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 ...
Man, that is gibberish, absolute nonsense, you just flat refuse to communicate, now you are sounding like a true libertarian, slipping and sliding avoiding and evading, getting sillier and sillier and denying you support what you keep supporting on the thread.
The American military does not recognize polygamy for it’s soldiers, you ignored telling us how atheists are to marry if you only want Mosques and churches to do marriage, and you seem to think that homosexuality has always been open and legal in the military, it hasn’t.
You do want to not protect marriage, to allow homosexuals in the military, allow them to adopt and not discriminate in custody cases, the homosexual agenda.
Amen!
LLS
I've told you before, and I will yet again: allowing the government to define marriage WILL DESTROY IT, it is ceding to them the power to define it and once they have that power they can redefine it.
to allow homosexuals in the military, allow them to adopt and not discriminate in custody cases, the homosexual agenda.
Let me put it this way: if someone shuts the hell up about being homosexual and never acts on those impulses, how are you going to tell that they're homosexual?
The American military does not recognize polygamy for it’s soldiers,
You didn't say for its soldiers.
you ignored telling us how atheists are to marry if you only want Mosques and churches to do marriage,
No I didn't. I said they're out of luck, sucks to be them.
(IOW if you reject religion utterly you reject also religious institutions and rites.)
and you seem to think that homosexuality has always been open and legal in the military, it hasn’t.
If you keep it in your pants and tell no one, then there is no action by which law may be applied and you can do anything a straight person can.
You are here buying into the lie that homosexuals discriminated against.
Man, that is gibberish, absolute nonsense, you just flat refuse to communicate, now you are sounding like a true libertarian, slipping and sliding avoiding and evading, getting sillier and sillier and denying you support what you keep supporting on the thread.
What are you talking about: I've told you where I stand.
It looks to me like you are the one who will not communicate: your questions are not inquisitive, but accusatory in nature.
Good Lord man, the US military isn’t interested in world marriage laws, your acceptance of gay marriage and polygamy applies to OUR military.
The libertarian position is OPEN homosexuality in the military, NO ONE CAN care about people that no one even knows is homosexual, why do you keep bringing that up as though it is relevant to anything?
So in your libertarian view, Christians, Muslims, the gay church of the goats, Scientology, Mormons and any and every cult can create any concept of marriage imaginable including polygamy and homosexual marriage, but atheists cannot marry at all?
How is the military to define marriage for death benefits and housing and recognizing children and so on?
I haven't accepted gay marriage (or polygamy). But as for your assertions, I've said before that such should not be definable by the state.
The libertarian position is OPEN homosexuality in the military, NO ONE CAN care about people that no one even knows is homosexual, why do you keep bringing that up as though it is relevant to anything?
Because the only way it's a factor is if it's brought up -- Again, the law can only rightly deal with actions.
So in your libertarian view, Christians, Muslims, the gay church of the goats, Scientology, Mormons and any and every cult can create any concept of marriage imaginable including polygamy and homosexual marriage, but atheists cannot marry at all?
I never said all religions were equal, but a rejection of all religion [atheism] is a rejection of all religious authority.
That is to say, how can one be married unless they submit to the power marrying them? And how can they submit if they are actively rebelling?
How is the military to define marriage for death benefits and housing and recognizing children and so on?
Who says they should? -- Apparently you are unaware that the Constitution prohibits Congress from procuring funds for the army for any length of time greater than two years, and the founding fathers made it quite clear that they never intended to have a standing army (which, incidentally, is why they put in the constitutions provisions for calling the militia into service).
Since 1790 the United States government has defined and recognized marriage for it’s military personnel, that was unconstitutional? They didn’t seem to know that.
We have every flavor of church in America, polygamy churches and gay marriage churches and everything else, that means that there is no defined marriage, and as far as your forbidding atheists to marry, are you going to require a God oath for a sergeant to get married?, What if he is gay, or Muslim and wants lots of wives?
Well-then I guess the Christian church needs to get its shit in a sock and start acting like it’s something different (i.e. acting like marriage is a permanent lifetime commitment, rather than allowing/accepting divorce/remarriage for every little thing), no?
Another weird post that didn’t make sense nor respond to my post to you, nor was relevant to anything.
Do you really need to cuss like that when you are pretending to be concerned about Christianity?
Pretending? That's rather insulting. (Are you the type who dismisses anyone who shows [negative] emotion?)
You know, I might not be a great Christian, or even a very good one... ok, I'll admit it, I'm a terrible Christian, that's why I need Jesus.
And you know something, that's about all I can say here & now without being insulting myself.
I would like to see you respond to post 86, you can ask the moderator to remove your cussing post.
“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.”
Politics is not theology; you are free to pick and chose the best ideas from various schools of thoughts. Small-l libertarians have very valid ideas about limination of government.
You are the weak one, unable to see beyond black and white. Apparently paleo-conservatisms is your religion.
You have that.
Me, I am a Christian who reconizes that government is inately liberal and anti-Christian and a threat to Christians, so government must be as weak as possible.
When you disagree with libertarianism, simply disagree with it, don’t proclaim that what you don’t like about it isn’t libertarianism because you don’t like it.
As far as you promoting sin and evil in the name of Christ and patriotism.
Here is the libertarian agenda that you are promoting when you attack conservatives and Christians for opposing it and as you defend the role of libertarianism in fighting the conservative and Christian right and defeating it.
I don’t find a home for Christians in this political agenda.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else, include polygamy.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science and marketers can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
“When you disagree with libertarianism, simply disagree with it, don’t proclaim that what you don’t like about it isn’t libertarianism because you don’t like it.”
No, what you claim is libertarianism isn’t liberarianism.
I quote libertarianism itself, use their own positions, their own formal goals and agenda and campaign platforms, you just make things up.
People are not libertarian because they are pro-life, anti-homosexual, anti-perversion social conservative Christians and conservatives, people become liberals or libertarian to OPPOSE them.
No, you quote a liberal political party that as stolen the name libertarian.
LOL, not stolen, formed by libertarians to have a voice in politics.
You think that their party is CONTRARY to their libertarianism?
Are you under the impression that when a politician says that he is conservative on economics but “libertarian on social issues”, that he is saying that he is a social conservative, or a social liberal?
“Are you under the impression that when a politician says that he is conservative on economics but “libertarian on social issues”, that he is saying that he is a social conservative, or a social liberal?”
That means he’s an idiot who doesn’t know what the words he uses actually mean.
You don’t know what “libertarian on social issues” means, any where, at any time, to any audience?
It means that one is in opposition to the Christians and their social conservatism.
Look at my tag line.
Yes, it means you’ve adopted the language of the left.
Sucks to be you.
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
You belong to a political forum and you don’t understand that “libertarian on social issues” means opposing and wanting to defeat social conservatism?
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.