[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Very boring. As you should have been able to discern, the post and citation concerned global condom distribution and the question of abstinence in the young conservative's comment i.e., he was talking about sexual controversies. It does NOT "regulate" the behavior of others merely to NOT fund UN depopulation schemes. No one is prevented in the United States of America from purchasing condoms or fornicating freely and privately in the leisure of their own home. Hence, no one is being "regulated" by conservatives or conservative policies on this matter. The pseudo "libertarian" spin on this is rather lame.

Tom Paine was an extremist wacko, by the way. Totalitarian secular humanism is not part of the conservative tradition. Nor is it mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Paine's Jacobinism died a deserving death in the gallows of 18th-century France. No serious man romanticizes that or venerates its memory.

[NutCrackerBoy]

No one is being "regulated" by conservative policies on this matter.

Not on that matter. However, if conservative policies that I espouse are a form of "regulation" of others' behavior, I want to have the intellectual honesty to call it that.

Sodomy. I don't believe the Constitution guarantees a right to sodomy. I would be opposed to any per se anti-sodomy laws in my state. But I am not opposed to anti-incest laws. That is regulating someone's private behavior.

Gay marriage. That phrase is now universally used: "the FMA is a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage." What I really think is happening is that you had (proper) governmental support for an ancient institution, marriage, which has been uniformly a union of one man and one woman, and is a foundation of civilization. Noone was prosecuted for calling their homosexual unions "marriage". So you have the beginnings of an informal institution of gay unions. I have no problem with that. But it seems to me that the gay marriage advocates now want to use the awesome power of government to force everyone to treat this new thing as exactly the same as the old thing. An incredibly absurd idea.

[tpaine]

What current "conservative" policies "regulate the behavior of others"?
No idea what on earth you could be
thinking of.
28 HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

______________________________________

Absurd claim you make. You have "no idea" that ALL levels of our governments, -- fed/state/local, -- are making ever increasing numbers of 'laws' to regulate the behavior of others?

Virtually every other post on FR is made about some new outrageous 'law' imposed upon us by the RinoCratic regime that infests DC, and every Statehouse in the USA.

Pretending that the GOP is blameless in our slide into socialism is ludicrous.
34 tpaine

______________________________________


-- no one is being "regulated" by conservatives or conservative policies on this matter. The pseudo "libertarian" spin on this is rather lame.

Tom Paine was an extremist wacko, by the way. Totalitarian secular humanism is not part of the conservative tradition. Nor is it mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Paine's Jacobinism died a deserving death in the gallows of 18th-century France. No serious man romanticizes that or venerates its memory.
38 Howling-Absurdities

______________________________________


Whatever.
Get back to me when you want to address the issue.

Your claim that there are no
'-- conservative policies that regulate the behavior of others --' is a howler.

The renewal of the AWB is just one such 'conservative policy' supported by the current administration. You have 'any ideas' about it?

[EternalVigilance]

Tom Paine was an extremist wacko, by the way. Totalitarian secular humanism is not part of the conservative tradition. Nor is it mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Paine's Jacobinism died a deserving death in the gallows of 18th-century France. No serious man romanticizes that or venerates its memory.

One of the best summaries of Tom Paine and his philosophy I've ever seen.

Good work.