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.
Besides, Nobody wants to lock them up as long as they stay in the privacy of their own bedrooms, It's when they lead each other down the street on dog collars with no clothes on, or when they prance around in the bushes at the local parks and such.
In most communities it is already illegal to walk around naked in public. And if you and your community wish to pass an ordinance or law against wearing dog collars, nobody is stopping you. And prancing in bushes sounds rather vague, but I am sure whatever is meant by "prancing" could be actionable as well, if the people wished to make it so.
I think it is important to remember that libertarian doesn't include anything that any libertarian might like or hold to. Libertarianism is nothing but supporting limited government and personal liberty. It doesn't actually include some people's ideas that no government should exist at all, or that cities should have no rules on public behaviour. Just because some libertarian person supports such a thing doesn't mean it is, strictly speaking, libertarian, any more than being a racist is conservative. Communities have every right to pass laws on public behaviour which can affect people living in those areas. People who argue against that are not libertarian, they are anarchists.
Now, I don't think the federal government has any place to act on any of this. I also think that local governments can overstep good sense, or individual rights, if not careful. But, public nakedness, drunkenness, or even "prancing in bushes" don't seem like basic rights to me.
For all I care they can gang up down at the local bath house and work alive on each other like maggots spreading deadly STDs, as long as I don't have to pay for it, or be forced to stand in front of a diversity tribunal and lose my job for opposing and speaking out against it, or for refusing to accept it as normal behavior taught to children.
But, that is libertarianism. Consider that everything you mention is enforced by the government? It is government that would operate that tribunal. It is government that would censor you as "intolerant" or for engaging in "hate speech." It is government that would make you pay for the medical care for these people. It is the government that would teach it to your kids. Libertarians would get government out of schools, public speech, our jobs, our doctor's offices and anywhere else they don't explicitly belong.
It already is.. They added "sexual orientation" to anti discrimination laws. People have lost their jobs, (google Matt Barber Allstate insurance case) and one guy was locked up for "trespassing" because he wouldn't leave his sons grade school because they told him he had no rights to object to what they taught his son in school. http://www.davidparkerfund.org/html/background.html Like I said pick a side. Libertarians always stand on the side of pornographers, degenerates, Drug abusers et al all in the name of personal freedom.
Consider that everything you mention is enforced by the government?It already is.. They added "sexual orientation" to anti discrimination laws... Like I said pick a side. Libertarians always stand on the side of pornographers, degenerates, Drug abusers et al all in the name of personal freedom.
Whoa, wait a minute there. You list a bunch of evil effects of the homosexual agenda, and I point out that they are all the work of big government, which libertarians want to end. You admit this to be true by saying that "It already is." But, then you go on to say that all of that big government is the fault of libertarians. How ridiculous is that, I ask? You are the one arguing for and defending big government, not us. We want to get rid of it, but when we say so you accuse us of being homosexuals or pornographers or some such.
The truth is actually ver simple. You support big government, and defend it. You do so under the misguided idea that it will enforce your ideas of morality. But, when you instead suffer under its agenda to promote its own ideas about morality, e.g. diversity and tolerance, you just find a handy scapegoat and blame libertarians. It doesn't matter that libertarians are the people who actually opposed big government in the first place, or that you argued against them and for the big government exactly so it could impose its morality on people, which it did. It is still our faults, because we are all secretly homosexuals and pornographers.
I don't support big government, I have a problem with libertarian, liberal, leftist Judaical activists siding with perverts, pornographers, degenerates, Drug abusers et al all in the name of "personal freedom". A dyed in the wool true color libertarian ideology.
Show me exactly where I said I support big government...
You oppose libertarianism, which is by definition opposition of big government. You try to explain this by redefining libertarianism to mean libertinism, but that is an untruth. Libertarianism is not a personal lifestyle choice, it is a political philosophy of limited government.
I would remind you and others that great conservatives, like Reagan, Goldwater and Buckley, understood and embraced the libertarianism inherent in conservatism. But, the modern conservative movement has rejected their wisdom and decided that the word libertarian is a pejorative invective to be hurled at the enemies. You have also used it as an epithet and therefore cannot possibly adhere to that philosophy. How can you hate libertarianism, i.e. limited government, and say you are not for big government. Sorry, but it just doesn't follow.
...I have a problem with libertarian, liberal, leftist Judaical activists siding with perverts, pornographers, degenerates, Drug abusers et al all in the name of "personal freedom". A dyed in the wool true color libertarian ideology.
Wrong. And if true, what could I say about those who are racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, ignorant, illiterate inbreds? In other words, a "dyed in the wool true color conservative ideology?"
It's in one of the emanations from a penumbra.
“That makes no sense. I wish to be free, and so I would allow others to be free.”
LOL
Let me simplify -Lead, Follow, OR get out of the way. You of the passive and selfish live and let live politically impotent
Libertarians can not ALLOW anything. The word ACCEPT would be more appropriate if it were not for the fact that the acceptance is not a choice but a consequence that always devolves to the lowest common denominator... You do not lead -you follow... Freedom to be depraved may be permitted as personal choice but it is not something to cherish and champion...
