Young conservatives misled on homosexual issue

OneNewsNow ^ | 3/3/2009 | Jim Brown

[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.

[John O]

What is a libertarian? A liberal that can add.
What is a gay libertarian? A liberal that can add but can’t multiply.

[cothrige]

You have no clue the purpose of Marriage.

Odd. How do you get that? I never said anything about the "purpose of marriage." I suppose you think I am wrong about marriage not being a right, and so you must support homosexual marriage. Care to defend that rather than leaving drive-by posts?

[demshateGod]

The federal government should have no role in making drugs legal or illegal. That should be left to the states, for the most part. Same with prostitution, gambling, etc. The Liberaltarians I run across on FR want the federal government to legalize those things then put their stamp of approval on it by taxing it, thus protecting it and creating more bureaucracy in order to regulate it.

Most of them that I’ve come across are basically Rand disciples who believe individuality is the greatest good for society.

Where I differ is I don’t think the first step to liberty is for the feds to legalize every vice and start regulating it. That’s what I hear over and over again on FR. Let’s strip the feds of 99.833% of its power, give the States their power back, then let’s talk about whether or not we want pot legal in our respective states.

No Libertarians have ever agreed with me on that schedule but continue their mantra. That’s why I say their top priority is breaking society of its morals and blue laws so free thinking Randianism can prevail.

[cothrige]

What exactly would conservatism be without its libertarian foundation?

Much better off. Libertarianism leads to devolution of society.

You have got to be kidding. Libertarianism is nothing more than a belief in limits to governments and the inalienable rights of citizens. If you oppose libertarianism then you oppose limited government and liberties.

If you support the constitution, as it is written, you are libertarian. It is a libertarian document. Its entire purpose is to limit government and defend the rights of "we the people." It is so sad how little conservatives know of their own history these days.

[demshateGod]

The problem is the people in your group, for the most part, are only in it for the pot and whores. If that’s not their goal, at least one could the only fruit their tactics would yield would be more pot and more whores and more power for the FDA and OSHA.

I believe in limited powers for the Feds and would listen to arguments that the drug war exceeds their enumerated powers. The first step; however, is not legalizing drugs. The first step is eliminated the FDA and OSHA, and NEA, IRS, etc and giving power to the states.

The end of our nation is at hand and if there aren’t major policy shifts it WILL happen. Legalizing drugs at this point would intensify the speed of our demise.

[itsahoot]

Libertarianism is nothing more than a belief in limits to governments and the inalienable rights of citizens.

You don't get to cherry pick from Libertarian values, to prove how good they are. You and the other Ron Paul loonies would have us looking like Switzerland, shooting galleries(drugs not Guns) in the streets, incest, pedophilia, assisted suicide, the whole gamut.

I admit some libertarians maintain that they are Christians, and maybe they are, but they certainly don't speak out about the moral decay of our society.

Moral decay of our society is exactly why we find ourselves in the current dilemma.

[cothrige]

The federal government should have no role in making drugs legal or illegal. That should be left to the states, for the most part. Same with prostitution, gambling, etc. The Liberaltarians I run across on FR want the federal government to legalize those things then put their stamp of approval on it by taxing it, thus protecting it and creating more bureaucracy in order to regulate it.

As a general principle libertarians take a view that anything you do should be legal until it affects me. I have never met any actual libertarians who have argued for taxes or regulation. The most common position among libertarians is that things like drugs and prostitution should be left to the states as the Constitution would have it. Many would also say that the states should legalize it, not to tax it or regulate it, but simply because it is wrong to prevent people from doing what they want until they harm somebody else.

Most of them that I’ve come across are basically Rand disciples who believe individuality is the greatest good for society.

Yes, I have spoken to these types too, but not most. Not even close. Ayn Rand was a two-bit hack writer with about as much understanding of society as a toddler. Atlas Shrugged is chock full of stupidity about the monetary system and reveals no understanding at all of supply and demand or the competition of the free market. Her view, along the lines of anarcho-capitalism is certainly libertarian, but is a very extreme one. It would be much like the Birchers on the right, and hardly reflects the thoughts of the main. John Galt, and other such stuff, is invoked constantly, even among your run of the mill libertarian simply because it is so ubiquitous. Believe me, very few people really have such a view as Rand. Most are very much closer to the likes of Glen Beck or Ron Paul.

Where I differ is I don’t think the first step to liberty is for the feds to legalize every vice and start regulating it.

I, as a libertarian, absolutely agree. So would any libertarian I know.

That’s what I hear over and over again on FR. Let’s strip the feds of 99.833% of its power, give the States their power back, then let’s talk about whether or not we want pot legal in our respective states.

Absolutely. Government should be close to the people, where we can watch it closely.

No Libertarians have ever agreed with me on that schedule but continue their mantra. That’s why I say their top priority is breaking society of its morals and blue laws so free thinking Randianism can prevail.

