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 ...
By dictating the acceptance/rejection is society.
As far as you supporting it, you made that clear on this thread
So "I agree for the most part" (with an explanation of of which part/principal) is exactly equivalent to "I wholeheartedly agree"?
and I find it hard to believe that someone promoting the homosexual agenda is so concerned about the Mosque and church and wants them forbidding homosexuals in the military for instance.
...I really like how you're putting a lot of words I never said into my mouth... you wanna know something?
They taste kinda like earwax.
You are intentionally confusing “libertarianism” with “Libertarians.”
The Libertarian Party is a bunch of kooks.
The TEA Party is very small-l libertarian.
So you're saying the US should abridge/deny human rights based on nationality?
That was a very confusing post since you agree with the libertarian support of the homosexual agenda, including homosexualizing the military.
Getting into world religions is gibberish and is a weird approach for you to try and conceal what is just your simple support of the homosexual agenda.
Not that I care about the large-L Libertarian kooks, but where are you finding that on their platform, all I see is this:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
That ain’t libertarianism.
“Real” libertarianism doesn’t embrace that crap. It just says “its none of my business, leave me alone and you can go to hell in your own way.” Naive, but better than “embracing” that sort of garbage.
Great, now the child speak starts, no wonder you guys are so confused with that level of thinking.
Well, Reagan was wrong. Libertarianism is about removing the moral compass, so that anything goes. I call it the perverts’ party. I wish they would go over to the Dems where they belong.
For unlimited and full term abortion for instance.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
I actually am happy to see your (apparent) misquote of the Large L Libertaian platform because it shows they are not actually “libertarian” at all when it comes to the liberty of the unborn.
Thank you!!!
How can we get the Perverts’ Party out of the GOP or at least off FR.
The libertarian party IS libertarianism and the largest group within the tea party are social conservatives.
Yes!!!! Thank you for making my day.
If you had bothered to read the explanation you would see the parts I was saying I agreed with ("Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.")-- two of the three sentences you posted, and therefore the majority.
Getting into world religions is gibberish and is a weird approach for you to try and conceal what is just your simple support of the homosexual agenda.
I never supported it; you are merely ascribing to me something I did not say because, apparently, you were too lazy to read a paragraph.
So then... turnabout isn't fair play?
If you're ready to take the entire argument into consideration I'd be happy to debate with you; if you keep up with your intellectually lazy/dishonest behavior then I have more productive things I could do.
I didn't misquote anything, I quoted the full text version of the short hand version that you used, if you read them you see that they don't contradict each other and I don't kn ow how you mixed up abortion and immigration.
The party is libertarianism, individuals who cherry pick libertarian ideas are mere individuals, too weak to embrace the whole ideology as the party has to, since it has to put it into English to promote legislation and change.
If you are libertarian then you know that the party is pure.
Marriage is not just a religious sort of thing. That’s where you’re missing it.
The state has an existential interest in preserving real marriage and the natural family.
To put it another way, to fail to preserve the natural family - which is the basic organizing unit of our civilization, our laws, our system of self-government, and our economy - is out and out national suicide.
Protecting the natural family is the most crucially important component, by far, of fulfilling the paramount stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which is: “To secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.”
No, that's already well into and embedded in our culture despite libertarians being... well, a pretty small group. If that *were* their goal than they would already have achieved success and therefore would not be as contrary to the main parties as they are. -- If anything Libertarians are anti-statists.
There's a difference between saying "this isn't the government's business" and "I support this." The problem is that many people hear the latter when the former is what's [trying to be] said. [Ansel's Post 31 as a reply to my Post 29 is an example.]
So you don’t support the first sentence then, only the following sentences? This you don’t agree with? “”Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.””
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
I agree - but what of when evil men are in power? The question is: "Should they be allowed to define 'marriage'?"
My argument is that the best, and only way, to keep from having another definition of marriage forced on us is to as-a-people reject any other; this can only come about from some base morality, it is this morality that religion is supposed to enhance/refine.
Protecting the natural family is the most crucially important component, by far, of fulfilling the paramount stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which is: “To secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.”
The best protections the government could give would be to fairly and equitably apply the law -- this would preclude: progressive income tax, confiscatory taxation (withholdings), the assumption of guilt (men in divorce/family-court), welfare.
This (loving and doing justice) in turn would prevent many of the ills we are currently experiencing.
All of this can [and will happen] without ceding the definition of "marriage" to the state -- in fact, the best way to define "marriage" for future generations would to be fully committed to your own (if you're married) and let them see the example... and this is completely without the government touching 'marriage'.
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.