Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Young conservatives misled on homosexual issue
OneNewsNow ^ | 3/3/2009 | Jim Brown

Posted on 03/03/2009 10:09:14 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K

A pro-family activist believes there is a huge battle looming between libertarians and social conservatives in the Republican Party. He says this battle was highlighted by a survey he conducted at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, regarding the homosexual agenda.

More than half of the nearly 9,000 conservative activists at CPAC last week in Washington were under the age of 22. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says most of the young people he surveyed at CPAC were against the legalization of same-sex "marriage," but notes there was a lot of confusion about the issue of homosexual civil unions.

"Some people thought civil unions were just something you have to give the gay activists," he points out. "Others thought it was a real compromise and didn't realize how close it was to same-sex marriage and how it actually advances the same-sex marriage agenda."

LaBarbera believes many young conservatives are being taught to think of homosexuality as a civil rights issue.

"I think they feel that they have to do something for these gay unions. We have to bring it back to the behavior, the unhealthiness of the behavior, but also the entire gay agenda," he adds. "How the gay agenda threatens religious freedom [and] how no libertarian should be for this agenda because this is an agenda which crushes the freedom to disagree with homosexuality."

Even many social conservatives, according to LaBarbera, fail to realize that in the courts, civil-union type laws actually pave the way for decisions supporting same-sex marriage.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: civilunions; cpac; homosexualagenda; libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last
Perversion is not a civil right.
1 posted on 03/03/2009 10:09:14 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; BabaOreally; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com


2 posted on 03/03/2009 10:10:00 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

How can a conservative agree with any part of the perverse homosexual agenda? I don’t understand how the conservatives could be confused about the issue.


3 posted on 03/03/2009 10:13:11 AM PST by txnativegop (God Bless America! (NRA-Endowment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop

“How can a conservative agree with any part of the perverse homosexual agenda? I don’t understand how the conservatives could be confused about the issue.”

Because the water is now boiling.


4 posted on 03/03/2009 10:15:16 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Of course, I am older than the reported age of the attendees at CPAC. Maybe that is just too simple a concept in society today.


5 posted on 03/03/2009 10:17:34 AM PST by txnativegop (God Bless America! (NRA-Endowment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

Most young “conservatives” tend to be libertarians when it comes to social issues.


6 posted on 03/03/2009 10:17:37 AM PST by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

“there was a lot of confusion about the issue of homosexual civil unions”

And there you have the destruction of America. Even the people on our side don’t give a rip what God says.


7 posted on 03/03/2009 10:30:25 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative

It’s the pot and too many episodes of Real World or whatever.


8 posted on 03/03/2009 10:32:07 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
It’s the pot and too many episodes of Real World or whatever.

More of a philosophy that people, and the government, should mind their own business.

9 posted on 03/03/2009 10:34:56 AM PST by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
"And there you have the destruction of America. Even the people on our side don’t give a rip what God says."

One more time:

"And there you have the destruction of America. Even the people on our side don’t give a rip what God says."

10 posted on 03/03/2009 10:36:16 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative

That’s not really what Liberaltarians are driven by.


11 posted on 03/03/2009 10:40:46 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

I believe the real conservative position on this is to look at basic rights and the laws and determine if the claims by the homosexuals are valid. The typical charge about marriage, and this is also used by otherwise conservative people in my experience, is that it is illegal discrimination to deny marriage to same-sex couples while allowing it for others. I say that if it is, then I am an MD.

Marriage is nothing but a defined institution which anyone can freely partake of if they simply meet the qualifications. Doctorates of Medicine are the same. If I want to be a doctor I have to go to school, take tests, apply for licenses and so on. But what about stupid people? Or the insane? Or people who do not believe in western medicine, or tests, or schooling? And of course there are the many, many poor people who cannot go to such schools. They are discriminated against under that system, just like gay people are in marriage.

Marriage is what it is. Being an MD is as well. And homosexuals can marry, and many have, only not usually to one of the same gender. They are not barred from the institution at all. It is simply not discrimatory to have standards. It is, though, if one bars those who actually meet the standards based on some other non-applicable criteria. But, that is not happening, and so there is no issue of individual rights being violated, which should satisfy any real conservative.


