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?
Ever heard the name "Anthony Comstock"? The federal government's involvement in the abortion issue started with him.
Have a nice day.
Comstock couldn't control his own amabition and desire to enforce his religous conviction on others through the federal government. He is responsible for the unintended consequences, whether you'll admit it or not.
Good day to you, too.
I never mentioned slavery. You brought that homosexual talking point into it.
All of you need to be mindful that the homosexual agenda isn't welcome on FR. This is NOT a liberaltarian website. It is Conservative.
Again, have a nice day.
This is a prolife forum, pushing abortion is not a winning argument.
That, or an Impala. Used to be a good car, in the early ‘70’s. Back when Detroit was a city.
We also don't look kindly on misrepresenting other people's arguments and accusing them of saying things the didn't. I'm not pushing abortion, I'm pushing the truth. You deny that there are any "big government moralists", but history says otherwise and it says our road to Hell is paved with their good intentions.
You are making an argument against the 1873 law keeping our federal postal system from serving as the delivery service for abortion materials to the states.
A total misrepresentation of my position, but somehow I'm not surprised.
To be clear: The homosexual agenda is centered around gaining benefit via the legal (that's government deary) recognition of marriage. I'm 100% against it. The government needs to get out of the business of granting certain citizens benefit by virtue of their living arrangements. Marriage would do just fine if it were no longer a legal matter.
Not just "abortion materials", but all materials and information related to contraception. And that law defined abortion as just another form of contraception, rather than murder.
Can you make a case in favor of that law with the appropriate reference to the enumerated power that grants the federal government the authority to prevent it?
Oh yes, the old "I know lots of homosexuals, they all vote R, they loathe the "gay" agenda, they keep to themselves, they don't mess with boys in Thailand, etc". Next!
Yes, there are extreme left-wing types with agendas, but we’re always going to be fighting them. Don’t lump them all together.
It's like moderate Moslems - supposedly they exist, but how often do we hear Moslems protesting against their jihadi brethren? Crickets. Most homosexuals do support the militant and radical homoseuxal agenda, and it is being and has been enforced primarily via Judges Gone Wild for a couple of decades. Next!
Freedom - if I want it for myself, I have to allow it for others.
If you want "freedom" which means "their agenda being pushed" (since no one is saying homosexuals should be jailed or executed!) for people solely because of their mental illness/perversion, then you must also accord "freedom" to affiandos of bestaility, necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, and so on. You have no philosophical reason not to.
It would cease to exist, and we would have to create a new word for real "marriage" for the normal people.
The 1873 law prevented the federal government from serving as the delivery service for obscene materials, which included abortion materials.
You wanted the federal government to perform that service for the abortionists.
It’s easy to say that it would cease to exist. Prove it.
I wanted the power to decide left with the States, where it belonged.
Trying to characterize opposition to making the federal government an enforcing moral authority as promoting immorality is too low to work here.
Nonsense. The homosexual agenda is much, much more that same sex marriage. You’ve never read any articles on FR about what GLSEN started by Kevin Jennings, 0bama’s safe schools Czar (or maybe Vice Czar..) is doing in schools? That’s just one of the many ways the homosexual agenda is trying to destroy society. Homosexuals in the military. Homosexuals fostering and adopting children. Homosexual teachers and counselors and “Day of Silence”. Hate crimes and hate speech laws. And much more.
Melas, you act as though you are highly intelligent. Surely you cannot think everyone reading this thread is so stupid and uninformed that they thing same sex marriage is all there is to the homosexual agenda.
Besides that, the reasons for homosexual marriage are not about love and commitment.
Ansel knows that you’re not promoting abortion on Free Republic. However he/she believes that by accusing you of doing so, he/she can cow you into silence. It’s one of the oldest and cheapest tricks in the book. It is however interesting that the staunch moralists and lovers of big government seem to be especially prone to going down that road.
LOL, too bad that you weren’t there to keep those federal employees busy disseminating those abortion materials to all the little individual, little federally protected mail boxes, at every American home in the land.
Too bad you weren't there to keep them from including the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution, or coming up with that idea of a national government with limited, enumerated powers.
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.