Free State Wyoming Forum
Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Topic started by: username on December 22, 2009, 12:35:26 PM
-
I wanted to start a new thread on this because it differs greatly in nature from my other post "Utah Looking at Wyoming". [They] say you never know until you ask... so, I would like to query two items that are contrasted between Royce, and Rand, and Heilein's works... as all three authors seem to be popular among the FSW movement.
Hedonism vs. Morality (specifically homophobia)
Theism vs. Atheism (specifically Christianity)
Most unfortunately neither Ms. Rand, nor Mr. Heinlein are with us any longer, but Mr. Royce, I know you are on this forum so maybe you are most qualified to answer directly regarding your work(s). You go into lugubrious pro-Christian / anti-gay detail in your "Playboy Interview with James Preston" at the end of Molon Labe.
How common of a representation is that among the FSW movement; which would otherwise force these minority elements to "hole up out in the woods" abiding only literally the "live and let live" theory? Are are you [all] truly accepting of anyone who embraces freedom, or are there a few strings attached?
Respectfully,
JP + wife and family
-
I cant answer for this group as I am not a member, just a current resident of Wyoming and have been for awhile.....almost 20 years.
If a man wants a man in his bed than thats not my business. If he wants to marry that man, it doesnt matter to me. If that same man wants to worship a golden calf on the alter of a palm tree on winter solstice than thats cool. As long as that man doesnt try and force any of that crap on me......than were cool. Im not anti-gay, anti-religion or anything like that, but......I will slap the hell out of anyone that tries to force any of that crap on me.
Once again I cant answer for the FSW movement but i wouldnt be surprised alot if many here share the same views. Than again, different strokes for different folks.
-
I agree with Jackpot. username, I haven't read the Appendix to Molon Labe recently enough to comment specifically, but are you sure you're not confusing being opposed to the radical gay political agenda with being anti-human-rights-of-gay-people? I have to ask, because there's a lot of people out there that take the former to mean the latter.
-
I cant answer for this group as I am not a member, just a current resident of Wyoming and have been for awhile.....almost 20 years.
If a man wants a man in his bed than thats not my business. If he wants to marry that man, it doesnt matter to me. If that same man wants to worship a golden calf on the alter of a palm tree on winter solstice than thats cool. As long as that man doesnt try and force any of that crap on me......than were cool. Im not anti-gay, anti-religion or anything like that, but......I will slap the hell out of anyone that tries to force any of that crap on me.
Once again I cant answer for the FSW movement but i wouldnt be surprised alot if many here share the same views.
That about covers my thoughts, too. Well said Jackpot. I for one don't fall into the whole, "You can't be for freedom because you don't have X and therefore no reason to fight for freedom." (x = any single or combination of the following: a wife, any desire to have a wife, kids, any disire to have kids, religious beliefs, BIG L libertarian mindset, morals)
-
I agree with Jackpot, stay out of my business and I will stay out of yours. If you are there to defend me from the state, when the time comes, than I will be there to defend you.
I think somewhere in those Christian teachings it says love one another...no matter what.
-
@kylben, Well, not being gay myself I don't proclaim to know every motivation of those who actively rally for gay rights... but my interpretation of it seems to be based on my observations of the political agenda striving for the human rights. So, albeit some may draw a distinction between a radical political agenda vs. their goal of human-rights; I personally see them as one and the same, regardless of the platform (Sexual Preference, Race, Religion, Pro-Choice / Pro-Life, etc).
It somewhat dilutes my question though, my point being to gain an understanding if the overall consensus of FSW Members regarding Atheists and Homosexuals is one of "open acceptance", or "thinly tolerated"? It may seem like semantics, but for those members of society who are one or the other or both (including many of my family and friends), there really is a chasm between the two camps and I'm interested to know how the group regards it.
What it really boils down to is that if a group of people aren't going to accept my friends and family, chances are good they won't really accept me either, even though I may fit their check-list of acceptable lifestyes.
It's not necessarily an FSW deal-breaker for me one way or the other -- I'm just curious.
-
The Radical Gay agenda, The radical, animal,commie,socialist,enviro,globalwarming,
or whatever leftist,or extremist AGENDAS ARE NOT TOLERATED BY ME!!!
ALL of these AGENDAs Want the Govt to Force Me at the point of a Gun to
Accept THEIR version of what THEY want to IMPOSE on ME!
