Posted on 03/03/2009 10:09:14 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K
A pro-family activist believes there is a huge battle looming between libertarians and social conservatives in the Republican Party. He says this battle was highlighted by a survey he conducted at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, regarding the homosexual agenda.
More than half of the nearly 9,000 conservative activists at CPAC last week in Washington were under the age of 22. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says most of the young people he surveyed at CPAC were against the legalization of same-sex "marriage," but notes there was a lot of confusion about the issue of homosexual civil unions.
"Some people thought civil unions were just something you have to give the gay activists," he points out. "Others thought it was a real compromise and didn't realize how close it was to same-sex marriage and how it actually advances the same-sex marriage agenda."
LaBarbera believes many young conservatives are being taught to think of homosexuality as a civil rights issue.
"I think they feel that they have to do something for these gay unions. We have to bring it back to the behavior, the unhealthiness of the behavior, but also the entire gay agenda," he adds. "How the gay agenda threatens religious freedom [and] how no libertarian should be for this agenda because this is an agenda which crushes the freedom to disagree with homosexuality."
Even many social conservatives, according to LaBarbera, fail to realize that in the courts, civil-union type laws actually pave the way for decisions supporting same-sex marriage.
OK
#126 - #120 - So, which is more of a threat to marriage? Divorce or homosexuals getting married?
Here, Right out of the "Blade" (homo advocates talking points)
Claim: "Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage".
(answer)
Like the one Britney had–the first one or the second?, take your pick. What's really silly about this claim is that it supposes gay marriage would be some kind of competitor or threat for "traditional" marriage. This doesn't seem to be the case at all. If history is any guide, gay couples have existed (with diminished or nonexistent legal status of course) for a very long time. Their existence hasn't done much to undermine traditional marriage. Not as much as, say, divorce, infidelity, sports, weight loss or gain, age, youth, or failure to put the toilet seat down.
Most politicians say they’re for civil unions and against gay marriage.
I’m for gay marriage, and against civil unions. I don’t care what marriages churches recognize, but the state is obligated to keep a privileged position for Husband and Wife. Traditional families are the building blocks of any major civilization. I say this as an atheist, not a fundie.
I didn't say you said that. I said many freepers have posted such comments.
As I pointed out earlier, you won't answer the simple question. When you answer the question, I'll consider replying to you. Until then you're just a disrupter butting into other people's discussions with no relevant information.
“Which is more harmful to marruiage divorrce or gay marriage.”
Gay marriage. Marriage equality means our children will be learning about the two daddy penguins, the princes who fell in love, etc. in Kindergarten, lest schools be sued for discrimination.
So the direct break up of millions of marriages is less harmful to marriage then people heraing about homosexuals being married? Just so I got you right.
“Just so I got you right.”
You got it right.
As for school curriculum, I'll join your there. My kids are grown, but I oppose all the homosexual programs and some of the sex ed for kids, expecially the elementary school. The purpose for that seems obvious to me. Let kids have their childhood before they have all that crap thrown at them.
Dennis Prager has done some nice speeches about letting kids have their childhood.
Excellent line.
As for exposing kids, we agree.
Nufsed, your feelings have nothing to do with the matter. If you personally oppose your six-year-old getting indoctrinated with a homosexual agenda, that’s too bad. If the government has to treat all marriages as equal, you’ll have no **legal** reason to disagree.
No one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, from throwing a parade, and so forth. My concern is over the legal ramifications of the government recognizing alternative marriage arrangements, in addition to the longterm cultural impact this legal change may create.
Why would homosexual activists be interested in having the state recognize their marriages? So they can be taxed at a higher rate? Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is not something genetic— Darwin’s laws of natural selection easily refute that explanation. It is environmental, nurture, not nature, and pushing this stuff on small children when they are most impressionable is simply sick.
No, I don't.
In this thread, I commented on teh general nature of libertarian philosophy of government. You're arguing with someone else.
I merely posit that divorce is a more insidious force against marriage than gay nmarriage.
You see, there are consequences to admitting the truth. You took the opposite veiw, but the others here do not. Therefore, I ask them to ask themselves why so much time fighting gay marriage and so little discussion about divorce.
Amen
You posted a quote; however, you post nothing else? Your post is supporting just what assumed point? Am I to assume that anything any “libertarian” thinks is good now?
LOL
Let me quote a portion of your quote now to support a point:
“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is”
Liberal Government is imposing and has imposed the homosexual agenda (e.g. homosexual marriage) upon conservative citizens in California & Massachusetts AND it would seem that the homoactivist libertarians on this thread are claiming that conservatives should passively accept this because to do otherwise would be “big goverment” intrusion? LOL!!!!
