Clint Eastwood on Gay Marriage: 'I don't give a f***'

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I like how you completely missed the whole point of what he said in your hurry to post.

He was very clear that they should be allowed to marry, and that the government is fucking around with people when they shouldn't be. Allow them to marry and be happy.

Of course, you probably saw the fact that he's a Republican and immediately tuned out half of what was written.

Republican=bad, right?

I didn't miss his point. I'm glad he seems to support gay marriage and is calling the opposition out on its BS, but he's flat wrong for insisting it's none of his or anyone else's business. Civil rights are everyone's business. They are government business. You don't get to be libertarian and for civil rights at the same time. The two things don't jive. If government left civil rights up to the people we'd still have segregated bathrooms and lunch counters and God knows what else. Though my comment was directed more at those "echoing" it as some sort of middle ground in the gay marriage argument, which is currently raging in my home state because now the voters are going to get to decide. Civil rights as decided by the people, yeehaw! NC's gonna keep them queers from gettin' married!

And I hate to burst your bubble, but things like words and actions influence my opinion on folks a lot more than some label does.

 

[Gintaras]

Half of the population is below average in intelligence.

Human Intelligence Is A Lehal Mutation:

http://chomsky.info/talks/20100930.htm

 

[Gintaras]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/14/clint-eastwood-i-dont-give-a-fck-if-gays-marry/

It's not a good sign if the embodiment of the Angry White Man thinks you're full of shit on an important wedge issue.

What's so important to OP with gay marriage? Do you care who's getting married? Are you invited to any marriage? Or...are you a gay and you mad that someone doesn't giva a shit about gay marriage?
Homophobes are most likely gays in the closet....

 

[UberNeuman]

You know that movie 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly'?

It's a pretty good film....

\TMYK

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I didn't miss his point. I'm glad he seems to support gay marriage and is calling the opposition out on its BS, but he's flat wrong for insisting it's none of his or anyone else's business. Civil rights are everyone's business. They are government business. You don't get to be libertarian and for civil rights at the same time. The two things don't jive. If government left civil rights up to the people we'd still have segregated bathrooms and lunch counters and God knows what else. Though my comment was directed more at those "echoing" it as some sort of middle ground in the gay marriage argument, which is currently raging in my home state because now the voters are going to get to decide. Civil rights as decided by the people, yeehaw! NC's gonna keep them queers from gettin' married!

And I hate to burst your bubble, but things like words and actions influence my opinion on folks a lot more than some label does.

Actually you do because in the end the individual and their rights trump the goals of the collective group. But I can see you are going off a false premise that supporting individual rights instead of specific targeted collective rights based on race, gender, etc somehow translates to "more justice" versus the later view that puts emphasis on everyone being equal and accountable on the issues of rights and their enforcement/protection.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Good for Clint! He'd probably make a better president than any of these Republican candidate bozos.

Hmmm....Well maybe it's because Clint basically has the same view on the topic (along with many other views) as Ron Paul who is a Republican candidate.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Actually you do because in the end the individual and their rights trump the goals of the collective group. But I can see you are going off a false premise that supporting individual rights instead of specific targeted collective rights based on race, gender, etc somehow translates to "more justice" versus the later view that puts emphasis on everyone being equal and accountable on the issues of rights and their enforcement/protection.

And who enforces recognition of individual rights when others, let's say the majority, disagrees with and refuses to recognize that individual right? Yeah, that's why being a libertarian and for civil rights doesn't jive.

 

[Darwin333]

A license is a permit to do something that would otherwise be illegal - fishing license, hunting license, drivers license,,,,,.

If something is a "right" you do not need a license - such as go to church or vote.

Why do we need marriage licenses at all?

I wasn't aware that God required a marriage license from the state in order for his people to receive the sacrament of marriage. Isn't that the entire "sanctity" argument?

 

[BoberFett]

And who enforces recognition of individual rights when others, let's say the majority, disagrees with and refuses to recognize that individual right? Yeah, that's why being a libertarian and for civil rights doesn't jive.

Lack of regulation is tacit recognition. The only entity trampling rights unimpeded here is the government. It's government which states gays can't get married and therefore have no familial rights when it comes to inheritance or hospital visitation. If government got out of the business of denying rights based on marriage or lack thereof, then it wouldn't matter if gays could marry or not, would it?

Homosexuals can get married in any church they choose that will marry them, call it a marriage, live as a married couple, and do everything else that married people do but it's government which tells them that they are not in fact married. So rather than tack on additional laws stating who can get married and who cannot, why not get government out of it altogether? What's the advantage to piling on law after law rather than scrapping it completely?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

And who enforces recognition of individual rights when others, let's say the majority, disagrees with and refuses to recognize that individual right? Yeah, that's why being a libertarian and for civil rights doesn't jive.

