If someone doesn’t support no holds barred porn, legal prostitution, legal drugs, the entire “gay” rights agenda and abortion, why would they self-identify as libertarians? I don’t see how someone who follows the Bible could ever support the LP. And if they cannot support the LP, why call themselves “libertarian” whether it’s a large L or small l?
Oh, I just remembered another official LP position - open borders!
And the GOP platform (in a quick search) is at this link (too complex to copy/paste) and it’s clear conservatives would indeed support most of it. They certainly would not disavow 3/4 of it and still call themselves Republicans.
http://www.issues2000.org/Republican_Party.htm
Here’s one more:
http://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/
Maybe because they do not wish a perfectly good term to be stolen by libertines?
The point is, they exist and you aren’t interested at all in them because they represent Jesus Christ for the most part. A “karma universe” can’t stand up to Jesus Christ.
“If someone doesn’t support no holds barred porn, legal prostitution, legal drugs, the entire “gay” rights agenda and abortion, why would they self-identify as libertarians?”
Because they like the idea of liberty?
“I don’t see how someone who follows the Bible could ever support the LP.”
Last I checked, God hadn’t registered a party preference. I imagine for those Christians who are also in the LP, they either tolerate the aspects of the LP they don’t like, or they don’t see it in the same way that you do. It’s not like there is any one-size-fits-all interpretation of the Bible out there.
While I’m not a member of the LP nor do I consider myself a libertarian, I think it presumptuous to call one or the other of our political parties the party of God or the party *not* of God.
If someone doesn’t support no holds barred porn, legal prostitution, legal drugs, the entire “gay” rights agenda and abortion, why would they self-identify as libertarians?
As far a porn goes. For myself, if it was promised that the written word would remain untouched, personally, I wouldn't mind. However, I've seen the AFA (for example) define Victoria's Secret as porn, so it all comes down to who you trust to define it. I'd trust just about anyone over a bureaucrat, or worse: Congress.
Legal prostitution. While I'm inclined to rhetoric about it being illegal to sell something that can be legally and freely given, I'm forced to admit I wouldn't want it in my neighborhood, so we agree on its present legality or illegality as the case may be.
Legal drugs. All drugs are different so a conversation about "drugs" en toto can only be held between true believers on both sides, and I'm not a true believer. Taken one at a time, I'd probably legalize marijuana and increase the penalties for the rest.
Gay rights. I bear gays no ill will, nor do I hold any pie in the sky beliefs that gays can be done away with. I just want it moved back into people's private lives again. Go be as gay as you wanna be in your own bedroom, but don't forever seer my retinas with things that I really don't want to see. Don't discuss it with children, don't put it on TV, etc.
Now being pro-life just makes sense. You can't pursue happiness if your life is ended en utero. However, I do realize there are morally tricky situations. To give you a real world scenario, my wife had a patient over a decade ago now who against medical advice opted out of a hysterectomy and chemo therapy to continue her new found pregnancy against astronomical odds. The pregnancy miscarried at 28 weeks, and she was dead less than a year later. Her chances of surviving had treatment begun were over 90%.