This Is A Normal Brain
This Is A Brain On Dope
I am trending toward libertarian because I believe we can never shake the liberal control of government at all levels. It seems government just naturally fills itself with liberals.
Oddly enough, to me, the best way for a conservative society is to leave people alone, because people are naturally conservative.
I agree with libertarians on the idea of leaving other people alone, but what they don’t get is that there is a set of people who have no qualms about the reverse.
Your toilet tank is too big. We need another turtle tunnel. Solar power requires investment. Chinese prostitutes need training. These barbarians need help against those heathens. You shouldn't smoke a joint on your couch. The Grand Canyon is showing signs of erosion. We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt. Shrimp on treadmills. Etc ad nauseum.
Republicans want bigger government. Democrats want the same.
I'm tired of holding a gun to my neighbor's head.
Too bad we are not trending libertarian on issues such as the size of government, fiscal policy, spending, taxation, and following the US Constitution.
BTW-— I am NOT a libertarian. I am a Constitutionalist. I believe the federal government should limit its activities to those outlined in the Constitution. If we did that we wouldn’t be bankrupt.
As I understand it, a libertarian would say that a child has a right to the support of his natural father and mother, because they are the ones responsible for his existence--- right? They understand that children normally, and by right, derive their personal identity, their place in a kinship system, and their support and upbringing from their parents, unless something goes seriously amiss.
Another way of saying it is that libertarians would understand that normal parental obligation is not a violation of liberty, but an obligation arising from the parents' own actions.
If this is the case, how can they justify same-sex marriage, which is the foundation of a "family unit" in which any child would deliberately --- with intent and forethought --- be deprived of either his natural mother, or his natural father, or both?
Does this make sense?
Let me go just one step further and explain why this is not like, say, normal adoption.
In normal adoption, there's a problematic situation, a de-facto existing circumstance which everyone recognizes as unfortunate or tragic. A child has lost his parents through death or abandonment, or was placed for adoption because his parents are unwilling or unable to care for him. There is a recognized hurt (that's why a child being "orphaned" is regarded as a real loss.)
And it is a hurt, a loss, that was not produced, or willed, by the adoptive parents. They didn't kill or drive away or intentionally alienate his natural parents. They simply stepped into an already-existing sad situation to supply the child's needs: his need for a mom and a dad.
The gay family-building project is entirely different. It is predicated (most often) on bringing a child into existence intentionally cut off from one of both of his natural parents --- either by vendor insemination, or IVF, surrogate (reproductive concubine), or some other artificial reproduction technology. AND/OR, the child is being brought into a household where he will never, and CAN never, have his need met for a mom and a dad.
This is an intended brokenness. This is not an adaptive response to meet a child's need: the child's loss of one or both natural parents is a feature of the system.
Does anybody see that? From the point of view of a child who needs, and has a right to, a mother and a father, how can this be right?
This Is A Normal Brain
I hope not. Nihilistic Libertarians are so darned hard to be around. They’re not allies. They’re aliens.
No, America is trending on libertine and freedom without responsibility.
Interestingly we evidently don't have any libertarians here at freerepublic, everyone here wants to stop gay marriage.
