You were telling me that you had answered whether you agreed with the libertarian position on personal relationships, and then eventually revealed that you had done so months ago, on another thread.
You are fighting for the libertarian position, so why all the hours of evasiveness and dishonest cutesiness?
You think that is a successful approach to get someone to argue it with you.
There has been no dishonest cutsieness; I simply do not wish to give you more ammunition to attack me with precisely because I believe that you will attack and accuse me.
Moreover, I note how you are constitutionally unable to understand that agreement with the written statement Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships
is not the same thing as endorsing homosexuality. That's like saying that if I believe that the War on Drugs
is unlawful because it (a) has no Constitutional authority [ref the 18th amendment req'd to authorize prohibition], and (b) violates the Bill of Rights [ref the 4th Amendment whittled down to nothing] than, because I am against the War on Drugs
I am a 'pothead' or in favor of legalization, failing to realize that if the War on Drugs is unlawful then there is no need to "legalize" them because they were never unlawful in the first place as all such laws pursuant to the War on Drugs would be nullity.
You think that is a successful approach to get someone to argue it with you
No; I think it is a successful approach to mitigating your attacks — it has proven fairly effective because it denies you the chance to try to make an attack based on anything else I might say.
Do you believe it is within the proper purview of government to "define, license or restrict personal relationships"?