Government's role should be to protect the indivdual from the "group/collective" this view is not in dispute here but your view that the focus on indivdual rights is somehow inferior or not equal to "civil rights" is flawed.

By the very nature of putting an emphasis on individual rights (and the application of those rights so that they apply to all peoples in this nation) this view in itself promotes and supports the conception of the legal view that all individual peoples are to be treated equally and fairly under the law and in addition that their rights are just as sacrosanct as that of the majority.

The overall view on the emphasis toward protecting individual rights by Libertarians is in and of itself a view that all rights apply equally to all peoples because all peoples are individuals and thus they must have their rights protected as equally as that of the majority by design.

Furthermore it is only when government colludes with third parties (i.e. the majority) in order to ignore, usurp, or redefine previously agreed upon basic universal rights to promote an agenda (i.e. racism) that we then see an actual imbalance of protection and increase of injustice in society. Thus it is/was government's selective enforcement and interpretation of rights which lead to the injustices of the past and not the idea or notion that individualism was somehow at the forefront of hindering equal rights for all groups of people (which you seem to imply in your previous and current statements).

 

[DucatiMonster696]

**Double-Post-Please-Ignore**

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Lack of regulation is tacit recognition. The only entity trampling rights unimpeded here is the government. It's government which states gays can't get married and therefore have no familial rights when it comes to inheritance or hospital visitation. If government got out of the business of denying rights based on marriage or lack thereof, then it wouldn't matter if gays could marry or not, would it?

Homosexuals can get married in any church they choose that will marry them, call it a marriage, live as a married couple, and do everything else that married people do but it's government which tells them that they are not in fact married. So rather than tack on additional laws stating who can get married and who cannot, why not get government out of it altogether? What's the advantage to piling on law after law rather than scrapping it completely?

Because if you don't have government forcing recognition of marriages you get private entities all deciding for themselves whether they will recognize certain marriages or not and giving spousal benefits or not. And if a majority decides not to recognize gay marriage you have a de facto ban and violation of civil rights with, look at that, no government involvement. You libertarians seem to ignore the other side of the coin- if government would just leave everyone alone then gays could get married, and then bigots could refuse to recognize those marriages, or refuse to recognize biracial marriages, or do whatever else to whatever else minority they have a grudge against.

 

[Nebor]

Because if you don't have government forcing recognition of marriages you get private entities all deciding for themselves whether they will recognize certain marriages or not and giving spousal benefits or not. And if a majority decides not to recognize gay marriage you have a de facto ban and violation of civil rights with, look at that, no government involvement. You libertarians seem to ignore the other side of the coin- if government would just leave everyone alone then gays could get married, and then bigots could refuse to recognize those marriages, or refuse to recognize biracial marriages, or do whatever else to whatever else minority they have a grudge against.

But if the government weren't in the marriage business, and there were no additional rights or benefits conferred from marriage, who cares if bigots refuse to recognize the marriages?

 

[actuarial]

But if the government weren't in the marriage business, and there were no additional rights or benefits conferred from marriage, who cares if bigots refuse to recognize the marriages?

It's a good point, and valid that if government gets outta the way entirely then it doesn't matter, but there are WAY too many laws regarding marriage to just abolish them all.

Just to pick one out, you don't have to testify against your spouse in court. Just that alone necessitates the government defines what marriage is.

How about pension plans. Why wouldn't I just say my sister is my wife if I'm retiring (and single) so she'll get the pension if I die? It's not illegal, since the government has nothing to do with marriage.

There's also the civil rights issue. What's to stop a pension plan from discriminating and only allowing opposite sex couples to have the option of a spousal pension?

And I'm only scratching the very surface of the law's entanglement with marriage.

 

[Jaskalas]

The question here is based on a simple premise. Think about it. Does freedom belong to the individual, or do you need permission from the government?

Eastwood has a noble idea, "let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone." The very concept of freedom and liberty. Yet some people think your rights come from government. They don't sleep well at night without men with guns pointing them at people, and telling you what to do. As if a obedience to the government's guns over your head is all that matters in a free society.

Of course now that you've created the mechanism by which your noble edicts are enforced on people, like Monarchs before you, successors to the throne may have their own edicts enforced. They all won't be so noble as you. For every JFK, Clinton, Obama, there's a Bush, Romney, and Perry.

The power you grant yourself you also grant to others.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Rights don't come from government, but good luck exercising them without a government to protect them.

 

[actuarial]

The question here is based on a simple premise. Think about it. Does freedom belong to the individual, or do you need permission from the government?

Eastwood has a noble idea, "let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone." The very concept of freedom and liberty. Yet some people think your rights come from government. They don't sleep well at night without men with guns pointing them at people, and telling you what to do. As if a obedience to the government's guns over your head is all that matters in a free society.

Of course now that you've created the mechanism by which your noble edicts are enforced on people, like Monarchs before you, successors to the throne may have their own edicts enforced. They all won't be so noble as you. For every JFK, Clinton, Obama, there's a Bush, Romney, and Perry.