This Is my Agenda:
(http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af248/WyoRich/DSCN0486.jpg)
And if you don't like that, and decide you want some "Special" Rights...
File a complaint Here>
(http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af248/WyoRich/DSCN0487.jpg)
Rich
-
I think the "radical political agenda" and "human rights" is a vast chasm and can't be ignored.
Human rights are those to life and liberty, which includes private property and free association. Every human being on the planet has the exact same rights.
The radical political agenda of so many groups, such as "gays," is the demand that they are "due" and MUST be given special consideration over and above their basic human rights, and that everyone else MUST be forced to accept those phony "rights" - usually at the cost of their own.
The latter is not a very popular thing with most of us, I believe.
Jackpot put it very well. Live and let live. I don't need to approve of the choices others make in order to accept that they have the right to make them.
I will never violate anyone else's human rights, and will not tolerate the violation of my own.
-
some may draw a distinction between a radical political agenda vs. their goal of human-rights; I personally see them as one and the same
I'm mystified by that, but regardless, there's a lot of people that see a very large distinction. I won't speak for anyone else, but I see it that way. I'm straight and atheist. I'd be a lot less interested in the FSW if gays were shunned even while nominally respecting their rights. I have no idea if there are any gays involved with the FSW, because I've never even thought to ask, and I haven't seen one other person on these boards ask. Same goes for race, BTW. There's a lot of talk about religion here, because its unavoidable in an environment where values are such a core consideration. Being gay isn't about values, and it hasn't come up. Now if someone were a flamboyant, Gay Pride Parade, feather boa and hot-pink-thong-wearing prancing queen, I imagine he'd have a hard time finding friends here. That's too in your face even for me, and I imagine for most people. But that's not about being gay, that's about being an a**hole. Same with atheists, go around here bashing Christians, and you won't have many friends. Go around demanding special rights, and you won't find many friends here. Gay or straight or atheist or believer, show mutual respect, and we all seem to get along.
And we all have family that might not be approved of by our friends, or even by ourselves, but everybody has to deal with that in their own way. In my experience here, people are judged by the content of their own character.
-
I Ditto jackpot..........And politics stay to hell out of it. Don't care what you practice, just don't practice it on me and we'll get along fine. The self righteous, sanctimonious and holier than thou make my ass tired. I don't need a conscience, I don't need a keeper, and I aint a project. Marry whoever or whatever you damned well please and makes you happy, you gotta live there.
-
Cool, thanks everyone for the honest, candid responses! Keep 'em coming!
JP & co.
-
I lived in Provincetown Mass for several years. A sraight girl in a predominantly gay community. Heard all the "issues" so to speak. Kept my own counsel for the most part until I worked for a gay guy who was a bit gay militant, for lack of a better phrase. You could hear time crawl the day I got fed up and said "Actually Nicholas, I don't believe in 'gay rights', I believe in human rights".
He shut up and we got back to work.
Just my 2 coins...
-
Heh, Heh......Good one klc7402
-
I pretty much agree with all that's been said here before.
Being in the military, I see this is quickly building into a huge issue (again) with all the talk from the current administration about allowing gays to openly serve. Many of my colleagues are talking about the end of the military as we know it if it's allowed. I don't think those people understand "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue Policy" all that well.
Most take it as a mandate to prove how heterosexual and macho you are. In reality, the law is about keeping your sexual preference - be it straight, gay, bisexual, into animals or trees or couches, to your own self and in your private life. None of us should be talking about our sex lives, or pursuing the sex lives of others. Basically, it's a live and let live policy... which I obviously agree with. And as far as them serving openly - what the hell. Anyone dumb enough to sign up should be able to do what they want in their bedroom (as long as they keep it there consensually and it isn't aggression against the rights of others, obviously).
One of the few things Clinton got right, in my opinion. Now if he'd of just done the same thing about Black/Native American/Asian American and Pacific Islander/Women's History Month, and just let us all serve as equals, we'd be fine.
-
OK, I'll throw in my $0.02!
I don't care what somebody's religion is. I don't care if he believes in God at all.
I don't care if someone is homosexual. (I don't use the "G" word).
I don't care if someone is black or white. "African American" "or European American".
I don't care if someone is Mexican or any other flavor of "Hispanic descent".
I DO care if somebody is frequently yapping about God.
I DO care if somebody is frequently yapping about homosexual "rights".
I DO care is somebody sees themselves as a perpetual victim of the white man.
