Well, I'll simply leave that alone for now.
When I was born, there were already laws on the books. I didn't put them there. I didn't advocate that they be put there. There they were. There they are today.
Now, given that environment, I'm saying that I would find it hard to justify, as a Christian, personally advocating the repeal of an existing law against, say, prostitution. Or gambling. Or pornography. Or recreational drug use.
It just doesn't feel right to be legalizing behavior that Christians recognize as sinful. It seems counterproductive. I don't understand how a Christian, like yourself, could advocate that. I don't see how a political philosophy, like libertarianism, could trump one's religious beliefs or even coexist with it.
On the other hand, I don't feel inclined to personally advocate the writing of new laws against sinful behavior. Like a law against infidelity, for example. I'm more of a status quo kind of guy -- a conservative.
Well, I suppose that's where we differ too. I think that the typical "status quo" politicians we are stuck with on both sides of the aisle are almost all schmucks, and I don't want them legislating my morality.
Anyhow, the main point of my post was that I hope you didn't interpret my posts upthread as somehow questioning your Christian beliefs or that somehow I am "more Christian" than you.
Can't stick around much longer as Jeff has a date tonight for a change. And yes, if you must know, this chick is a Catholic. She's hawt though.
Apparently a very short time period satisfies your "status quo".
FFLs didn't exist from 1776 to 1968.
The "storefront requirement" didn't exist from 1968 to around 1998.
Government interference for less than about 10 years fits "conservative"?
You have a very strange notion of "conservative" and "status quo".