The power you grant yourself you also grant to others.

Hey, I agree with the premise (and it is the basis for most of my political views). I just don't think it applies to gay marriage. Everyone already has the right to call whomever they choose their spouse, and call their relationship a marriage.

The problem is that the government and private entities currently offer additional benefits to opposite sex married couples, with marriage as a legally defined term. So the options are either to abolish those benefits, or offer them to same sex married couples as well.

I think most of the additional benefits offered for married couples are beneficial to society as a whole, as well as those that choose to be married, so I'm in favor of the latter.

That's not the same thing as the government granting a right, nor is it writing a blank cheque to governments to tell us how to live.

 

[Jaskalas]

Rights don't come from government, but good luck exercising them without a government to protect them.

Protect from who?

The Bill of Rights is directed at the government, to protect us from it.

The irony is, you grant government so much power to enforce our rights, that you've elevated it above its own limitations. Patriot Act is just a small taste of what is to come from such corrupt abuse of power. The Bill of Rights cannot stand so long as the Fox is guarding the Hen House.

The only way this works is with limited and enumerated powers at the highest level. Else the whole concept of limiting it with a Bill of Rights is thrown out.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Protect from who?

To protect us from those who would refuse to recognize our rights. Rights don't do much good if they can be dismissed on a whim. I won't sell a gun to a black person. I won't sell food to a Jew. I won't medically treat a gay person. But you are free to be black, Jewish, or gay. Liberterian paradise.

 

[Nebor]

To protect us from those who would refuse to recognize our rights. Rights don't do much good if they can be dismissed on a whim. I won't sell a gun to a black person. I won't sell food to a Jew. I won't medically treat a gay person. But you are free to be black, Jewish, or gay. Liberterian paradise.

And there will always be someone willing to serve those under-served customers and meet their needs in a free market. Just as restaurants that didn't have "seating policies" discriminating against blacks in the mid 1900s saw a huge increase in patronage by black customers.

 

[Jadow]

agree with clint

 

[thraashman]

To protect us from those who would refuse to recognize our rights. Rights don't do much good if they can be dismissed on a whim. I won't sell a gun to a black person. I won't sell food to a Jew. I won't medically treat a gay person. But you are free to be black, Jewish, or gay. Liberterian paradise.

While you are perfectly correct here, do you really think the people you're directing this at will listen? These are the people that think it's impossible for government to do good. What they fail to realize is that the options without or with extreme limited government are far worse. Laissez faire has rich people treating the poor like indentured servants. Or there's also the anarchy option. Government's purpose is to protect its people and ensure their rights. And yes, sometimes its there to say what rights you don't get to have. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government has agreed that they're not allowed to fuck with.

Truthfully I don't think even libertarians understand what libertarians want.

 

[thraashman]

And there will always be someone willing to serve those under-served customers and meet their needs in a free market. Just as restaurants that didn't have "seating policies" discriminating against blacks in the mid 1900s saw a huge increase in patronage by black customers.

Well, now we at least know what happened to all those anti civil rights Southern Democrats from the 50's and 60's. They joined the Libertarian party.

 

[cwjerome]

Protect from who?

The Bill of Rights is directed at the government, to protect us from it.

The irony is, you grant government so much power to enforce our rights, that you've elevated it above its own limitations. Patriot Act is just a small taste of what is to come from such corrupt abuse of power. The Bill of Rights cannot stand so long as the Fox is guarding the Hen House.

The only way this works is with limited and enumerated powers at the highest level. Else the whole concept of limiting it with a Bill of Rights is thrown out.

Judging from Gonad's posts, I believe he wouldn't be happy until there are at least 11 billion laws on the books that describe in spectacular detail every action and thought that is legal and illegal... after all, people are just mindless, violent creatures who need absolute direction and strict management from a benevolent government to function properly. He'll deny it of course, but taking a page from moonbeam's playbook, it seems his subconscious fear and hatred of Man decrees an all knowing, all powerful construct to keep people pacified and properly behaved.

Freedom is is not always perfectly safe. It's sometimes offensive and often a little rough around the edges. And it's not always fair. This is because freedom reflects reality, which is all of those things. We can take reasonable measures to mitigate some of these so their impact isn't egregious or destabilizing, yet once we start going too far into the unreal, once we start trying to make things too safe, not offensive, too sterile, and totally fair then we are out of balance with nature and the universe... we lose our humanity and only bad things can and will happen. This little piece of Gonad's utopia is something none of us can afford.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You're welcome to point to one of your little utopias with little to non-existent government and civil rights laws to demonstrate your shining libertarian beacon of freedom.

You people won't even deny you think it's "government overreach" to protect people from being discriminated against based on race or religion or sexual preference and your ideal world would have people checking store signs to see if their kind was served before going in. You're really disgusting, the lot of you.