Posted on 10/27/2006 11:13:01 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile
Genetic monogamy, yes.
I was referring to sexual monogamy. Even Andrew Sullivan has admitted that sexual monogamy is not expected (or desired) by "married" homosexual couples.
Allowing homosexual "marriages" sends the message that sexual fidelity is an option, not a requirement. I don't believe that to be a healthy message.
The fundies will still be around, merrily reproducing, when all the pedophilia, pot & porn libertarians are feeding the worms and forgotten.
I do realize what you are saying.
On the points of logic...
In secular terms of mammalian reproductive biology, "sex" requires a penis and vagina, the act of coitus; something the "homosexuals" cannot do with each other.
"Monogamy" is also a term that denotes biological reproduction, so that is illogical to apply it to homosexuals as well...
Even the term "homosexual" is illogical.
Ah, youth.
You are creepy, you advocate everything the Left wants...
when all the pedophilia, pot & porn libertarians are feeding the worms and forgotten.
"There you go again." (Ronald Reagan)
Your only purpose here on Free Republic is to bash the conservatives...
The only way the Left can win is to destroy the Republican Party from within. They have lost the public argument and cannot win on the issues, they have to have despotic judges do it for them and they have to undermine conservatives in the Republican primary.
It is all about maximizing personal indulgence and pleasure, which is anything but forward-looking. Libertarians tend not to reproduce, because they view children as a nuisance, an expense that would require personal sacrifice and severely cramp their lifestyles.
Most people of religious faith instinctively reject libertarianism, not because they do not agree with the idea that government should be small and limited, but because they suspect that libertarians want to keep government small and limited only so they can be free to gorge on society's seed corn today while flipping the middle finger at anyone who dares to suggest that we ought to be thinking about next year's harvest.
I already did... you like those personal attacks...
After acuussing small L liberarions of supporting child molesters... commies..murderers....now you want to debate?To you I'm the enemy.....there is no debate here ..you hate my guts.
After acuussing small L liberarions of supporting child molesters... commies..murderers....now you want to debate?To you I'm the enemy.....there is no debate here ..you hate my guts.
Not by me!
I'm no Party hack. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the danger in allowing Democrats to regain power.
Morals are taught by/learned from family and church and a moral code is adopted by each individual. It is to be hoped that the JudeoChristian code would be what everyone chooses, but we see daily evidence that this is not so. Look at our so-called leadership, who exempt themselves from most all the laws they pass... and the executive branch which ignores laws when it suits them, especially to their own.
As a SOCIETY, we have numerous ways to deal with those who transgress a common set of mores. Shunning is the harshest and most effective.
The ONLY time government needs to be involved is when a person's transgression involves an outside party who has NOT consented to be involved.
As far as the term "sacrifice" is concerned, I hear it all too often. Always in the context of "We must make a National Sacrifice and give up our (fill in the liberal sacrifice du jour) for the common good." Yet somehow, the liberal "leadership" (Gore, Kerry, et al) are never expected to make THEIR contribution to the National Sacrifice. Some pigs is more equal than others.
People STILL care what others think of them, but most folks have lowered their expectations of what to expect from others and their expectations are met. With a vengeance.
"Sin" may be wrong, but unless it crosses the line, as I noted above, it is most assuredly NOT the province of government to deal with it.
The social right believes differently than the moral libertarians what sort of foundations a culture needs to prosper and reproduce itself in its children. It is a different view of human nature.
Moral libertarians think society will move along just fine in a libertine manner--homosexual behavior being but one example of that. Social christians do not. Hayeck articulated a libertarian approach that suggests the social christians may well be right, although he leaves open the possiblity that they are right for the wrong reasons. Certainly the evidence of our eyes since the 1960's is evidence thereof.
I think, though, that the obsession is of the left. The only reason that particular sin is high on the social christian's radar is because that sin is the one the left is working to get everyone to celebrate these days. Most especially, we worry about our kids and what they will be taught in school on the subject. So what you see is pushback. In a sense, it's a battle we still might win and so it is fought. If, however, you start with the assumption that no moral battle regarding sexual behavior is really worth fighting, then fighting it is, I suppose, creepy.
We, the social Christians, have utterly lost most of the other societal-level battles regarding morality. On most counts, the moral libertarians stand triumphant and virtually unchallenged. Part of the measure of that is how anyone concerned with moral issues may be regarded as creepy--and everyone nods. That, perhaps more than anything else, reflects the triumph of moral libertarianism.
Why do you feel the need to include leftist accomplishments such as NCLB and the Medicare Benefit in a list of "conservatiuve accomplishgments"?
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.