I DO care is someone want a handout from the government (us).
I'll pick my friends from those who share my values, morals, and possibly even my culture.
Yeah, I prefer celebrating Columbus Day over Caesar Chavez day or MLK Jr. Day.
That's me. I don't speak for anyone else. And remember, Molon Labe is a work of fiction. And Boston is not the "leader" of the FSW anyway (his words).
Mac
-
Regarding acts not of theft, fraud, or initiative force:
You're not free if you're merely free to do what you want -- rather, you're free only when
you're free to do what you ought.
There is a myriad of personal behavior that one may embrace.
That doesn't mean that it's ipso facto good for you, much good less for society.
"While all is permissible, not all is profitable." ~ Apostle Paul
Who decides? The individual, of course, and not the government.
That's a summation of Preston's point regarding hedonism.
The goal is quality self-government, especially within a libertarian range of personal freedom.
Oh, and btw, social mores against those exhibiting poor self-government is a proper libertarian response.
Shunning, ostracization, etc. are examples of the social free-market.
I.e., everybody must pay full-freight for their beliefs and behaviors.
____________
I designed the FSW to quickly self-operate without leadership, as the
barest embodiment of an idea: "People like us should migrate to Wyoming."
What you all then do here is not up to the FSW, and certainly not up to me.
Run for mayor, be a hermit, or anything in between.
Boston
-
Idividual liberty and Human rights are my moto.
Politics is a cesspool I prefer not to wade in (though I do enjoy a good BM).
-
I think the "radical political agenda" and "human rights" is a vast chasm and can't be ignored.
Human rights are those to life and liberty, which includes private property and free association. Every human being on the planet has the exact same rights.
The radical political agenda of so many groups, such as "gays," is the demand that they are "due" and MUST be given special consideration over and above their basic human rights, and that everyone else MUST be forced to accept those phony "rights" - usually at the cost of their own.
The latter is not a very popular thing with most of us, I believe.
That pretty much sums it up for me. Live however you choose to live as long as it doesn't infringe on others, but don't try and force me to believe or accept anything if I choose not to do so. I don't care who you sleep with, marry, whether you go to church or don't believe in God at all. Live your life as you see fit and allow me to do the same. We'll come together and work in some areas, and won't in others. But it's you and I who choose to accept or not accept beliefs and actions, not the government deciding for us.
-
If a gay man wants to rent a house from me, I will base my decision on various factors, and knowing me, his sex preferences will be a small factor if not nonexistent (actually, I already have rented to gays). If I know he is a gay activist who wants to force all landlords to accept gay renters, I will not rent to him and will fight what he is trying to get passed.
Personally, I don't favor homogenized communities (which is what happens with a powerful federal government). In a true free country, communities are going to be more diverse (differences between them) and more internally homogeneous. That is for example, some communities will be predominantly Christian, some predominantly atheist/agnostic, some predominantly straight, some predominantly gay. These things will be enforced by practices like shunning. There's nothing wrong with this; it's the way it should be. Those who do not fit into the predominant class will just have to have thick hides - or move.
"People are less than whole unless they gather themselves voluntarily into groups of souls in harmony. Gathering themselves to pursue individual, family, and community dreams consistent with their private humanity is what makes them whole; only slaves are gathered by others."
-- John Taylor Gatto
You're not free if you're merely free to do what you want -- rather, you're free only when
you're free to do what you ought....
Who decides? The individual, of course...
I have to admit, this is a distinction that escapes me. If the individual decides, then he is free to do what he wants. Even if what he wants is harmful to himself. In fact, especially then.
-
I have to admit, this is a distinction that escapes me.
It makes more sense by thinking of freedom as more than just external political freedom. A person driven by wants may not really be free, even in a completely free political environment. Addiction is one obvious example, but I can think of others more subtle.
In general, the shorter one's time horizon is, the less free he is in the long run. Wants are immediate, oughts are long-term. I'd even go so far as to argue that the key feature of the decline of American society has been a dramatic shortening of so many people's time horizon.
What I'm guessing Boston was getting at was something like: getting involved in relationships based only on satisfying sexual wants prevents a person from being able to form more deep and meaningful relationships - and that gay relationships are the former by definition. The principle is correct, but I wouldn't agree that that applies inherently to gays, and lots of straight people make the same mistake.
Again, that's my interpretation, I don't want to put word's in Boston's mouth.
