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 and DJMacWoW (maybe others, been too busy the last couple of days to really keep up on FR) have done yeoman’s work trying to “debate” with these idiots. ALthough each and every libertarian I’ve ever seen on FR (with very few exceptions) all say they don’t personally use any drugs, they just want the “freedom” to choose, seeing their irrational and actually psychotic “debate” techniques, I think they may be hitting the weed early and often.
Either zero critical thinking skills, blatant dishonesty, or both.
Fine you endorse the list as OK.
Libel, libel, and more libel. Is that all you have?
I do have the libertarian Party Platform on unlimited, Abortion on Demand with zero restrictions, want to see it again?
That is your choice, and the responsibility for your choices belongs to you.
Man, I can’t make heads nor tails of your posts.
Again, that is your choice to make, and the responsibility for the consequences of those decisions belongs to you. The concept of personal responsibility still applies to the decision to engage in wanton ignorance. When you choose to be ignorant, the responsibility for your ignorance lies with you.
You could at least consider, that you could make an effort to be a little more clear, and open with your posts.
“I havent read much of the thread but the Pharisees used the law to empower themselves and not to honor God.”
My point exactly. Unless a Federal Amendment is made, the Federal Government has no say in the issue that poster brought up. It doesn’t matter what side a person says they are on, if they are trying to empower themself over another. States issue marriage licenses, not the Federal Government. Pushing to get the Federal Government to make laws it IS NOT empowered to do, in the name of “godliness” is not godliness at all. Our Constitution was divinely inspired, and is able to be amended in a prescribed way. Circumventing the Constitution in order to get one’s way, is both hypocritical and Pharisiacal in ever facet. Propose a national amendment, get 3/4 of STATE legislatures to ratify it, and there’s a basis for the federal government to be in the equation.
I thank you for your time, and thoughtful post. My reply, for now, is brief, but I want you to know that we agree on many points, but maybe think differently about how they can/should be implemented/acheived.
“It is not those promoting moral absolutes who want Big Government.”
It’s not those *promoting* moral absolutes that are in the wrong, it’s those who are LEGISLATING SOME things that are none of their business. While I am feverently against many sinful behaviors, for example, the pornography store in your town, I am all for STATES being able to exercise the authority afforded for them by their own constitutions, within the scope of their powers. Democracy is inherently short lived, violent, and anti freedom as soon as living, breathing people are involved.
It is the overstepping of boundaries which allows/has allowed the decay we currently have. As you noted:
“For instance, the entire gamut of the homosexual agenda, the sex-positive movement which has been very influential in the form of sex-ed in schools, Planned Parenthood, and so on. How many parents are opposed to the crass and extreme immorality that is being taught in schools?”
Each and every one of those issues has come about becayse government at all levels was allowed to overstep it’s constitution/proper bounds, caused by an apathetic majority, and a vocal, agenda-pushing minority (on many issues). The answer is not, in my opinion, to get a vocal counter minority (however moral their posture) and get their agenda pushed either, but keep parent’s in charge of their children’s education (whether themselves directly, ie. homeschooling, or involved in the public schooling process), and people/adults in charge of, and responsible for, their behavior.
“You do know that when our country was first founded, gay sex was illegal.”
And was illegal in most states until only about a decade ago. However, was repealed, later in time. That is because of an apathetic public, or an appeasing one. In either case, the problem is with people, not laws.
The problem with unconstitutional laws (unless you change the constitution, like California did until a corrupt judge ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY reversed the law), is that eventually someone who disagrees will get power, eventually and the pendulum will swing the other way. If constitutions were followed, all parties pushing a minority agenda on a majority populace (with their own representation), would be stopped in their tracks. These problems stem from overstepping the appropriate legal bounds. Swinging the other way is never going to be the answer. And Morality CAN NEVER be legislated on a people. EVER. It, like communism, has NEVER, EVER worked. IT cannot work, and is not God’s way. He gave a law (two, actually, on which all else hang), if people don’t respect His laws, their not going to respect ones (wo)men make. It’s that simple.
I think I’m going to recuse myself from the remainder of the thread, since I’m not a libertarian anyway. I just wanted to say we (All of us in our communities and country) have to find the common moral ground upon which we can stand, and face the evils of our generation. I believe that we cannot EVER force another to do something, and God doesn’t do it either, until the final judgement. He allows us to choose, and gives us consequences to those actions, and lets us decide what we really want. But I also know that He never willfully afflicts His children, but rather through their disobedience suffer the inherent consequences of their actions, including death, at times.
But I know there is a right and a wrong, and I know that there are things that cannot be accepted and things that cannot be condoned, but there are also others that are not within my realm to punish or hand out judgement. God gave us laws to give us life. We as men, have create laws for our society to keep it from falling apart. I think we’ve (as a society) lost sight of that, and think new laws need to be created every time someone does something we disapprove of, or which is a sin. Well I think that’s inappropriate, but possible if the legal means is followed. The problem with that idea is that it’s VERY hard to get people to get on board with that, so the Constitution of the Nation and the State is ignored. That only leads to more decay, as saying some laws matter and some laws don’t, is in effect saying “No laws matter.” And that is a bad position to be in.
God’s laws matter and He, will be arbiter of them. I will just as surely decry a sin as anyone else, but I’m not going to presume to punish by law or by another means, a person who sins, and do it in God’s name. Vengence and final judgement are God’s alone. We can help and advocate and punish when someone afflicts another, for the safety of the helpless and victims, but I’m not going to punish someone for a wrong behavior that isn’t directed at me. There are more alternatives than trying to crush people that your disagree with, you can also stop giving them the very weapons they use to fight you with. Lean on and support the divinely inspired Constitution, and the agenda pushers wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, because they don’t have a foundation. That’s the remedy. Take care, and see you around.
Having tried that once, explicitly, the result showed that further attempts would be futile. You cannot make someone understand something they have consciously chosen not to.
Of course, that doesn't matter to you. As long as you get to repeat your lies. Isn't that a Commie propaganda tactic? The truth doesn't matter if you can repeat the lie often enough?
Even when we had Kathy Glass here, you tried to paint her as pro-abortion and got smacked down for it. Ron Paul is pro-life. Drew Carey, comedian and Reason TV contributor, is pro-life. I consider my self pro-life. And many others despite your silly assertion that we're a tiny minority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion
Even libertarians don't agree on everything, but please don't paint us all with the same brush.
I know that last bit there will have ZERO effect on you, but I felt I needed to try anyway.
No. Your posts aren't clear.
What part of 252 did you not understand?
Hope you have a great day. I have to paint.
No dance. I don't answer loaded questions. I said so outright, and stand firm right there. It is a simple idea, well within the grasp of any member of the forum. Your failure to understand it was of your own choosing, and the responsibility for your ignorance lies with you. No one else should have to assume the responsibility for mitigigating the consequences of your decisions.
It’s not ignorance. You danced. There’s been a lot of that going on on this thread. The question was clear. It was not “Have you stopped beating your wife”. Either one agrees with the list in Post 202 or you do not. Simple. Instead, you danced.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a simple question, too. You either have or you haven't. When you're presented with that kind of question and badgered for a simple "Yes/No" answer to a potentially complex question you know you're being set up. Nobody does that with intent of having an honest debate about it, they just want to play word games. If the dealer won't stop stacking the deck, it's time to kick over the table.
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.