I don't know about that. I would love to break society of its blue laws, because they are onerous. But, it isn't so that so-called "Randianism" can prevail. I just wish to be able to buy some liquor when I want. Why shouldn't I? Did I break a law and get restricted? Is it because somebody, who is not my pastor, thinks that Jesus is okay with me drinking on Saturday, but not on Sunday? I don't buy it, and neither should you. The day is fast coming when muslims will outnumber us, and guess what that precedent for government control is going to allow? I hope you don't want a ham sandwich.

But, in basic principle I agree with you. And I see little in your position which would offend my libertarian sensibilities.

[cothrige]

The problem is the people in your group, for the most part, are only in it for the pot and whores.

This just isn't true. Sure, there are some real sad people among libertarians, but have you met many of the so-called conservatives? I don't think that is a fair assessment.

I believe in limited powers for the Feds and would listen to arguments that the drug war exceeds their enumerated powers.

It does. To illegalize alcohol they knew they needed an amendment to the Constitution, but now they don't even pretend. They just set up an office and let them define what you or I can do. Am I pro drugs? Not at all. They are an evil on society. But so is the government, and I certainly don't want them to be allowed to exceed their powers just because drugs are a problem. Murder is a problem too, and gun control is the obvious remedy. We must stand for our rights, regardless.

The first step; however, is not legalizing drugs. The first step is eliminated the FDA and OSHA, and NEA, IRS, etc and giving power to the states.

I agree. But, that is a libertarian view too. You are confusing the philosophy with tactics. We agree that the feds have limits, and that is libertarianism. How we go about enforcing those limits and acheiving change is not what determines that. Some ideas are good, some not so. But, I think that is another conversation.

The end of our nation is at hand and if there aren’t major policy shifts it WILL happen. Legalizing drugs at this point would intensify the speed of our demise.

Well, maybe, but I think there are even worse situations at hand than that. But, I agree that legalizing drugs is not the big deal right now, and so I am have not spent my time really fighting about it. I am also not a pothead which might have something to do with it. ;-)

[cothrige]

You don't get to cherry pick from Libertarian values, to prove how good they are.

You are confused about what you call "libertarian values." You have confused the many ideas that different libertarians have which are not in themselves libertarian and are then trying to say that they are. Many Christians believe in Democracy, but democracy is not a Christian value. You should keep things straight. Libertarianism is nothing more, nor less, than a belief in personal liberty and limited government. You can exaggerate that position until it becomes anarchic, or you can temper it greatly, as most do. Straw men about paedophilia, incest and assisted suicide are ridiculous. Libertarianism has nothing to do with such concepts, and if you have any intellectual honesty you would accept it.

I admit some libertarians maintain that they are Christians, and maybe they are, but they certainly don't speak out about the moral decay of our society.

I am certainly a Christian, and I am also libertarian. But, what does the decay of our society have to do with government? From where I sit most of the decay I have seen has been put in place by people who see government as an advocacy group for their causes, or who think that they should wait for the government to come along and fix it. Not me. You can wait or seek your Great Society but I would rather look for answers elsewhere. If you think Congress should pass a law to make everyone morally blameless then good luck with that. But I won't support it.

[ZULU]

“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,”

That’s encouraging. There is nothing “true” about sodomy.

[gidget7]

If govt minded it's own business on social issues, these issues would not even be in public view. It is only because of courts, perverse people entering politics, and these perversion activists that the govt is involved. They should all be laughed out of courts, but they are not. When activists are allowed to frame these issues under civil rights, which has been allowed for too many years, the govt is involved.

Definitely get the govt out of it, it is a issue, made out of a non issue.

[DesertRenegade]

It’s always been obvious to me that the homosexual crowd were trying to slip in ‘civil unions’ specifically so they could then file lawsuits for ‘same-sex marriage’. This has been their agenda all along. They won’t be satisfied until our kids are forced to accept this sick lifestyle in their classrooms. The brazenness of the alternative lifestylers is mind-boggling.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

"If you support the constitution, as it is written, you are libertarian. It is a libertarian document".

Our "libertarian" founding fathers would be appalled at the disingenuous sophistry of the modern libertarians idea of liberty. Freedom was never intended to be a trophy for perverts, reprobates, degenerates, et, al. Sodomy was a capital crime, Pornography wasn't considered "free speech" and they all encouraged prayer in schools. Moral relativism and revisionist history are the cornerstones of modern libertarians.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

"More of a philosophy that people, and the government, should mind their own business".

See #33

[cothrige]

Our "libertarian" founding fathers would be appalled at the disingenuous sophistry of the modern libertarians idea of liberty. Freedom was never intended to be a trophy for perverts, reprobates, degenerates, et, al.

