Posted on 10/03/2010 5:59:15 PM PDT by Celtic Cross
Recently, I was considering becoming a member of the Libertarian Party. I admit I knew little about the party, except that they are for smaller government. I visited their website, and this is what I found...
The party's views of gay unions and abortion are as follows;
"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
I know that there are many libertarians here on FR, and I would appreciate it if they weighed in. How can you affiliate yourselves with a party that at least appears to disagree with many basic conservative principles?
Liar. Freedom of religion. Not freedom FROM religion as the Atheists want, nor freedom of only ONE religion as people like you want. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God..." as the quote from Jefferson goes.
The muzzies and the gays have no more Right to use government to force their "agenda" than you do.
As it should be.
When in doubt, libel your opposition. Did you learn that one from your friends across the aisle?
I do not want government involved in marriage AT ALL. Hetero or Gay. My marriage to my wife is one of faith and is between us only.
The only people who want to stick their noses in this are either the militant gays or idiots like you. BOTH of you deserve a smack down.
When was the time that your new found freedom for homosexuals to “marry” and Muslims to have their multiple wives exist in America?
When did marriage not have government involvement in America?
Here's Blackstone's take on it...
OUR law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract. The Holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law: the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriages as a sin, but merely as a civil inconvenience.
Doesn't really speak well of your position when you can't articulate it better. As I said, the less government involvement, the fewer problems we'll have with fringe groups like those in the gay community.
When did marriage not have government involvement in America?
And like the post office and the DMV, you really want the government to have MORE control?
I stand by my "idiot" pronouncement. You prove it correct with every subsequent post.
We need to eliminate the corruption of marriage by making it mean only a man and a woman, or else you homosexual/Muslim agenda guys will win in the war against America.
“Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.”
You aren't a "conservative". You are a tyrant wanna-be.
At heart, I want to keep marriage as it has always been in America.
In your heart, you are serving the homosexual/Muslim agenda by calling for the end of marriage as defined and enforced by law, and letting them make of it what they want.
“Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.”
You know, making the same assertion over and over again with nothing to back it up and no facts with which to base it on...
Just makes you an idiot.
That assertion is the bald fact of the matter, you are pushing the gay agenda on this marriage deal, and there is no way around that.
You need to find a different Country to live in.
When the previous poster said “Admission to citizenship” I read as “Admission or citizenship,” I think. Sorry, it was late for me. I was thinking that (s)/he was meaning before coming to the U.S.A. that they had to know those things, whoops. You are correct, thanks for responding, I didn’t know the guidelines, time-wise.
“What part of my statement that I was explaining libertarian thought, which was not necessarily my own opinion, don’t you get?”
The part where you were unemotional, cogent and reasoned. The problem is that the attitude you’re up against is a knee-jerk “I’m going to force my idea on you, and use my interpretation of Totalitarian, ‘conservative,’ government, in order to force you to do the ‘right thing’ (as I define it, no less) or you a muslim, bigot, homosexual agenda-pushing blankity blank.”
What a joke, read through the posts. In some people’s zeal to force everyone to do what they want, and use “government” to back it up, forget what history has shown. You can neither legislate morality, nor is forcing people to do things God’s will, nor will anyone ever comply, beyond the amount that you can apply pressure without getting a reprisal.
Sorry to interject myself into your discussion, but someone had to point it out, again. (Another poster already did, but less thoroughly).
“All too often, I get the feeling that a certain brand of conservatism differs only from liberalism in the areas that it wants government to join them in forcing their beliefs on others.”
Nailed it, and it’s overly apparent that this is a dogmatic “my denomination is better than yours” argument, as the poster has referenced 3 different religions in multiple posts. (S)/he has a over-zealous “my religion” is better than yours axe to grind, accusing people of following whatever line of thinking (s)/he thinks will be the easiest strawman to build up and tear down. It’s sad, really.
“...but it really isn’t the job of the Federal government to do anything about it on an everyday basis. Yes, you can have laws against murder of course and even for libertarians, they is OK since you are harming another person but I just believe the Federal government is there to do certain things like defense, have a road/air traffic system, handle issues between the States and work on foreign policy. You might add a few sundry things like send up a space shuttle or two, but not much beyond that.
