Posted on 03/26/2013 5:52:31 PM PDT by cradle of freedom
If you support this:
Section 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.
If so then you are indeed a libertarian, and you do seem to embrace that position, don’t you?
as you say—”OH, I SHOULD BE A STATIST BECAUSE SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT GOVERNMENT TO LEAVE THEM ALONE HAPPEN TO BE FAGGOTS?”
I do not, never have, and never will support homosexuality.
I think government should be put back in its box, and then it can't tell boy scouts they have to have queer scoutmasters.
If thinking government has no damned business in people's private affairs makes my outlook somewhat libertarian, then it does, but at no time have I ever been a member of the Libertarian Party, nor have I even read their platform.
No political party gets donations from me, only individual candidates.
You want to know what I think, you come to me and quit making crap up based on a label YOU choose to try to stick on me.
You say you don’t support them, but then say that you oppose our laws against them, and then you spout the libertarian line of, (in your bold letters) “OH, I SHOULD BE A STATIST BECAUSE SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT GOVERNMENT TO LEAVE THEM ALONE HAPPEN TO BE FAGGOTS?” Aren’t you calling for homosexual “equality” there, for an end to laws which limit it?
You also lie about sodomy laws having been defeated by the straights, when the truth is that the straights were fighting for them against the homosexuals and libertarians, and the Liberty Caucus.
For the umpteenth time, the law made illegal and included in definitions of "sodomy" certain acts not involving anal sex between a husband (man) and wife (woman), and those were the parts of the law heterosexuals were against. If you had read previous posts, those specific acts were spelled out.
You can’t seem to grasp that by supporting the homosexual agenda of removing the laws against them, then you are supporting their agenda.
How can that confuse you?
You keep saying ‘I don’t support homosexuality’, BUT, ‘I support their agenda’.
What does that make you? Even the Nazis didn't go that far.
I wasn't involved in the issue. I was in high school when the legal battle was pointed out to us in a Judicial Process class--during the Vietnam War.
Slanderer. I have repeatedly said I oppose the homosexual agenda. On this thread and elsewhere. You asserting otherwise doesn’t change my stance. so quit lying about me.
I have no interest in supporting or promoting legalizing oral sex of any kind whatsoever. If anyone wanted to do that, in private, then no one would know or care.
That’s one thing. And your statement that such practices were becoming more “popular” in the 1960s merely illustrates the increasing degradation and depravity of society that was already well along at that time. And the fact that faggots supported the overturning of sodomy laws is even more evidence.
I don’t care what anyone else is saying about you, or anything else. My discussion today is with you, about sodomy laws, the homonazi agenda which is part and parcel of the open sexuality depravity destroy the family agenda of the communists. And the Libertarian Party is an assistant in that endeavor.
I keep pointing out that you are a liar, aside from the fact that you keep ignoring your lying about the 2010 pro-homosexual efforts of the Liberty Caucus in Texas in fighting the republican platform inclusion of an anti gay-marriage, sodomy clause, (see my post 157 to you), you keep making the obscene lie that it was the normal people fighting the sodomy laws because of oppression of heterosexual sex, when in reality that was the ACLU and the homosexual movement and the libertarians and the left.
As this quote shows about the sodomy laws, you don't have an honest bone in your body. ""That fight wasn't even about Libertarians, it was about getting the government out of straight people's bedrooms.""
There is no political party that supports the Constitution unless it’s the Constitution Party, which I haven’t looked into. Tiny little 3rd parties that always lose aren’t useful.
I don’t see any easy or quick solution. I wish I did.
Well, I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party.
Member or not member, the point is do you agree with their platform.
If you support laws against homosexuality and agree with me and conservatives, and don't agree with the libertarians and the Liberty Caucus, then what are we arguing about??
Bye.
I haven’t read their platform, so I can’t say. If they are for homosexuals, that is a deal breaker for me. If they support abortion, no way. See how simple that is?
You tell me, you started it.
I don't see a solution either, just thought I'd ask.
Every small party seems to have a deep flaw in it that will keep it in the weeds for a long time. The country needs to return to the Constitution yesterday.
I agree with that libertarian position, except when it comes to dealing with faggots, freaks, abortionists, and democrats.
So now you are pretending that you don’t know anything about the Texas Issue, yet you proceeded to defend the homosexual side in the 2010 issue with a stupid argument.
To: ansel12
“In 2010, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas denounced the new state Republican Party platform that supported criminalization of sodomy
Most legal definitions of “sodomy” were not limited to buggery, but included acts of oral stimulation that are often practiced between a man and woman (husband and wife). That was the stated reason for the removal of those laws.
155 posted on 3/28/2013 1:25:33 AM by Smokin’ Joe
To: Smokin’ Joe
Nice try, but dishonest in it’s intent, the Liberty Caucus was fighting for the homosexual agenda.
It was cute the way you cut off the last few words of that sentence that you pretended to quote.
“”In 2010, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas denounced the new state Republican Party platform that supported criminalization of sodomy and making same-sex marriage a felony.””
157 posted on 3/28/2013 2:22:29 AM by ansel12
To: ansel12
Yep I did cut it off because I was pointing out that the sodomy laws were removed because the heterosexual public didn’t like the idea that a husband could be prosecuted for getting a Lewinsky from his wife, and that was included in the definition.
The remainder was not germane to my comment.
159 posted on 3/28/2013 3:11:54 AM by Smokin’ Joe
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.