Potentially the first openly gay NFL player

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Medium of Death**

How can Libertarians be for social issues but want to leave the economy to itself?

The economy and businesses drive a lot of these social issues. Unless poverty is a social issue that libertarians aren't interested in changing? Not just speaking about being homosexual or not, obviously.

**Johnnytorrance**

insaniak wrote:
Johnnytorrance wrote:
But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.

Well, you've convinced me. On the basis that a relationship is intended solely for the purpose of producing children, when I'm elected my government will immediately outlaw relationships involving the following people:
- Homosexuals
- People using contraception
- People engaging in any form of non-vaginal sexual activity
- Women who have had medical hysterectomies
- Women who have had ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, or any of the other myriad ovarian afflictions that affect childbirth
- Men with low sperm counts
- People who want to adopt instead of having their own children
- Anyone who wants to 'wait' until they are married
- Anyone not interested in sex
- Women over 50.

Relationships will be monitored to ensure that everyone involved is, in fact, having sex, and is doing it the right way.

Additionally, following on from the 'well, I don't like it, so it must be wrong' principle, relationships will also be banned if they involve:
- Men
- Women over 5'6"
- Women over 85kg
- Women under 45kg
- Blondes, or women with bleached hair
- Anyone interested in bondage or S&M
- Bogans
- Asian women at whatever age it is when they go overnight from looking like anime chicks to looking like the witch from Spirited Away. (Curiously, Michelle Yeoh seems to be immune to this phenomenon, so a relationship with her would be deemed acceptable.)

Did I miss anything out?

You're stupid. I by no means bashing homosexuals. I'm in the military and I've worked with several. Don't care about what they do on their own time just like I don't care what you do on yours.

My point is that telling me I'm a bigot because I find the act disgusting is idiotic. I don't have to like the act of homosexuality. I don't have to approve of it, I don't have to have those views shoved down my throat.

The guy plays football, he's gay. Big deal. Are gay people not good enough to play football? It's not a big deal man. If I played with him on his team I'm sure he'd appreciate me more for making him feel like a ball player, than the gay guy in my locker room.

**djones520**

The Libertarians aren't for social issues. They are the closest thing to organized Anarchy. They just want the government to butt the hell out.

**OverwatchCNC**

Medium of Death wrote:
How can Libertarians be for social issues but want to leave the economy to itself?

The economy and businesses drive a lot of these social issues. Unless poverty is a social issue that libertarians aren't interested in changing? Not just speaking about being homosexual or not, obviously.

They aren't for or against social issues in as many words. They are for personal liberty and against any restrictions to personal liberty that are not necessary. Gay rights being one of the more prominent and more glamorous of the issues currently debated in an upside down American political landscape.

**Alexzandvar**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
OverwatchCNC wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

They don't understand the term libertarian then. The libertarian party has been wholly and staunchly for gay rights since long before it became "cool".

As I said before, people choose party alignment based on how many of their values fit the party, not because EVERY single value fits the party. This is the biggest reason why as I have said the republican party is now a thunderdome with several ideological groups political attack adding each other to death for control of the party.

There are democrats who don't like Obamacare and don't like "assault weapons bans", they are still democrats because a majority of their values line up with the party even though some pet ones conflict.

Libertarians, members of the party or not, believe in personal liberty first and foremost. If you believe in anything less than personal liberty for all people you're not a libertarian. Please note the use of lower case "l", I am not speaking about party beliefs in this statement but the root beliefs of a libertarian.

We are getting into literal "No true Scotsman" territory here. I would say that if you went person to person in most political parties you would find some basic conflicting things that would not allow them to be by definition a liberal or a conservative or a libertarian.

People are more complicated than one or two word labels. Some libertarians believe in liberty for corporations strongly some believe in liberty for specific people strongly and some yes do believe in liberty in general strongly (This assumes were going on the same definition of liberty here)

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Alexzandvar wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If a religious "Libertarian" wants restrictions on marriage rights, hes not a Libertarian.

A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

No, thats a Conservative.

freedictionary.com wrote:lib·er·tar·i·an
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.

Your example satisfies neither definition.

A truly liberterian "Religious Libertarian" might not like or agree with homosexuality, but he respects the rights and liberties of homosexuals and does not seek to have their liberties restricted by law.

This is my attitude to most drugs. I don't like or agree with their use, but I accept and respect the liberty of other people to use them if they wish to so long as they do not harm other people (e.g. their children, driving under the influence, becoming violent under the influence),

**Corpsesarefun**

Johnnytorrance wrote:

You're stupid. I by no means bashing homosexuals. I'm in the military and I've worked with several. Don't care about what they do on their own time just like I don't care what you do on yours.

My point is that telling me I'm a bigot because I find the act disgusting is idiotic. I don't have to like the act of homosexuality. I don't have to approve of it, I don't have to have those views shoved down my throat.

