Posted on 05/06/2013 2:59:10 PM PDT by EveningStar
A battle within the Republican Party over same-sex marriage is unfolding on two fronts, in public, and behind the scenes. In the latter case, one of the most influential players is a billionaire hedge fund manager largely unknown to those who don’t work in finance or mix with political mega-donors.
That man is Paul E. Singer, who over the years has used his wealth to spur Republicans to support gay marriage laws. Now, Singer is expanding his reach with the creation of an advocacy group which aims to spend millions influencing the legislative debate over same-sex marriage across the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
LOL, you are in the Ozone now.
So libertarianism agrees with both the left and the right on homosexuality in the military, your claptrap is not very interesting.
Do you think that libertarians write about the topic in their publications and state the libertarian position on “personal liberty” in regards to homosexuals, or take a position on it in politics or in their party?
You are the only person claiming to be libertarian that has ever claimed that libertarians have no opinions on social issues and the federal government, that I have ever run into.
I’m used to you guys making up things and evading the truth, but you take the cake.
Wow you are stupid.
LOL, I have never seen someone so ignorant of libertarianism that they think that there is no libertarian view on allowing homosexuality in the military.
What you are calling libertarianism is not libertarianism.
Of course the liberals who call themselves “libertarian” are for all sorts of bad things. But they are not actually libertarian, any more than Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic because she calls herself Catholic.
Amazing, you are the most clueless person about libertarianism that I have ever met, or heard of, in my entire life.
By the way Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic and was recently received by the Pope and received communion at the Vatican, you seem to have a habit of just creating your own little world for everything.
Actually, no. Did you even read the article linked?
Or does actual information scare you?
BTW, all pro-abort politicians are schismatics, to be denied of Communiun, per the Pope himself.
Pelosi may call herself a Catholic, but she’s not.
I must disagree with you there. I consider myself a classical liberal and I strongly oppose homosexuals openly serving in our armed forces and I also oppose women serving in combat roles.
I rate Marxist in our schools as a bigger issue.
Incorrect a CL believes in natural law, "Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature—both social and personal—and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it." In the Christian West moral behavior is G*ds Law, ergo male homosexual acts are immoral.
What a weird response, to want to name a larger issue and one unrelated to the topic, when someone points out that this discussion involves “one of” the biggest issues, in this case, national defense and homosexuality, which by the way is currently a bigger political issue.
This is the post you responded to.
“”When your whole focus is speaking for libertarianism and someone asks you, do you think that libertarianism opposes homosexuality in the military, or supports it being open and equal there, and you won’t answer, then you are evading.
While you evade revealing the truth, I will post the answer for thread readers, the answer is yes, libertarianism is for homosexualizing the military.””
There is no question that libertarianism supports full equality and freedom for homosexuals in the military, regardless of your personal differences with libertarianism.
You are confusing libertarianism with positions taken by the Libertarian Party (LP) they are not the same thing. In my mind libertarianism is classical liberalism (CL). While adherents of CL tend to be socially liberal they are supporters of Christian believes and morals. A CL does not care what consenting adults do in their bedroom. But they do care what consenting adults do in public or the barracks.
I am not confusing anything, you are, you think that even when you disagree with libertarianism that you speak for it, not the libertarians themselves.
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.