Why are Libertarians opposing Proposition 8?

Ok, so, there's two kinds of Libertarians. I'm going to call one "Libertarians" and the other "Libertines." "Libertine" usually refers to a philosophy popular in the 17th-19th centuries characterized by being one "devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behavior sanctioned by the larger society." That's from Wikipedia. I use the term here because I watched the Libertarian convention and it was HI-JACKED by these Libertines who just wanted to be able to smoke pot, marry their malamute, or just not be taxed. I had to sit through HOURS of pot-heads, homosexuals, pedophiles, cannibals, skin-piercing enthusiasts, etc. just to hear a few snippets of genuine Libertarian philosophy. See, Libertarianism is about personal responsibility and accountability. Yes it means that if you want to shoot junk into your veins or have sex with an apple pie, no one should stop you. But it doesn't mean those are admirable things to do in your off time.

So, we end up with all these freaks in our party. What to do...I dunno, but that's why Ron Paul, a genuine Libertarian, refused when offered the Libertarian nomination after he lost at the Republican convention. It's also why Ann Coulter, my HERO, will not call herself a Libertarian, though everything about her screams it. Most philosophical Libertarians stay in the Republican party because they know that the best way to bring it about is to make the Republican party more libertarian , as an adjective. The same way most socialists vote for democrats. and not Ralph Nader.

Which brings me to Prop 8. A few questions first:

Why is the government involved in Marriage, as a legal term?

Why does the Government subsidize it with benefits such as tax breaks,
direct transfer of assets after death, and GREAT EXPENSE of court
resources to unscramble it when it goes awry?

What benefit does the State get from it to justify these subsidies?

Who, in their right mind, would want to get married in the first place?

The root answer to all this is children. The State benefits when children are born, brought up healthy, educated, and turned loose in a free market as stable, productive citizens. This is how economies grow. The more, the better.

So the government comes up with ways to promote, to entice, and to enhance the relationships that bring this about. This is not new. It has been going on for 6000+ years of recorded history.

There have been studies, some very recently, showing that the healthiest, most stable and productive children come from households based on a husband-wife, man-woman, relationship. A balanced child, way more often than not, has been raised through the influence of both father and mother. Most people don't need to be told this, but some people won't believe shit tastes bad unless there has been a "study" to prove it.

Marriage is not subsidized by governments because people "love" each other. Love has nothing to do with it. Love is a fleeting, irresponsible emotion. It is much better to base a marriage on respect and devotion. Love comes when it comes, and it comes more often, and is more resilient, when there is respect and devotion. Anyone who gets married because they are in love should get their head examined. Which is why it is soooooo important to teach your children respect for other human beings and devotion to your principles, and to have principles in the first place, and to make sure those principles are ones worth having.

It is clear to me that opponents of Proposition 8 misunderstand Marriage, its purpose, function, benefit, and consequences. I suspect their opposition is based on something other than what they are telling us. In 1999, they got equal rights under the Domestic Partnership law. All they are really fighting for now is the "right" to call it "marriage." They feel it will be more legitimate if they get to call it "marriage." Spreading cream cheese on a cow patty doesn't make it a bagel. I really think it is based on envy and a desire to have their lifestyle legitimized by society. What they don't understand is that I can't legitimize their lifestyle any more than I can legitimize someones desire to grow a soccer ball tree. You can try all you want; I won't stop you. But I'm not going to tell other people you are engaged in a worthy cause, or fighting the good fight, or try to get you farm subsidies, just like the orange growers get.

And don't tell me I hate homosexuals. I don't. I just don't understand it. I just can't understand how a man can not be fascinated by tits. It's un-natural. I understand lesbianism better; hell, I sympathize. My feminine side is a lesbian. This is not a liver-and-onions thing, either, where you either like eating it or not. This is like saying you don't like EATING.

But there is a reason there is two genders on this planet. Whether you believe in God or not, it is so we can pro-create. The sex drive either came from god to people the planet or was a mutation that caused the species to survive by sheer numbers. Every species. Heterosexual sex is not merely one of many possible sexual "orientations." It is the only orientation. All other types of sexual activity are more accurately described as "re-orientations" or simply perversions. Included in this is fellatio, butt-piracy, foot fetishes, armpit-lovers, and scat/watersports enthusiasts. And while I have been known to indulge in perversions from time to time, I by no means am about to base an entire relationship on them and then try to make society feel bad for not acknowledging it and subsidizing it.

Which brings me to my last point: Homosexuality has none. No point that is. None beyond your own selfish desire to grow soccer ball trees. It has no benefit to society, no benefit to the economy, and no benefit to the human race. It only benefits the homosexual. And does it, really? I would respect it more if they just said they were doing their part to prevent over-population.

Libertarians should not hound homosexuals into hiding. But they should not subsidize an activity without any benefit. Spending the peoples money without getting any concrete, verifiable benefit goes against Libertarian philosophy.