Here is an example of a libertarian who opposes the redefinition of marriage:
http://www.calicocat.com/gay_marriage.htm
The definition for what entails a marriage should be between you, your intended consenting spouse, and your priest. Government should never factor in to it unless consent to the marriage has not been given (forced marriage) or the persons being wed are of a condition whereby they cannot give consent(under age or mental retardation).
For example, I am not a Christian. The closest religion to my personal beliefs is Nordic Asatru. Under thier rules, I can have as many wives and kids as I can feed and protect. For me, this means one wife and a couple of kids. It could be different for others, but that is their concern and none of mine. Since the old writtings explicitly state that the purpose of marriage is for the lineage of the offspring, gay marriage would be impossible as there could never be children. Adopted kids don't count nor would artificial insemination of a lesbian. Marrying within a family was considerd a corruption of blood and the long term genetic effects of inbreeding are irrefutable.
Christian tenets are different. As are Muslim, Judaic, Shinto, and Buddhist. It isn't my Right to tell them thier beliefs are right or wrong.
g-monkey opines:
He won't say it in those words, but he already admits that he does.
How clever that you actually read my answer to that question, but can't really understand its logic.
The same logic that he extends would extend to polyamory, polygamy and a host of other perversions.
You see them as "perversions", whereas millions, if not billions, of people see nothing wrong with such marriages. -- Just as our Constitution rightly ignores such issues.
Hey Tpaine, here is one for you, you say "Consenting adult". What exactly should the age of consent be? Be specific in your definition please. For example, should there be a magic cutoff age (18), or something else?
I like 18, -- it seems to be a reasonable age for entering service, voting, etc.
Please give justification on why you set your age at whatever level you do.
Why should I 'justify' that to you? You have a problem with 18? -- Spit it out..
Libertarians have no problems with judicial activist decisions like Lawrence, Roe, and other's provided it's their atheistic worldview that is legislated.
Wrong; -- libertarians have diverse 'problems' with all sorts of world-views.. Your trolling generalizations are ludicrous.
Another perfect example would be the fact that Libertarians are wholeheartly in favor of redefining the institution of marriage. They swoon over the idea of letting a Federal Court, Federalize an area that has ALWAYS been the sole authority of the individual States. They have no problem running roughshod over the rights of a supermajority of people in States like Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ect... Just to support an extremly radical superminority, who most likely suffers from some sort of mental illness. Under no circumstances can the Constitution or any of it's amendments be read to allow the redefinition of marriage nationwide. It's solely left up to the individual states. Yes, that does mean that States like MA can make whatever mockery of marriage that they want, however, it also means that normal folks in normal states can defend marriage and protect it in their law and Constitutions. Yet Libertarians support the homosexual mafia's attempt to invent a new right and destroy the institution of marriage. Which goes back to the political systems grid. Libertarians are in the same box as Democrat Liberals on that issue.
BTW: I'll be fair, not all libertarians support the destruction and wholesale redefinition of marriage.
But the majority of them do, and their Political Platform does.
Here is an example of a libertarian who opposes the redefinition of marriage: http://www.calicocat.com/gay_marriage.htm
Weird rant my boyo.. -- What do you think you've proved?