Posted on 03/10/2014 4:35:26 PM PDT by Mariner
Have you seen what the actual libertarian agenda is?
I answered the question 3 times. It's apparent you're either not reading it or being deliberately dishonest...
YOU are the one who is avoiding the uncomfortable question of whether you voted for a supporter of DADT.
And you'll continue to avoid it.
And it's because your not debating honestly.
Free Republic used to be better than that.
That is a bald faced lie and a nasty way to promote the homosexual agenda on this conservative site.
You are the one supporting the radical left on homosexualizing the military, and who will not come out against refusing hetro marriage rights for gay marriage in the military.
Traditional America and conservatism is not the evil, your promotion of the gay agenda is.
You need to spend some time in prayer tonight and see if God will forgive you.
He will if you ask him to.
But first you must confess your sin.
No, you refuse to answer, instead you switch to the silliness I just described.
You want to hide behind something impossible politically, and militarily, and that has never existed in America, for the military to ignore and not acknowledge the families of the military personnel.
Every GI treated as single, every base built for the single, every retired military treated as single, every death treated as the death of a single.
I have to assume after these hours that you do support equal recognition for gay marriage in the military.
Your pro-gay support is the one thing that you have made clear, and been passionate about.
I haven’t lied about anyone’s position.
Are you saying you want to remove the homosexuals from the military, and while hetro marriage gets full recognition in the military, you want gay marriage forbidden?
Nor will I be confusing societal recognition for the brute force of law.
Your disengenuous arguments amount to nothing more than ad hominem attacks and obfuscation. You have a very twisted view of what us little (l) libertarians actually support and why. In short; you’re just trolling.
Homosexuals already have exactly the same rights regarding marriage that you have. And they always have had them. Even way back in 1780.
Any man has the right to marry the woman he can talk into it, more or less. It’s no more legitimate for two males (or two females) to claim marriage based on their carnal proclivities than it would be for two heterosexual males to do so for the purposes of income tax evasion, in other, simpler words; being queer does not factor into it at all. JUST LIKE MILITARY SERVICE. There is NO CONFLICT between failing to exclude someone from military service, and also failing to allow those same people to redefine the institution of marriage.
How would you go about excluding gays from military service? It can’t be done. They’ll lie and get in anyway...
Now what?
People are going to do stuff you don’t like.
I’m done.
Sorry, but that was nothing but a man arguing against the conservative view, the traditional view, the centuries old, AND EFFECTIVE view, and trying not to reveal his liberal hand while doing it.
Some young guy would read your arguments and think that gays in the military is natural and always has been, and that the only opposition to it is some old fuddy duddies who want to cause trouble for people because they have different tastes.
That is some of that lefty/libertarian, anti-conservative, anti-American stuff I was describing earlier, and something that you want conservatives to accept without prejudice, in their candidates.
Should two married Massachusetts couples who are in the military, one gay, one normal, but both legally married under state law, be treated the same by the military, or should the federal government discriminate against the gay couple, recognizing the Massachusetts state marriage of the normal couple, and refusing to recognize the Massachusetts state marriage of the gays?
Just keep propping up and flogging that straw man. It’s lost it’s entertainment value for me...
So you support government funded whelping boxes for welfare queens.
How could you possibly say that government has a legitimate interest in defining a family, and exclude those poor women without a husband?
Liberal.
Don’t even try to hide it...
What straw man? Gay marriage is legal in some states, and the military has to deal with that one way or the other, that is the reality.
You don’t think the military needs to know what a legal spouse is for it’s personnel and military purposes?
I’m sorry, homosexuality isn’t my issue. It’s yours. You chose it when you decided to declare, sans evidence, that all the (l)ibertarian FReepers were supporters of homo marriage. I’m not. I won’t defend it, and my words cannot be construed by a reasonable person as supporting homosexuality in any way. It is a filthy depravity.
My contributions to this discussion are focused primarily on military service, and EXCLUSIVELY on limited government.
You never answered my question. How do you propose to keep homosexuals from joining the military?
I’ll answer yours anyway. No, I do not think that the federal government or any of it’s appendages has the slightest bit of business determining who is, or isn’t someones spouse.
I do believe that it’s set up this way now, as a result of government overreaching it’s charter some hundrrds of years ago.
Even if there is a legitimate reason for the U.S. Military to determine who a soldier’s spouse is (death benefits, or whatever), a man can’t be a man’s spouse. We’re not created that way. Tough luck.
I totally agree with you. Each man has something important to contribute. We are fortunate to have these true Conservative Patriots step up and desire to fight for US and this country, our Constitution, liberty and freedom. These two men are articulate LEADERS. God bless em’, and they have my support.
That doesn't sound like a conservative who is trying to remove gays from military service.
I am surprised that as a veteran you don't understand how necessary it is for the military to recognize marriages and families, for instance for on base housing, especially in a war on terror, and also for extended overseas stationing, and schools, and medical, etc.
I am also interested in how you don't want the feds to have a working definition of marriage for their military, employment, and immigration, yet you want them to so define marriage, that they reject state laws on marriage, and make their own working definition for the military, federal employment and immigration, it seems rather confusing, and the fact is that, that kind of fantasy stuff is a waste of time any way since it doesn't fit into any political reality.
As far keeping homosexuals out of the military, we did it for centuries, do we manage to keep out literally every single drug addict, pedophile and homosexual, etc, of all the many millions, of course not, but that isn't any kind of an argument to legalize them and to stop looking for them and forbidding them.
Libertarians are always demanding that we either stop opposing liberalism, or else, to at least learn to just roll over and accept it.
Putin is playing with matches. Better to let him burn himself.
I could live with that. No joke! :)
Well, I guess those of us who want to fix this country can count your vote out since you’re stuck being a single issue voter.
The US Military equipment stock is old, worn out and due for a great number of replacements.
Of COURSE I would not be opposed to selling them anything they want to buy short of nukes. Same goes for Poland. Make them part of the F-35 program or sell them equipment rotating out of service.
But few realize how bad off our own military is right now.
Most of the heavy equipment (land and air) is the product of the Reagan surge in the 80s.
Only the Navy has some new stuff to speak of and their numbers are FAR, FAR too low.
I completely agree--as regarding all of the above points.
What is my single issue, abortion?
Since we know that your clumsy statement is an attempt to encourage conservatives to abandon social issues, why not just explain to us how conservatism is wrong about abortion and marriage and the borders and so on, and why we should change the GOP platform for the libertarian platform?
Abandoning conservatism for more of the last 50 years of social liberalism, is not the way to fix this country, it is what got us into the problem.
Bingo!
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.