Posted on 03/03/2009 10:09:14 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K
Actually, steve "B", we just don't want the government to discourage it, as it does today. People who make statements like you just made must be ignorant of the fact that it "worked" quite well up until about the 60's and 70's when a bunch of social liberals decided those mores were passe and had social liberalism enshrined into law through the courts. Single mothers, abortion as birth control, and revolving door marriages are not good for a stable society. The social culture of Bill Ayers doesn't work except in a classroom.
I see your point, However to put this particular debate in context for you...
I have yet to see anyone play the "race card" against conservatives except for the occasional homo troll that advocates scrapping the constitution because our founders were all slave owners (racists bigots and homophobes).Now, Couple that fact with the fact that ALL THE TROLLS that have been Zotted for such nonsense were all posing as "libertarians" under the guise of personal freedoms and limited government.
Hope that clarifies things a little.
“Therefore, I ask them to ask themselves why so much time fighting gay marriage and so little discussion about divorce.”
There’s an easy answer: no one is discussing prohibiting divorce. But if you *really* want people to take traditional marriage seriously, pushing alternative marriages is counterproductive, y’think?
I ask you to take logic more seriously.
“something which could, theoretically, be accomplished without marriage?’
Sure. Plato theorized it centuries ago— free love, with children raised by the state. Intellectuals have been trying to realize it ever since. It works on paper — what doesn’t? — but has free love ever worked in practice?
If anything, civilizations that abandon structured families get displaced by those that do not. The Islamicization of Europe today is a clear example. It isn’t an accident that every major civilization on Earth worthy of the name has generally employed a traditional marriage pattern.
I take logic very seriously. Fighting the lesser problem is okay, but not at the expense of letting the more serious problem go. It is you who has the logic problem.
I have yet to see anyone play the "race card" against conservatives except for the occasional homo troll that advocates scrapping the constitution because our founders were all slave owners (racists bigots and homophobes).Now, Couple that fact with the fact that ALL THE TROLLS that have been Zotted for such nonsense were all posing as "libertarians" under the guise of personal freedoms and limited government. Hope that clarifies things a little.
I hope that you then see my point. Unfair associations can be very damaging. Just because a person shares one idea with me or you doesn't mean we have mutual agendas or personal lifestyles.
I am quite sure that you would rather not hear David Duke and his ilk called "conservatives" over and over, because regardless of his political views you almost certainly do not share the one they are really talking about. That is what people walk away associating. Conservatism and racism. Very unfortunate, and in my opinion, dishonest. Well, the same holds true for libertarians. Do you think I want people constantly associating that word or point of view with the likes of Larry Flynt? I know little about him beyond the obvious, but I am quite confident I have no more in common with him than you do Duke.
I think people should judge posts and people for the content of what they say, not these unfair assocations. That, in my opinion, is one of the weaknesses of FreeRepublic. People here tend to associate somebody with somebody else, stop reading anything that is said, and instead just call names like 'liberal' without any regard to meaning. Not intending to be mean, but it is actually the very same behaviour you see on places like the Daily Kos. Consider just how many times I have been called liberal on this thread. This means that opposing gay marriage and the homosexual agenda, big government and the nanny state, and supporting gun rights, lower taxes, states rights and responsible fiscal policies are all liberal. Think about that. Over and over I am called liberal, but never because of what I have written but because libertarians are all promoters of the homosexual agenda, and so on and so on. I can't see who that benefits. Instead, why not just read what I say and argue with that?
Nufsed, progressives have told me we should legalize heroin, the reason being that cigarette usage contributes to 300,000 deaths a year. I’ve been given the same argument for handing out reconstruction money to Hamas — we give billions to other countries, so a little aid to hardcore terrorists isn’t what we should be worried about. This reasoning is like recommending an affirmative action program for evil.
That’s the logical form of your argument for government recognition of gay marriage— since there’s divorce, let’s go all out and really try to hit rock bottom and let anything go. You’re offering an ethical reductio of your own position— it makes no sense on either deontological nor teleological grounds.
You're conflating "civilization" and "government."
And using the Islamic example in Europe indicates that that it may not be using the state to promote certain cultural mores that is the most successful strategy. The Islamic immigrants in Europe (home of state religion and government persecution of conscience) violate (culturally) nearly every precept of EU legal philosophy, while the ostensibly "Christian" inhabitants consign themselves to demographic oblivion.
but, I ask again, without forbidding fornication, adultery, and divorce, how does the state regulation of marriage have any effect on child-rearing?
I understand your larger cultural point, but like you say, I want to know how you get from that to the real-world application of it.
Would they have been so successful in eroding those mores had they not had the courts (and the education system, and the Justice Department) at their disposal?
I made no argument. I asked a simple question. Positing a questions does not imply a position on a related issue. The issue I am discusasaing is where is the fight against divorce when it is the most harmful force against marriage. That statement in no way implies a support for gay marriage.
