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?
You don’t read minds very well, the libertarian position is definitely, without question, a proabortion agenda.
Abortion is a firm, pure, and unambiguous part of their party platform and the libertarian philosophy.
Apparently FR is now a pro-sodomy, pro-anarchy, pro-child sexuality promoting, pro-drugs, pro-homosexual agenda website.
Incredible.
Of course. But like all agendas, the homosexaul agenda is all about benefit in one way or another. The sure way to stop at least a part of it is to get government out of marriage.
In a way, it's much like our problem with illegal immigration. If living here weren't a bonanza of freebies, you'd find that we wouldn't have much of a problem.
I think most of us can agree that we don't care what homosexuals do in private. So perhaps that should be our push. To move it out of the public sphere.
Be sure to register your complaint with the management.
I don't disagree. Which of course would explain why I'm a member of the Republican Libertarian Caucus, and not the Libertarian party. Now, if you're at all honest, you'll acknowledge that the RLC rejects vast portions of the Libertarian Party platform, including the abortion planks.
Before you erase marriage, don’t you think that you should be proving something? This childish fantasy world that you people live in is amazing.
Redefining marriage as anything, that anyone on earth wants to create and formally label as “marriage” in America, is a position that only a radical post 1960s leftist could promote.
What then would we call “marriage”, do you really think that normal people would not have to create a word for “marriage”, so that each other would know what they meant when they mentioned that their niece is getting “married”?
The burden on the courts would be massive as they untangled the legal divisions of 8 moms, 3 dads, 21 kids, and a million dollars worth of assets for a “marriage”.
The homosexual agenda is much more than benefits, they themselves admit that.
It is about changing society, they have admitted it over and over again, and Libertarianism is cheerfully assisting them.
Yet there you were defending the proabortion libertarian argument, and posting to me in defense of it, and against my prolife position.
You chose not to disagree with that, does that list meet with your approval?
Interestingly, the idea of being a Theocracy was brought up and discarded. Sorry, no government morality enforcement for you...
As a low-life back-handed libelous personal attack against people you have a disagreement about the Constitution and the enumerated powers of the federal government with, I'd say it's pretty well complete.
As a low-life back-handed libelous personal attack against people you have a disagreement about the Constitution and the enumerated powers of the federal government with, I'd say it's pretty well complete.
You sir, lie.
Basic biology seems to be as far over your head as the concept of a limited government apparently is. Here's a link you may find edifying.
You scream that you want a Constitutional government and then work to discredit that very premise.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am discrediting anything other than you. Art 1 Sect 8 is very explicit, as is the Bill of Rights.
What you REALLY want is anarchy.
No. What I want is Constitutional governance and the freedom back that has been stolen by both the Commies and the Nanny State. If you equate any and all return to limited government with "anarchy", then you are no better than the Commies and gays you are b*tching about.
You really are a liberaltarian.
Oh... Such cutting wit. Whatever shall I do with my life now that your have slung such a meaningless, childish, and utterly vacuous pejorative at me.
Scratch you Nanny Staters and you find a petty dictator just under the surface. Every time... You are every bit as bad as the progressive commies you decry.
Thanks for nothing...
No, you are the liar, here is your post.
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.
198 posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:21:55 AM by Melas
I have never mentioned religion. And I never mentioned federal sodomy laws. You have. And only you. Apparently the only way you can debate is by adding things that other posters never said.
That wasn’t clear, did you think that it was OK for FR to go with that list, or should we go against it?
Nothing you quoted defends a pro-abortion position. I repeat, you’re a liar.
Theocracy is a system of government wherein the actual members of government are religious hierarchy.
It does not mean a government whose laws are informed by morality which is based on religious principles.
I suppose “Taliban” is next on the list.
I wrote a long comment last night which addresses the non-neutrality of government. Read it.
You are down to the name calling.
In a discussion between two freepers on anti abortion law, you defended the one that was against the prolife law, and went after the one that was defending it.
This was an accurate post, you need to truth up.
“Yet there you were defending the proabortion libertarian argument, and posting to me in defense of it, and against my prolife position.
208 posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:45:26 AM by ansel12”
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.