The guy plays football, he's gay. Big deal. Are gay people not good enough to play football? It's not a big deal man. If I played with him on his team I'm sure he'd appreciate me more for making him feel like a ball player, than the gay guy in my locker room.

I can only hope this is a case of elaborate satire.

**Alexzandvar**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
How can Libertarians be for social issues but want to leave the economy to itself?

The economy and businesses drive a lot of these social issues. Unless poverty is a social issue that libertarians aren't interested in changing? Not just speaking about being homosexual or not, obviously.

They aren't for or against social issues in as many words. They are for personal liberty and against any restrictions to personal liberty that are not necessary. Gay rights being one of the more prominent and more glamorous of the issues currently debated in an upside down American political landscape.

That's my point, libertarian to libertarian you will find that people don't agree on whats necessary a whole lot. As in, a religious libertarian would think it would be necessary to not allow gay rights!

**Alfndrate**

Corpsesarefun wrote:
Johnnytorrance wrote:

You're stupid. I by no means bashing homosexuals. I'm in the military and I've worked with several. Don't care about what they do on their own time just like I don't care what you do on yours.

My point is that telling me I'm a bigot because I find the act disgusting is idiotic. I don't have to like the act of homosexuality. I don't have to approve of it, I don't have to have those views shoved down my throat.

The guy plays football, he's gay. Big deal. Are gay people not good enough to play football? It's not a big deal man. If I played with him on his team I'm sure he'd appreciate me more for making him feel like a ball player, than the gay guy in my locker room.

I can only hope this is a case of elaborate satire.

I particularly enjoyed the part where he called a Mod stupid.

**Alexzandvar**

Johnnytorrance wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Johnnytorrance wrote:
But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.

Well, you've convinced me. On the basis that a relationship is intended solely for the purpose of producing children, when I'm elected my government will immediately outlaw relationships involving the following people:
- Homosexuals
- People using contraception
- People engaging in any form of non-vaginal sexual activity
- Women who have had medical hysterectomies
- Women who have had ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, or any of the other myriad ovarian afflictions that affect childbirth
- Men with low sperm counts
- People who want to adopt instead of having their own children
- Anyone who wants to 'wait' until they are married
- Anyone not interested in sex
- Women over 50.

Relationships will be monitored to ensure that everyone involved is, in fact, having sex, and is doing it the right way.

Additionally, following on from the 'well, I don't like it, so it must be wrong' principle, relationships will also be banned if they involve:
- Men
- Women over 5'6"
- Women over 85kg
- Women under 45kg
- Blondes, or women with bleached hair
- Anyone interested in bondage or S&M
- Bogans
- Asian women at whatever age it is when they go overnight from looking like anime chicks to looking like the witch from Spirited Away. (Curiously, Michelle Yeoh seems to be immune to this phenomenon, so a relationship with her would be deemed acceptable.)

Did I miss anything out?

You're stupid. I by no means bashing homosexuals. I'm in the military and I've worked with several. Don't care about what they do on their own time just like I don't care what you do on yours.

My point is that telling me I'm a bigot because I find the act disgusting is idiotic. I don't have to like the act of homosexuality. I don't have to approve of it, I don't have to have those views shoved down my throat.

The guy plays football, he's gay. Big deal. Are gay people not good enough to play football? It's not a big deal man. If I played with him on his team I'm sure he'd appreciate me more for making him feel like a ball player, than the gay guy in my locker room.

I may ask, why do you find homosexual disgusting because they are gay when they have zero control over their sexuality? A gay man can no more stop being gay than a black man can stop being black, so I would say your issues reach a fair bit deeper than just idle disgust if your willing to condemn a minority who can't change how they were born.

**Medium of Death**

Medium of Death wrote:
How can Libertarians be for social issues but want to leave the economy to itself?

The economy and businesses drive a lot of these social issues. Unless poverty is a social issue that libertarians aren't interested in changing? Not just speaking about being homosexual or not, obviously.

djones520 wrote:The Libertarians aren't for social issues. They are the closest thing to organized Anarchy. They just want the government to butt the hell out.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

They aren't for or against social issues in as many words. They are for personal liberty and against any restrictions to personal liberty that are not necessary. Gay rights being one of the more prominent and more glamorous of the issues currently debated in an upside down American political landscape.

Ah thanks for the clarification, was just a bit perplexed by another poster's explanation. It's not really that big of a thing in the UK as far as I am aware. Certainly wouldn't vote for them if they were!

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Alexzandvar wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

They can call themselves whatever they like. That doesn't make it true.

Broadly speaking,

Conservatism = economically liberal (low tax, small Government) BUT socially authoritarian (restrictions on homosexuals, marriage, drugs).

"Liberal" or "Left Wing" = economically authoritarian (high taxes, big and powerful Governments, high public spending) BUT socially liberal (relaxed attitudes to drugs, homosexuality, marriage).

