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.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
How can a conservative agree with any part of the perverse homosexual agenda? I don’t understand how the conservatives could be confused about the issue.
“How can a conservative agree with any part of the perverse homosexual agenda? I don’t understand how the conservatives could be confused about the issue.”
Because the water is now boiling.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Of course, I am older than the reported age of the attendees at CPAC. Maybe that is just too simple a concept in society today.
Most young “conservatives” tend to be libertarians when it comes to social issues.
“there was a lot of confusion about the issue of homosexual civil unions”
And there you have the destruction of America. Even the people on our side don’t give a rip what God says.
It’s the pot and too many episodes of Real World or whatever.
More of a philosophy that people, and the government, should mind their own business.
One more time:
"And there you have the destruction of America. Even the people on our side don’t give a rip what God says."
That’s not really what Liberaltarians are driven by.
I believe the real conservative position on this is to look at basic rights and the laws and determine if the claims by the homosexuals are valid. The typical charge about marriage, and this is also used by otherwise conservative people in my experience, is that it is illegal discrimination to deny marriage to same-sex couples while allowing it for others. I say that if it is, then I am an MD.
Marriage is nothing but a defined institution which anyone can freely partake of if they simply meet the qualifications. Doctorates of Medicine are the same. If I want to be a doctor I have to go to school, take tests, apply for licenses and so on. But what about stupid people? Or the insane? Or people who do not believe in western medicine, or tests, or schooling? And of course there are the many, many poor people who cannot go to such schools. They are discriminated against under that system, just like gay people are in marriage.
Marriage is what it is. Being an MD is as well. And homosexuals can marry, and many have, only not usually to one of the same gender. They are not barred from the institution at all. It is simply not discrimatory to have standards. It is, though, if one bars those who actually meet the standards based on some other non-applicable criteria. But, that is not happening, and so there is no issue of individual rights being violated, which should satisfy any real conservative.
Conservatives can't, but Libertarians can, and there my friend is the rub.
Probably not, but they would create an environment where it can flourish.
I have never understood the libertarian mindset. They have taken the best of the conservative ideology and mated it with the worst of the liberal ideology.
In short, they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. These two things are like oil and water, they just don’t mix.
Libertarians please feel free to flame me, if you must.
Doc you should demand a refund for your tuition.
You have no clue the purpose of Marriage.
"More of a philosophy that people, and the government, should mind their own business."That’s not really what Liberaltarians are driven by.
This is the typical confusion about liberalism and libertarianism that we see today. It isn't surprising given how many people on TV seem to be lost about it. Bill Maher, for instance, loves to go around calling himself a libertarian while screaming support for gun control and socialism just because he likes drugs and hookers. Being immoral does not make one a libertarian.
Liberals, of course, desire state control in all aspects of life. They desire homosexual marriage in order to further a vision they have of modern culture. They would grow culture to fit their design, and that design is defined first of all by a devaluing of the Judeo-Christian systems of morality. It is all about state control to create societal change.
This is not libertarianism, though just what is can often be confusing. First there is a party that uses that name, and some think the platform of that organization reflects the de fide definition of that movement. Not so at all. Libertarianism is a basic principle or philosophy about the government and its role. Just how far one goes is open to the adherent. Many, many people are libertarian without engaging in extremist positions, just as is true on the right. Not all so-called conservatives are John Birchers or such. And not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. As a matter of fact, most aren't. William F. Buckley called himself a libertarian, and understood that this simply meant that he believed in limited government and individual liberty. And he was generally libertarian.
I am also libertarian, but I don't carry things as far as some will. Like many I am pro-life. Some aren't. I am not pro-gay marriage, at least with the current system, but many are. There are wide ranges of thought, but it all comes down to the limits of government and the purpose of the same.
And of course libertarianism is a key component of conservative thought. Limits on government, personal responsibility and liberty, laissez-faire economics; these are all libertarianism. Without them conservatism is left only with its traditional morality which when combined with non-libertarian views of government quickly becomes just another form of totalitarianism. What exactly would conservatism be without its libertarian foundation?
Much better off. Libertarianism leads to devolution of society.
[1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it.
We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
James Madison
In short, they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. These two things are like oil and water, they just don’t mix.
What is it to be socially liberal? Have you really ever thought about that? Some years ago it was illegal for a man to commit sodomy. In most cases it is not now. Is that change "socially liberal?" Does the conservative want to send such people to jail? I am a Christian, and I think it is sinful for people to reject Christ. Should I fight for a government that would make everyone be Christian? If I don't am I "socially liberal?"
I am quite conservative socially, and I am a libertarian. I just don't think the government should use force to make everyone agree with me. I also don't think the government should be able to use force to make me agree with everyone else. Is that "socially liberal?" If people want to be Scientologists, fine. Let them. If they wan't to fool others into joining; fine, let them. Caveat emptor. People have rights, and government should defend those rights and not violate them either. I just don't see how that is either liberal or conservative socially speaking.
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.