Unless we go through the Amendment process on things like gay marriage, the Federal government should be silent on the matter. Same with abortion.
Most of these issues are to be left up for each State to decide and both sides of these issues do have access to the legislative process to change and modify the laws in the States. So it should be up to us who favor traditional marriage to work in the system to preserve it and or change it back while the other side would work to allow homosexual marriage. I know there will be States to where we would lose and we must accept that but I do believe most States would keep traditional marriage. That is the nature of our system under the Constitution.”
Thank you. Too many people want an over arching FedGov to dictate to people what they can and cannot do. That is the very idea of “liberalism.” The FedGov has a place, and the States have a place, as do counties, and municipalities. The fundamental flaw in getting an over-arching all powerful FedGov, as some are pushing for, is that it is, in very principle, evil, as it abridges man’s ability to choose, eventually....anything. Then, we wind up with moral decay, and the present situation. Under our system of government, the Federal Government is small (the fact that Federal Officials are committing treason and overstepping bounds all over, and that our state officials have been heretofore complicit, is not lost on me), and state governments are small, and the people, not officials reserve the right to give or take POWERS, NOT rights, to government at any level.
People have been trying to live their lives, and ignore what’s going on, largely thinking that as long as they stand in line, they’ll be fine, or worse...be provided for. But this is not the case. Big government never saves, and seldom leaves anything behind. Despots are a dime a dozen, give anyone power, and they’ll gravitate towards it. I firmly believe the Founders did NOT include term limits in our founding documents so that we would learn this one simple fact: Freedom is the responsibility of EVERY generation, and cannot be handed down to the next. Each generation must restore/reinvigorate/refresh/whatever-term-you-please Freedom, because it’s shelf-life is short, and the decay of immorality is ever present. We have to take a stand for what we believe in, each and every day, of each and every year, for each and every generation, or NO SYSTEM of Government, no matter how true, or noble can protect us.
“You aren’t a “conservative”. You are a tyrant wanna-be.”
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. The problem is that the Constitution to the United States of America, can only govern a moral people, it is inadequate (wholly!) to govern anyone else. I find myself learning more and more, each day, that like the reactionary Pharisees of millenia gone by, that those who want laws to force behavior on everyone else, are those who have the hardest time, or are incapable of governing themselves.
Rather than focus on the populace becoming a moral people, and getting them to be accountable for their own actions, some people want to legislate their personal ideal of “morality” into the lives of everyone, to the point that no one has any free choice anymore, the foundation of any moral society.
Now, that having been said, there are still things that are abominable, and should be responded to, in appropriate ways. Abortion, is a state issue, and I believe should be responded to in each state, unless a Federal Amendment to the Constitution is passed (As it would have to pass the Constitutional hurdles, and an overwhelming majority of state legislatures). As I posted to this agitator, I voted for the traditional marriage amendment in my state, and it’s passed. But that’s not good enough for him/her. (S)/he’s got a religiON (not religiOUS) axe to grind, that’s clouding her/his ability to reason. Which is sad, because religion is a good thing, and so is morality, and so is marriage, ordained and sanctioned of God. But to call everyone who is not for Big Government an Islam/Homosexual proponent is misguided and juvenile at best.
Agreed. On all points actually. Kudos. :-)
Not as entertaining as that once was.
Libertarians, according to their own admission, want homosexuals in the military.
Even though most in the military abhor it.
So I guess a strong military is stupid to libertarians. Or maybe they’re Code Pinkish?
_____________________________
I wouldn’t put it that way. I’ve worked with people I didn’t much care for - whether it was simply a personality issue, a political issue or even a hygiene issue. Bottom line, my job required me to work with them & I did. My sweetie is an ex-Sub guy, I worked with another ex-Sub guy. Both are very tolerant of gays. As long as the gays aren’t hitting on you, they are just another person with idiosyncrisies to deal with.
I would simply make it clear from a staff management viewpoint that unwanted advances are strictly forbidden & anyone’s bad behavior will result in immediate disciplinary action.
Nicely said, & I completely agree.
Your sweetie and the two Sub guys you know are most of the military, I see.
If you don’t think open homosexuality would be a huge problem in the military, either you haven’t thought things through or you have no idea what the homosexual agenda is all about (which is hard to believe if you read even cursorily on FR), or you’re okay with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.