks that homosexuality is immoral, can you make your voice known?

[Rillion]

That was my point, too.Then we agree.  BTW, I never said that homosexuality is immoral.

My apologies; I thought that's where you were heading. 

I do think it's gross and disgusting but not immoral.

I feel that way about sex with Republicans. 

You and I may not think its immoral but Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others do.

Sure.  For that matter, it sure seems that most  acts which have no victim (in the sense I was talking about before, no hurt feelings even) which are nevertheless held to be immoral, are held as such for religious reasons-- "God said so." 

[Low-Eight]

Religious arguments=Void

[anarchir]

Religious arguments=Void

Because they are devoid of logic, reasoning, evidence, science, or proof.

[Low-Eight]

Religious arguments=Void

Because the are devoid of logic, reasoning, evidence, science, or proof.

For the record, I was agreeing with you

[lspooner]

That was my point, too.Then we agree.  BTW, I never said that homosexuality is immoral.  I do think it's gross and disgusting but not immoral.  I also think its a choice for most and inborn for a minority.  Either way, it doesn't change their rights.

You and I may not think its immoral but Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others do.

You may THINK it's a choice, but current research certainly does not back this up. In any case, what about it is disgusting? Sex acts? Those very same activities you'd condone between partners of the "right" sex. What IS a "choice" is one's response to homosexuality.

Let me a little more specific.  I'm a guy.  Two guys kissing is bad enough.  The rest of it is unthinkable.  I don't harbor any ill will or think they're going to burn in hell.  I did say that I believe some homosexuals are born that way.  I also believe many man are looking for uncomplicated sex and that's why they go that way.  And there are many women who subscribe to a false feminism and believe that it requires them to hate men.

[Rillion]

Let me a little more specific.  I'm a guy.  Two guys kissing is bad enough.  The rest of it is unthinkable.

Two women kissing is unthinkable?  Poor thing. 

 I also believe many man are looking for uncomplicated sex and that's why they go that way.  And there are many women who subscribe to a false feminism and believe that it requires them to hate men.

While I'm sure both groups exist, I don't think they manage to remain "homosexual" for very long at all.  Believe me, sometimes I've wished with all of my heart to be a lesbian....it doesn't work.