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?
We have never had anything other than man and woman, and you know that.
You are firmly into promoting this homosexual agenda stuff, even to the point of ending marriage.
Not sure why you think your marriage is only there because of the State. Could be that psychosis of yours acting up again.
“Marriage has always been defined in the Judeo/Christian world, in America, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman, and it has always been limited to that, it has never been open to individual definition.”
That’s true. But in many faiths, a piece of paper from the state doesn’t necessarily mean two people are really married, even if they are a man and a woman.
“Now that libertarianism/leftism has led to a splintering, and breakdown of American culture...”
I would say that is a result of relying on gubberment to protect, administer, and define things like charity, education and the institution of marriage.
Freegards
Not sure what the purpose of that post was, a church can have it’s own internal rules about not recognizing a marriage within their church, but they cannot tell the people involved that they are not married outside of that particular churches confines, a church also cannot change marriage from a man and woman, and supersede government laws in regards to limits on marriage, such as in age, number of partners, etc.
If anything, it proves that you can’t let individual churches define legal marriage, because today that would mean absolute chaos and every definition possible under the sun, which of course means that the word marriage would become useless. Someone could say “married” and we would not know anything about what that word meant, 1 person? 12? how many sexes?, animals?
As far as government growth, it seems to parallel a libertarian/liberal imposition of immorality, immigration and libber/liberal social deconstruction of our culture and community.
“a church can have it’s own internal rules about not recognizing a marriage within their church, but they cannot tell the people involved that they are not married outside of that particular churches confines..”
Sure they can. It’s up to the folks in question if they take the faith’s take on their marriage or whatever the state chooses to say about it. It’s just a shame gubberment can punish if folks don’t go along with their ever changing take on marriage.
“a church also cannot change marriage from a man and woman, and supersede government laws in regards to limits on marriage, such as in age, number of partners, etc.”
That’s right. Marriage is marriage, and no faith can change it. But the state also can’t do these things, just like they can’t pass a law that declares night as being day.
As regards “limits to marriage” that a state imposes and if a faith can ignore them, what would happen if a state refused to issue lisences to a particular faith in retaliation for not “marrying” folks according to the state’s ever-changing definition? Would the folks in that faith be married or not? My take on it would be that if a real marriage took place, then they would be married even if they didn’t have a piece of paper from the state saying they were. Just like folks with a piece a paper from the state saying they are married aren’t really married unless a real marriage took place.
FReegards
No they can’t, that church “cannot tell the people involved that they are not married outside of that particular churches confines” I didn’t mean the building, I meant outside of the denomination, America recognizes their marriage.
Government has never changed on the man woman rule of marriage.
Once something is recognized by law as “marriage”, then it would exist, and would be so defined, the word marriage will mean whatever the definition is.
The Mormons had an army, and they still could not legalize polygamy in America, and were driven outside of the states, now the homosexuals and the Muslims have the libertarians to fight for them.
“No they can’t, that church “cannot tell the people involved that they are not married outside of that particular churches confines” I didn’t mean the building, I meant outside of the denomination,”
A faith can consider folks married or not no matter where the folks involved consider themselves to be.
“America recognizes their marriage”
America could recognize the moon as being made of blue cheese; it still wouldn’t be.
“Government has never changed on the man woman rule of marriage.”
Yes it has, in certain places and times. If the state happily coincided in it’s definition of marriage with actual marriage at all times folks would be much less likely to accept impossibilities like “gay marriage”.
“Once something is recognized by law as “marriage”, then it would exist, and would be so defined, the word marriage will mean whatever the definition is.”
“Gay marriage”, as recognized and defined by law, cannnot exist, no matter the punishments gubberment can inflict. The folks walking around who are the same sex who have pieces of paper from the state saying that they are married are not married and can never be married.
“The Mormons had an army, and they still could not legalize polygamy in America, and were driven outside of the states, now the homosexuals and the Muslims have the libertarians to fight for them.”
A group of people who consider themselves married without a piece of paper from the state saying they are married are just as married as if they had a piece of paper from the gov’t saying they are married to multiple partners, which is to say not married at all.
Freegards
When you sober up, try again.
“When you sober up, try again.”
God bless you, FRiend.
Freegards
Sounds like a plan. Of course in 1790 no porn was legal, and homosexuals were either executed, banished, or castrated, or two out of three!
I haven’t had time to check back on this thread but it’s a glowing example of dishonest debate (on the liberaltarian side of course) and proof that Libertarianism will forever remain a tiny group of extremist pathological kooks who will never have any power.
I notice that ansel has no answer to that.
And, really, one need not turn slippery anselesque tactics back on their originator, judo-style -- one need only take the "return to America of 1790" at its word.
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.