I would say that it is quite obvious that the liberatarians by drawing thier line in the sand post homosexual agenda impostion are arguing on this thread for “a hands off now” are simply taking a position of advocating the homosexual agenda plain and simple...
“Let me get this straight. People insist that because there are libertarians, or people using that name, who are perverts then libertarianism is about perversion and promoting degeneracy. Okay. But, since there are many conservatives who are racist, it doesn’t mean that conservatism is about racism? Just how do you figure? If one is true then the other must be”
You feel that there are MANY racist conservatives? LOL
Your ZOTTING may come much sooner than I thought -please continue expounding upon your liberal talking points!
Peanut Butter Jelly wid a Baseball Bat!
Just a thought.
Damn it gunner . . . quit pinging me to that stupid song!!!! It takes many hours to get that damn song out of my head.
Your ZOTTING may come much sooner than I thought -please continue expounding upon your liberal talking points!
Liberal talking points? You can't be serious. Do you know what liberal means? I maintain that there is absolutely no legitimate argument for gay rights in marriage. I argue for smaller government. I argue for free markets. I argue for low taxes. I argue for states' rights. And I am a liberal. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?
You feel that there are MANY racist conservatives? LOL
I think you are missing the entire point here. It is being maintained that since there are libertarians who are perverts, that means libertarianism is promoting perversion. My response is that there are racists among the conservatives, and that means it must be promoting racism. Am I arguing that conservatism is promoting racism. No, you are, if you maintain that the presence of one group within another automatically makes the larger group a promoter of the values of the smaller group.
It saddens me that so many on this board seem so ready to jump to your conclusion. They would throw the baby out with the bathwater. It would be like saying that since child porn is often shared on the internet we should outlaw all computers. Libertarianism is not the sum of all the values of all libertarians. Why do I have to tell you this? Libertarianism can be either sensible, or extreme. They can be family people or the opposite. They can be racist, or not. They can be godly, or un. Some are decent, some are indecent. But, libertarianism is none of these. Your constant insistence that any who adhere to small government are automatically perverts, liberals or other such thing, is just silly. Libertarianism is not libertinism, but there is no law that says somebody cannot hold to both of these views.
What libertarianism is though is nothing more nor less than the belief that government should exist to serve a very limited purpose and be bound by law in such a way that it cannot force itself into other areas. As the father of our nation once said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And as Michael Badnarik further commented, "Any time the fire is in the fireplace it is a good fire. Anytime the fire gets outside of the fireplace, it is a bad fire"
We should not trust fire once it is out of the fireplace. We must keep it there at all costs. And, we cannot make the mistake of thinking we can choose when to let the fire out, because once it escapes it is impossible to control. Fire doesn't answer to you or I, and if it gets out it eventually will have to be extinquished. If you make the mistake of thinking you are the master of the fire, and so let it out thinking it will serve you, it will burn not just your opponents, but you as well. It serves only itself. That is a fact, and all peoples learn it in time.
Plenty of folks on this forum, self-professed "conservatives," support compulsory public support for public schools. I do not. It was one of the original "trojan Horses" you fear,
This is a very good point. Compulsory public education, and the monopoly it creates, is not the work of libertarian thinkers. Giving the state an opportunity to nose into families, marriages, children's lives and so on is a terrible idea. But, too many people have felt that the "benefits" were more important than the risks.
What amazes me is that nobody wants to see that if we could return to our libertarian roots it is not the perverts, but all of us who would win. Right now, though barely thanks to big government and its strangle on the media, people are basically conservative still. Overall I mean. These wackos supporting gay rights and all are a tiny number. They seem huge because they have the government to do their work for them, and the media too of course. However, without that bully on their side society could once again begin applying the forces it always did in the past. That is what the 'tradition' in traditional marriage means. The form which society enforced as acceptable throughout the ages. Governments don't make traditions, people do. Governments will overpower the people and make them accept their ideas, and that is a terrible idea, especially for a moral people. They cannot win in that circumstance. Liberals love government, not conservatives. Or at least that is how it should be.
But how does the state "privilege" marriage by licensing it? And is it really "marriage" that is the foundation of civilization, or is it child rearing by both mother and father, something which could, theoretically, be accomplished without marriage?
What good does it do, with regard to maintaining those "building blocks of society," for government to sanction marriage, while still allowing divorce, fornication and adultery?
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.