The latin tag lines allways gives them away.
What does his mean? I be ignorant of Latun.
(Just checking in - gone all day!)
It’s so much fun kicking the c*** out of libertarians. All that’s needed is my favorite Edmund Burke quote.
Your comments are some of the best on FR.
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.
I won't flame you, because I like to think that I am better than that. I would like to try to explain what seems to be, as you call it, "like oil and water".
For me, Libertarianism boils down to the fact that I want a small government, and I want the government we have to stay out of everyone's private lives as long as those people aren't hurting other people.
Governments come and go, liberal and conservative, moderate and not-so-moderate.
Once a party makes the argument that their government has a right to intrude in every sort of way in state, local and individual affairs, when the government changes, it's hard for the members of that party to argue against the new government's brand of intrusive intervention.
I will give you an example: A true Conservative or Libertarian would be against national educational standards, knowing that states and localities, and indeed families are perfectly capable of making those decisions at a more local level, taking local needs into consideration.
So, let's say that a Social Conservative is in the White House, and there are Social Conservatives in Congress. They have an agenda. Pro-life and abstinence education administered by the Department of Education. Creationism included in science curricula. And so on.
Then an election is held, as they are, and Liberals are elected after 4 or 8 years of Social Conservatism.
Suddenly, the Social Conservatives are not in charge and they don't like what they see: Birth control taught at all levels, goofy math curricula, Heather Has Two Mommys, or whatever bugs them.
But they can no longer argue that the government shouldn't be making state or local educational decisions. They burned that bridge when they bought into it themselves.
So, when the Social Conservatives finally get back in charge, they change what they can, but a successive series of administrations and elections pushes everything toward more intervention, not less. Look at history and see that this is true.
As a Libertarian, I try to avoid all of that to start with. I may not always like things, but I accept that buying into the mess of centralized government at any level is buying into the mess at the highest level eventually.
I don't know exactly, but i recognize something about "Catholic" so it's probably a quote from St Augustine, they are fond of him like they are of Lincoln. On the AOL message boards they would always post a list of famous Sodomites, and Lincoln, and St Augustine were on it.
Your comments are food for thought. Thank you.
Libertarians can not ALLOW anything. The word ACCEPT would be more appropriate if it were not for the fact that the acceptance is not a choice but a consequence that always devolves to the lowest common denominator... You do not lead -you follow...
Oh, so to lead one must deprive somebody of something? Is that right? When the founding fathers, libertarians in a libertarian cause, faught to be free they didn't lead but followed. Because only those among them who wanted to seize power from the rest, that being unselfish by your definition, could lead. The selfish follower seeks freedom and small government, and the selfless leader wrests power and pushes big government over others. Well, that right there is the mentality killing the Republican Party and the conservative movement today.
You are evedently a HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA advocate upon the FR stage shouting words supporting the wrong hole cloaked in libertarian guise full of sound and fury signifying NOTHING... Seeing your eventual ZOTTING will pleasure me!
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.
I am endlessly amused when the true colors of people are shown. I call for a strict constuctionist reading of the constitution, limited government, and a defense of marriage against the homosexual agenda, the post that got me in this thread btw, and for that I am a pro-homosexual troll who should be zotted! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Great post, and good thinking there. We wouldn't want any small government opponents of gay marriage posting here. This is a conservative website!
Important to this is the fact that it is in the nature of government to grow in size and power. It will do this regardless of any stated will of the people and regardless of the ideology that does state its desire to see government grow. So, any impulse to grow government past its most fundamental responsibilities is feeding potential tyranny and oppression.
For this reason, the urge to have government exert its control over ANY additional realms of public or private life must be resisted at all costs. It matters not whether the desire to control other citizens is founded in tradtional morality or "progressive" change; both feed the same beast.
Government was founded to protect the rights of the citizens who enacted it. Those rights are necessarily circumscribed quite narrowly. One does not have the "right" to go to sleep each night knowing that his fellow citizen is not engaged in some kind of behavior of which he disapproves (or that he will be punished if caught doing so).
There are many reasons, reasonable on their surface, that the average citizen, not an ideologue, can put forth to "justify" the growth of government, to curtail freedom, and to increase the level of coercion that exists in our daily lives. They are the kind of temptation that must be resisted. Unfortunately, conservatives and socialists both have fallen prey to that temptation. Freedom, if nothing else, means being able to do something that someone else may not want you to do.
What is it with atheists, liberals, libertarians, and homo activists and the Latin tag lines? It's like a cult that wears them like gangsters wear tattoos. LMAO!
And what is it with racist, big government haters of the Constitution that they have to call everyone they don't like a liberal or homosexual? Could it be projection? I wonder.
And, btw, here is the translation of the "atheist" statement in my tag line, for the curious.
For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as already moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
St. Augustine of Hippo
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.