Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Gay Marriage

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Wondering how some conservatives who spout snippets of Rand's Objectivism in support of their statist agenda will square with this.

By way of explanation:

The Atlas Society - There is no established Objectivist position on gay marriage per se. However, I think Objectivism can be seen to apply to the issues at hand. The political ideal of Objectivism would permit gay marriage. Homosexuals are as morally entitled to marry as are heterosexuals.
The legal definition of marriage is an issue of practical legal philosophy and involves a variety of considerations that I cannot get into here. However, marriage is, in essence, a kind of contract or agreement between individuals. In this respect, Objectivist political philosophy has some relevance.

Like many classical liberal political philosophies, Objectivism holds that all adult, mentally competent individuals have rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. All that is done by mutual consent is within their rights, so long as no one is coerced by the use of force. This principle implies that contracts are to be presumed valid unless some reason to regard them as the result of coercion can be shown, or if the contract somehow involves the violation of the rights of a third party, as in a murder contract. Government, meanwhile, should be strictly limited to taking only those essential actions necessary to secure and defend the rights of individuals.

Gay marriage does not violate any third party's rights, and it does not involve coercion between the parties involved. And it is hard to see how the government can have any legitimate interest in controlling or regulating the kinds of relationships into which people can enter. {Read More}

Once again Objectivist philosophy perfectly rational.


  1. by the way you worded this argument, allows for polygamy also. and the government has banned polygamy. and a polygamous union would fit all of the crteria you set. are you an advocate of polygamy?

    as for force, you would be forcing the people to pay for and provide services to some not intended or approved of when enacted.

    you would be forcing the people to accept an unproven theory, that homosexuality is a state of being not a behavior as a truth.

    you would be forcing the States to give up their Constitutional right to be the sole regulator of marriage.

    lastly and without going into detail you would be going against the whole theory of evolution.

    1. You're wandering griper.

      1) The subject was SPECIFICALLY gay marriage.
      2) It is not my argument, rather it is the argument of many rational thinkers over time.
      3) What the hell are you talking about, force. Allowing people to choose their life's partner is NOT force. Denying them that choice by statist law is using FORCE.
      4) I will not dignify your remarks with respect to polygamy.
      5) Nor can you prove that homosexuality is a conscience behavior choice as opposed to it being "a state of being."
      6) Griper, again evolution was not the subject matter. I am a firm believer in evolution, as I suspect you are not. And certainly I appreciate that you wandered no further into evolution, again it was not the subject.

  2. Let anyone contract a partnership with the state, and leave marriage to the churches.

    1. Fine by me. It is exactly what the wife and I did.

  3. silverfiddle,
    anyone can contract a relationship right now without any changes to the laws on marriage including homosexuals.

    the subject was specifically "the laws" in regards to marriage. and in discussing laws the concept of precedence must be taken into consideration. and that justifies bringing up the concept of polygamy because they would use this as a precedence for their argument that polygamy be legal also.

    and i won't dignify the rest of your presumptuous responses with a rebuttal.

    1. Presumptuousness appears to be a two way street then doesn't it my friend?

  4. "Gay marriage does not violate any third party's rights"

    That's really all need said.

    And Silver, Rand recognized, as do most libertarians and liberals (and the majority between), that "marriage" is a legal contract. You talk about it as if there should be no legal recourse to the abomination of marriage! You are arguing against your own argument!

    Great post Les. When she's right, she's right.


  5. ok, i'm listening, where did i presume on this issue?

  6. you already admitted to making presumptions, Les, with your response. therefore i do not need to prove it. i responded to your implicit declaration that i was making presumptions too by asking what i was presuming.i'm not admitting to it unless you can prove it me.

  7. Gary Johnson is in favor of marriage equality and he DOESN'T think that it should be left up to the states to decide. Cam you all say, Gary Johnson is far more enlightened than President Obama on this issue?

  8. Les,
    smiles ok, i can see you are not willing to discuss the issue so i'll just allow others to judge whether or not the following is an admission as well as a claim of my presumptuousness in this statement of yours.

    "Presumptuousness appears to be a two way street then doesn't it my friend?"


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.