Replies

Here is the libertarian answer to this burning question: Things deemed distasteful should not always be illegal. This response is one that every freedom-loving American should embrace.

Here is the libertarian paradox:

Societies are necessary to protect liberties. Laws define a society. If the laws that define a society are destroyed to protect liberties, then the society those laws define will eventually be destroyed and be unable to protect liberties.

The answer is not libertarianism but conservatism balanced by (classic) liberalism. Conservatism protects the institutions of a society. Left unchecked, the society crushes the individual (the valid libertarian fear). (Classic) Liberalism protects the individual. Left unchecked, individual license destroys a society.

In balance, the two have done a pretty good job of keeping the US Strong and Free. Leaning too heavily toward one or the other will leave the US either strong, or free, but not both.

As always, it is a question of balance. Libertarianism, at least as posted on this board, is unbalanced.

Looking at the question of permitting homosexual behavior we should ask ourselves several hard questions, and look for evidentiary rather than anecdotal evidence. A small subset of those questions are (I picked a short list for brevity's sake because I believe they make the strongest point. Feel free to discuss the questions I did not include):

Are individuals harmed by denying a "right" to homosexual erotic activity?
Is there any new information that causes us to want to change thousands of years of historical precedent for declaring homosexual erotic attraction aberrent?
Is there any information to suggest that sexual license (including homosexual erotic behavior) is harmful to society?

I don't believe the answer to the first is "yes." I am almost certain the answer to the second is "no." I believe the answer to the third is "yes."

The conservative position is that we can not allow liberty to become license to the destruction of the Republic. Based on those three questions I have chosen to present this particular moral wrong can not be declared a civil right.

Shalom.

"Is there any information to suggest that sexual license (including homosexual erotic behavior) is harmful to society?"

If your answer to this question is also "yes", are you then in favor of criminalizing pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, group sex, bondage, or anything above and beyond sex for the strict purpose of reproduction?

Who gest to define "sexual license", and last but not least, how will offending sexual activity be policed?

Libertarianism, at least as posted on this board, is unbalanced.

Not by those who adocate libertarianism. It is unbalanced by those who hate it and misrepresent it. It is also unbalanced by the wackos who simply assume the label because they equate liberty with license.

Just go to the basic premises of not defrauding another or not initiating force or coersion against another. At that point, laws are in effect to define unacceptable behavior in those realms, since far too many cannot restrain themselves, and to provide a mechanism for punishment.

Contrary to what is represented, libertariansim works only for those responsible, mature and self disciplined enough not to harm others and to respect that others may do things that we don't like.

Just beacuse I don't gamble money doesn't mean I feel compelled to stop you from doing it even though you may throw away your life savings, may jeopardize your home and family and entire way of life. If, as a concerned friend, I see you doing anything that is harming you, I have an obligation to warn you, but no obligation or power to take away by force the free will that God Himself gave to you.