-
What I'm guessing Boston was getting at was something like:
getting involved in relationships based only on satisfying sexual wants prevents a person from being able to form more deep and meaningful relationships -
and that gay relationships are the former by definition.
Part A-- Absolutely!
Part B-- I call BS. Having known people in long term committed relationships (both women and men) I think this inaccurate. You may not think of them as "deep and meaningful relationships", but they certainly did.
Now if you limit your definition of "deep and meaningful relationships" to the ability to procreate then...that seems a very narrow limited view, and would mean that a heterosexual couple that could not procreate was a relationship "based only on satisfying sexual wants".
I can't imagine that anyone would limit their view in this manner?
-
You may not think of them as "deep and meaningful relationships", but they certainly did.
I said I disagreed with it. I said that I think that Boston might have meant that, but that is based on my own limited outsider understanding of a conservative Christian viewpoint, and the Biblical principles underlying it. I don't know if he or anyone else actually thinks so or not.
I can't imagine that anyone would limit their view in this manner?
From a Christian perspective, if homosexuality is wrong before God, then at the very least it interferes with a meaningful relationship with God, and thus, probably, with other aspects of a meaningful relationship. From my own perspective, homosexuality just is, for the vast majority of those who are, and the inability to procreate is, as you say, not at all unique to gays. There are many other things that make for meaningful relationships.
I'm not defending the view, and I'm not criticizing a view that I don't know for sure anybody holds. I was explaining what I think the meaning is of the phrase that Paul questioned, and speculating on how it relates to the thread topic. It is a meaning that I largely agree with, aside from that one possibly included detail.
Until Boston or someone else weighs in on what they actually think about it, I don't think I want to continue arguing a hypothetical position. Everything else I said in that post, aside from "Part B", are things I actually do believe, so have at those.
-
It makes more sense by thinking of freedom as more than just external political freedom. A person driven by wants may not really be free, even in a completely free political environment. Addiction is one obvious example, but I can think of others more subtle.
In general, the shorter one's time horizon is, the less free he is in the long run. Wants are immediate, oughts are long-term. I'd even go so far as to argue that the key feature of the decline of American society has been a dramatic shortening of so many people's time horizon.
What I'm guessing Boston was getting at was something like: getting involved in relationships based only on satisfying sexual wants prevents a person from being able to form more deep and meaningful relationships
That's a partial example of what I meant.
In my view, self-government is the key.
I realize that secular libertarians do not believe in the concept of "sin". (Only the ZAP rules.)
While the ZAP achieves much inter-personal order, it collapses as an intra-personal standard.
For that, we must look elsewhere.
My personal view of "ought" is necessarily colored by my being a Christian.
Biblically, sexual acts between males is not only a sin, but an "abomination".
While I wouldn't criminalize homosexuality, I also do not want to live near it.
This is not "homophobia", for a dislike/revulsion is not a fear.
We have opportunities to sin in a myriad of ways which do not violate the ZAP.
Laziness, drunkenness, adultery, reviling, etc.
These acts are "not good" for us, and demonstrably so.
Regarding homosexuality, there is much evidence to suggest that it is not good for people.
Even in ultra-tolerant Sweden, suicides amongst homosexuals is higher than for heteros.
Are homosexuals born or naturally inclined that way? Very probably.
However, we are all born or naturally inclined in some ways that in practice will prove personally unprofitable.
How much we recognize and deal with that is up to us.
None of what I just expressed, btw, has anything whatever to do with the FSW.
Believe in or scoff at the notion of "sin" as you will -- it does not affect anybody's SofI.
This thread really is moot, regarding the FSW, and I'm not keen on continuing it because
it seems potentially divisive. So, I'll close it here as we return to living freer Wyoming lives.
Boston
-
I'm taking advantage of my admin status to reply to this locked thread.
I didn't see the discussion getting hot. I think the original post was a valid one, and on topic in this board, and of interest to a lot of people. I don't think continuing such discussions are necessarily divisive. And despite not being a Christian, I don't scoff at the notion of sin. :)
-
Thanks for your thoughts on this, Paul, but I nonetheless disagree.
I still believe that this topic is irrelevant to the FSW and potentially divisive,
in the same camp as our threads on immigration and abortion.
Being of mere interest to many here is not, to me, a compelling counterweight.
So, I'd rather continue to err on the side of discretionary caution regarding topics as these.
Boston