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?
The Constitution leaves marriage law squarely up to the Individual States, it's been that way Since (And preceeding) that Constitution.
Libertarians now want to strip that power away from the States and FORCE all States to support their mocking view of marriage.
I like 18, -- it seems to be a reasonable age for entering service, voting, etc.
Since 18 is your limit do you support or oppose laws that criminalize sexual conduct for those under the age of 18.
Wrong; -- libertarians have diverse 'problems' with all sorts of world-views.. Your trolling generalizations are ludicrous.
Why don't you spell it out for us from your perspective. Do you support the premise of the federal judiciary stripping away a power that has aways been within the realm of the individual states?
Weird rant my boyo.. -- What do you think you've proved?
That the overwhelming majority of libertarians (libertines) support running roughshod over the Constitution when it suits their agenda. (Roe V Wade, the Redefinition of marriage ect...)