This is an exaggeration based on nothing. Libertarianism is not about perversion. Yes, there are libertarians who subscribe to odd behaviours, but there are such people in any group. And yes many perverts, especially public ones, are libertarian, for obvious reasons. But, that does not mean that the opposite is true and that libertarians are also perverts.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with any morality, but with smaller government. And I am smart enough to know that if while I am in the majority I allow the government to legislate who you can have sex with then eventually there will be enough of you to legislate who I can have sex with. I don't like that. And this country has been full of perverts for years now, and that is under non-libertarian governments. Instead of blaming libertarians for sodomy, drugs and abortions perhaps you should take credit for that yourself. I seem to recall a rather long period when Republicans were in power and all they managed to do was expand the size of government exponentially. And yet there still seems there are an awful lot of drugs, gay sex and abortions everywhere one looks. Nice job taking care of all that.

Moral relativism and revisionist history are the cornerstones of modern libertarians.

Libertarians are historical revisionists? Just see my point above, or even look at your school in prayer issue. You blame that on libertarians, but they have had nothing to do with it. The entire argument is founded in the monopoly of state schools, and that is something that libertarians have always fought against. And while we have struggled to free our youth from government indoctrination camps what have you and yours done? The "conservatives," upon ascending to power, not only tightened the state grip on education, but took it massively federal with the incredibly unconstitutional NCLB. Another good job from pseudo-conservatives. And you blame libertarians for taking prayer out of school? Talk about revisionist history. If it were up to libertarians you would be totally free to raise your children with the morals you hold dear and so could your neighbours. It is statism that has caused our moral decay and I promise you it will not now cure it.

[itsahoot]

but democracy is not a Christian value.

Democracy is not an American value either, this is a Republic.

The idea that we cannot legislate moral behavior is utter nonsense, we regulate morality now, just not some of the more destructive ones.

You are deeply confused about you own position in relation to mine. The government has taken positive steps to undermine moral behavior in this country, they use the same methods a drug dealer does.

The notion that what goes on in your neighbors house is none of you business, is head in the sand, self delusion.

I am 70 years old, I know what a moral society looked like, do you?

[NoMarxist2010]

Perversion is not a civil right.

What 2 adults do in the bedroom is not what I want the GOVERNMENT to worry about. I have a friend who is conservative and he is gay. He could make Rush look liberal. He would love to run for office, but he knows he can't be elected because he is GAY.

being gay doesn't make you a LIBERAL.

[cothrige]

Democracy is not an American value either, this is a Republic.

That is irrelevant. The issue is what you call "libertarian values." If you are talking about small government, free market economics, and personal freedom, then sure. Anything else may be a value of a libertarian, but not a libertarian value. Libertarianism is what it is, and nothing more. Don't try to misdirect. The fact is you are defining libertarianism with a broad brush which serves your purposes but is not accurate. That is fact.

The idea that we cannot legislate moral behavior is utter nonsense, we regulate morality now, just not some of the more destructive ones.

Here are the facts. I have no concern for legislating morality. Federally there is absolutely no Constitutional support for it. Congress has no such power since the tenth amendment retains it to the states and the people. And if my state wants to outlaw sodomy or try to enforce the missionary position then we can deal with that then. But, in any case, putting a homosexual in prison, where he has unlimited access to homosexual sex acts, only ever seems to cost taxpayers massive amounts of money and increases the amount of gay sex happening at any given moment. Just how do you call that moral? Me, I don't care for it.

The notion that what goes on in your neighbors house is none of you business, is head in the sand, self delusion.

Is it? Then how exactly do you keep track of what your neighbour is doing right now? Have you installed a camera? Or are you one of those who thinks that what is unacceptable when done privately is suddenly okay if done by majority rule? Are you waiting for Big Brother to spy on your neighbour so they can send him away for self abuse, autoeroticism or some such? How exactly does the sex life of your neighbour affect you? How is your point of view actually morally superior to mine? I think I will worry about the beam in my eye, and leave other people's specks to themselves.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

What 2 adults do in the bedroom is not what I want the GOVERNMENT to worry about.

This issue isn't about "Consenting adults" or "bedroom privacy" or "individual or civil rights" like the advocates of homosexual marriage dishonestly and vehemently insist.

"Gay Marriage" is the "Trojan horse" method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups in the effort to legitimize the perverse behavior of homosexuality in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school children by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a "safe" and "normal" alternative "sexual lifestyle" choice and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and acceptance, kowtow or else.

Nobody cares what they do in their bedrooms, It's what they do in the parks, the mens rooms, and on the streets at their perverted pride parades, Not to mention trying to adopt children, and be scout masters etc...

We've heard all the complaints before..

Homos R NORMAL GOT IT? ps.. leave Brittany ALONE!

Yoo Hoo! Haven't you heard, You can't question or oppose my lifestyle choice you hateful NAZI FACIST BIGOT!!!!

And you better let us adopt children (we're tired of poodles), We can give them ALL the love you can image! Better than you breeders! We know best you hateful slope headed knuckle dragging Fundie/ NAZI/PHOBES!!!

[DirtyHarryY2K]

BTW, welcome to FR.