We're tired of arguing with libertarians over this issue. Click on the HA keyword and read the threads, every single one they show up and defend depravity and perversion.
Over the 5 years I've been here, 100's of libertarians have been zotted for such. (I suspect 99% were homo trolls)The other 1% were libertarian atheists that couldn't resist bashing Religious FReepers.
Ping to 171.
We're tired of arguing with libertarians over this issue. Click on the HA keyword and read the threads, every single one they show up and defend depravity and perversion
If you're tired of arguing with libertarians about this, then why have you argued with me even though I agreed with you? It looks to me like you are obsessed about this issue, and cannot hear or read the words without getting caught up in your own view. Listen carefully. I oppose the homosexual agenda. I am a libertarian. And, btw, I am not the only libertarian on this thread to have taken that position. You have no argument, and are engaging in hyperbole and pointless name calling.
Over the 5 years I've been here, 100's of libertarians have been zotted for such. (I suspect 99% were homo trolls)The other 1% were libertarian atheists that couldn't resist bashing Religious FReepers.
Really? I believe it has been more than strongly implied that I am a "homo troll" or the like. Yet I have posted nothing but disagreement and opposition to that agenda. If you are no more accurate in knowing what a "homo troll" is than that, then I cannot imagine how I can trust this assessment above. However, even if it were true, it proves nothing about libertarianism and you know it. Libertarianism is not about pornography, hookers, paedophiles, strippers, sodomy or any other such issue any more than conservatism is about race. I have made this point very clearly. Just because there are homosexual advocates doesn't make them libertarian. If they do happen to be libertarian, it is not because of any homosexual advocacy. The issues are 100% unrelated. Fact.
“how does the state regulation of marriage have any effect on child-rearing?”
For decades we’ve been directly subsidizing the decision to have children outside of marriage. This has led to family breakdown in large sections of the population, resulting in juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, and violent crime — problems that are not easily fixed and usually require expensive, draconian remedies.
Gay marriage is more a symptom than a cause— everything can today be a marriage because nothing is; preposterous ideas are now taken seriously because serious commitments are treated preposterously. I wouldn’t be surprised if many gay marriage proponents, straight or gay, come from broken families themselves.
I'm aware of that, but even if the state were to promote traditional marriage alone, how would that eliminate problems created by those who procreate without being married, or those who choose to leave their marriage?
I guess what I am asking you is how far you think society should go, using the power of the state, to regulate the family structure? Are you in favor of the state criminalizing fornication, adultery, and divorce (again)?
Gay marriage is more a symptom than a cause— everything can today be a marriage because nothing is; preposterous ideas are now taken seriously because serious commitments are treated preposterously. I wouldn’t be surprised if many gay marriage proponents, straight or gay, come from broken families themselves.
And I guess my next question would be can you entertain the possibility that this is a predictable result of the state regulating traditional marriage?
Gay marriage loses in the marketplace of ideas everywhere it is proposed, resulting in the need to use the courts or the exec branch to impose it. Even with the homosexual agenda being pushed through public schools, the public rejects it. But because government has insinuated itself into what should the realm of another authority, those with an aganda have recourse to use its power to promote an idea that would otherwise be consigned to a dark, irrelevant corner somewhere.
On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.
24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1226386/posts
I don’t get it.
These tactics are implemented by secular atheists liberals and here on FR by libertarians. (using "small government" and "personal freedoms" ideology). Results are the same. less morality and closer to socialism/Communism.
You just don't quit, do you? You actually would claim that libertarians are socialists. You are incredible. You are absolutely blinded by your preconceptions about what a libertarian is, and you will not listen to the truth. No matter how much I demonstrate how off base your accusations and ideas are, you just move them up to another notch. First we are all perverts and homos, and then we are communists. I suppose next you will show how libertarianism is just a front for the Watchtower.
You know, in your attitude you sound just like a neighbour of mine from a few years back. He was a "conservative." Lifetime member of the NRA. He voted Republican every election. He absolutely despised anybody who he even suspected of being "queer." Of course he hated libertarians like me. He never knew anything about my values or position, but once he heard that I was "libertarian" he couldn't stand me. Libertarians were all "Godless pervs," as he called them. He actually hated libertarians more than liberals. No, that isn't quite right since he couldn't see any difference between them. You would have agreed with him entirely. But, then he was jailed for having beaten his wife, and it was discovered he had spent the last five years molesting his sons. Boy did he hate "Godless pervs" though.
I'll quit when the flaming liberal homo trolls stop flying under the radar on FR under the libertarian flag. What you're failing to realize is I'm not against libertarians, just the arrogant homonazis/atheist that disguise themselves easily as libertarians. Especially On the HA, porn, WOD and Crevo threads.
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.