Libertarian = economically liberal AND socially liberal.

A true Libertarian believes that the State should be as small as possible, and not interfere in the economy, social issues, and in people's lives.

**Alexzandvar**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

They can call themselves whatever they like. That doesn't make it true.

Broadly speaking,

Conservatism = economically liberal (low tax, small Government) BUT socially authoritarian (restrictions on homosexuals, marriage, drugs).

"Liberal" or "Left Wing" = economically authoritarian (high taxes, big and powerful Governments, high public spending) BUT socially liberal (relaxed attitudes to drugs, homosexuality, marriage).

Libertarian = economically liberal AND socially liberal.

A true Libertarian believes that the State should be as small as possible, and not interfere in the economy, social issues, and in people's lives.

My earlier posts address how that if you apply those basic laws to all people who claim said alignments you will find they are unable to meet the definition exactly.

**Alpharius**

I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to many, but this thread is generating a lot of warnings so...

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Damn. Who is she?

I think I'm in love...

**insaniak**

Johnnytorrance wrote:
I by no means bashing homosexuals.

Just labelling their behaviour as 'unnatural'...

Maybe that's a compliment where you come from...?

**Corpsesarefun**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Damn. Who is she?

I think I'm in love...

Fairly sure it's Scarlett Johansson

**Avatar 720**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Damn. Who is she?

I think I'm in love...

Scarlett Johalpharius.

**insaniak**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Damn. Who is she?

I think I'm in love...

I wouldn't go there. Fairly sure that hair is dyed... and thus unnatural, and therefore worthy only of our disgust.

**whembly**

Alpharius wrote:
I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to many, but this thread is generating a lot of warnings so...

I'm sorry... what was it you said? I was blinded.

I'm still blinded when she's not in costume/makeup:

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

insaniak wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Damn. Who is she?

I think I'm in love...

I wouldn't go there. Fairly sure that hair is dyed... and thus unnatural, and therefore worthy only of our disgust.

Hey, ignorance is bliss.

**Alfndrate**

whembly wrote:
Alpharius wrote:
I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to many, but this thread is generating a lot of warnings so...

I'm sorry... what was it you said? I was blinded.

I'm still blinded when she's not in costume/makeup:

I'm not... *sigh* the illusion is wrecked...

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

insaniak wrote:
Johnnytorrance wrote:
I by no means bashing homosexuals.

Just labelling their behaviour as 'unnatural'...

Maybe that's a compliment where you come from...?

Homosexuality has been linked to DNA.

DNA changes through natural mutation of genes (evolution).

Ergo Homosexuality developed as a natural process.

Its a behaviour that is by no means unique to the human race. Its been observed in many other species. And I expect there would be a high probability of it existing in other extraterrestrial sentient species, should any exist.

The argument that Homosexuality is unnatural is inherently religious. i.e. You think its unnatural because "God" tells you it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:
I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to many, but this thread is generating a lot of warnings so...

What character is that? What film?

**Medium of Death**

Lots of one handed posting going on.

**Alexzandvar**

Medium of Death wrote:
Lots of one handed posting going on.

Who says I can't post with my feet?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Hey, I'm holding a paintbrush. I swear.

**Yodhrin**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

They can call themselves whatever they like. That doesn't make it true.

Broadly speaking,

Conservatism = economically liberal (low tax, small Government) BUT socially authoritarian (restrictions on homosexuals, marriage, drugs).

"Liberal" or "Left Wing" = economically authoritarian (high taxes, big and powerful Governments, high public spending) BUT socially liberal (relaxed attitudes to drugs, homosexuality, marriage).

Libertarian = economically liberal AND socially liberal.

A true Libertarian believes that the State should be as small as possible, and not interfere in the economy, social issues, and in people's lives.

Which is of course nonsensical, since negative freedoms have no value if people cannot exercise them in practice because the systems of positive freedoms which enabled them to have been eradicated in the name of "small government".

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Yodhrin wrote:

Which is of course nonsensical, since negative freedoms have no value if people cannot exercise them in practice because the systems of positive freedoms which enabled them to have been eradicated in the name of "small government".

And that is "of course" based on the asumption that said systems will be eradicated in the name of small government.

Small Government =/= No Government.

When I said "a true Libertarian believes the State should be as small as possible", I do not mean that Police, Law Courts and other insitutions that protect people's rights and mediate between competing rights should and would be abolished.

Are you arguing that personal liberty is impossible without a big and powerful State?

**Corpsesarefun**

How exactly do you propose to maintain police departments and courts without taxes?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Corpsesarefun wrote:
How exactly do you propose to maintain police departments and courts without taxes?

Low taxes =/= no taxes.

Your next Straw Man?

Anyway, I'm not proposing anything. This was a debate over the definition of "libertarian". Not the Libertarian Party manifesto for the 2015 general election. Why the feth are we arguing about this?