[Need help defining these terms? Just ask!]

Looks like I am perfectly welcome here, then.

and you called covid the china virus, that means you are racist

How is that racist?

already explained to you

I already explained to you why it isn't racist.

It's not racist.

You’ve decided to stop being one of these?

I was not any of those in the first place.

Do you support the right of same-sex marriage?

I believe the government should be taken out of it, and it should instead be made a religious decision.

But if ‘married’ is a government-sanctioned, legal status, then religion should play no part in it.

Do you realize how neo-nazi you sound? We shouldnt have same sex marriage because of a religion? Thats f**king dumb, such a nazi

How am I sounding like a neo-Nazi? And when did I say there shouldn't have same sex marriage because of a religion? I just said that it should not be for the government to decide.

if hitler would still exist he would love you

Hitler and the Nazis hated Catholics and the Catholic Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_views_on_Catholicism

And equating someone who doesn't like gay marriage to Nazism is a false equivalency and frankly incredibly insulting to the people the actual Nazis enslaved and genocided.
Not to mention it's completely overused.

Your complacency is noted

lol u removed me from owner of imgflip.com/m/Finance

how petty

[for purposes of this stream, this is not an attack on Trump]

Pretty sure he wouldn't.

What if two same-sex parishioners of a church decide they want to be married, and want a religious ceremony in their own church (having prayed over it and believing sincerely that their God permits it), but their pastor refuses?

Then they either can’t get married at all, or they have to leave the church.

Who is to say that the pastor’s judgment of what their religion “truly” says about gay marriage, is more legitimate than the parishioners’ own beliefs formed after thought, prayer, and reflection?

If the government “stays out of it,” then pastors become tinpot dictators over this important rite-of-passage in citizens’ lives. Governments shouldn’t stand for that.

In this and many other cases you’ll find, at the end of the day, a government has to be in the business of protecting its citizens’ rights, or they will inevitably be stripped away by private parties acting as bigots.

I am a libertarian, and you are clearly more authoritarian. We have different ideas on what is fair.

Libertarianism is hyper-focused on government tyranny and totally overlooks the private kind.

Indeed, governments can tread on rights worst of all (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot), but only if the wrong sorts of people are in charge. And governments that allow private tyranny (slavery being the most dramatic example) aren’t much better.

A minimal, nightwatchman state is untenable given the complex challenges of the world — from pandemics to wars to hate groups to terrorism to you-name-it.

There is no substitute for a strong government that protects citizens’ rights, understands science, is responsive to new information and communicates it forthrightly to its citizens, and is capable of marshaling resources to counter threats.

A minarchist night-watchmen state protects the rights of its citizens. A government that allows slavery would be anarchist. And a big government that intervenes excessively is totalitarian and fascist. Minarchism is a perfect balance.

"And I do not support a government that allows slavery, because I am a minarchist, not an anarchist."

it appears General Sherm's point sailed clear over your head

I did not miss his point. He said that a government that allows slavery is anarchist. But since I am minarchist, not anarchist, I do not support slavery.

Your claim: A government that supports slavery is "anarchist"

Ight then

--Was the U.S. an "anarchist state" prior to the Civil War?
--Was Great Britain for that matter, prior to abolishing slavery?

They would certainly be anarchist in some ways.

Having fought and defeated a treasonous breakaway republic that dedicated itself to the notion of preserving slavery -- a Confederacy which was more than capable of mustering armies, marshalling resources, and engaging in foreign diplomacy -- Mr. Sherman here would beg to differ with you

And I do not support a government that allows slavery, because I am a minarchist, not an anarchist.