12 posted on 03/03/2009 11:00:05 AM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop
How can a conservative agree with any part of the perverse homosexual agenda?

Conservatives can't, but Libertarians can, and there my friend is the rub.

13 posted on 03/03/2009 11:31:17 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
That’s not really what Liberaltarians are driven by.

Probably not, but they would create an environment where it can flourish.

14 posted on 03/03/2009 11:33:30 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

I have never understood the libertarian mindset. They have taken the best of the conservative ideology and mated it with the worst of the liberal ideology.

In short, they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. These two things are like oil and water, they just don’t mix.

Libertarians please feel free to flame me, if you must.


15 posted on 03/03/2009 11:33:51 AM PST by txnativegop (God Bless America! (NRA-Endowment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
It is simply not discrimatory to have standards. It is, though, if one bars those who actually meet the standards based on some other non-applicable criteria. But, that is not happening, and so there is no issue of individual rights being violated, which should satisfy any real conservative..

Doc you should demand a refund for your tuition.

You have no clue the purpose of Marriage.

16 posted on 03/03/2009 11:37:58 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
"More of a philosophy that people, and the government, should mind their own business."

That’s not really what Liberaltarians are driven by.

This is the typical confusion about liberalism and libertarianism that we see today. It isn't surprising given how many people on TV seem to be lost about it. Bill Maher, for instance, loves to go around calling himself a libertarian while screaming support for gun control and socialism just because he likes drugs and hookers. Being immoral does not make one a libertarian.

Liberals, of course, desire state control in all aspects of life. They desire homosexual marriage in order to further a vision they have of modern culture. They would grow culture to fit their design, and that design is defined first of all by a devaluing of the Judeo-Christian systems of morality. It is all about state control to create societal change.

This is not libertarianism, though just what is can often be confusing. First there is a party that uses that name, and some think the platform of that organization reflects the de fide definition of that movement. Not so at all. Libertarianism is a basic principle or philosophy about the government and its role. Just how far one goes is open to the adherent. Many, many people are libertarian without engaging in extremist positions, just as is true on the right. Not all so-called conservatives are John Birchers or such. And not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. As a matter of fact, most aren't. William F. Buckley called himself a libertarian, and understood that this simply meant that he believed in limited government and individual liberty. And he was generally libertarian.

I am also libertarian, but I don't carry things as far as some will. Like many I am pro-life. Some aren't. I am not pro-gay marriage, at least with the current system, but many are. There are wide ranges of thought, but it all comes down to the limits of government and the purpose of the same.

And of course libertarianism is a key component of conservative thought. Limits on government, personal responsibility and liberty, laissez-faire economics; these are all libertarianism. Without them conservatism is left only with its traditional morality which when combined with non-libertarian views of government quickly becomes just another form of totalitarianism. What exactly would conservatism be without its libertarian foundation?

17 posted on 03/03/2009 11:38:14 AM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
What exactly would conservatism be without its libertarian foundation?

Much better off. Libertarianism leads to devolution of society.

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it.

We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

[1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
James Madison


18 posted on 03/03/2009 11:44:02 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop
How can a conservative agree with any part of the perverse homosexual agenda? I don’t understand how the conservatives could be confused about the issue.

Simply put, it's difficult for young people to get worked up about this issue because young people don't have children of their own. Once you do, the idea of some pervert teaching your kids that disgusting sex acts are a-ok takes on a whole new level of revulsion.
19 posted on 03/03/2009 11:44:24 AM PST by Antoninus (It's a sad time when Pravda's reporting is more reliable than anything in the major US media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop
In short, they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. These two things are like oil and water, they just don’t mix.

What is it to be socially liberal? Have you really ever thought about that? Some years ago it was illegal for a man to commit sodomy. In most cases it is not now. Is that change "socially liberal?" Does the conservative want to send such people to jail? I am a Christian, and I think it is sinful for people to reject Christ. Should I fight for a government that would make everyone be Christian? If I don't am I "socially liberal?"

I am quite conservative socially, and I am a libertarian. I just don't think the government should use force to make everyone agree with me. I also don't think the government should be able to use force to make me agree with everyone else. Is that "socially liberal?" If people want to be Scientologists, fine. Let them. If they wan't to fool others into joining; fine, let them. Caveat emptor. People have rights, and government should defend those rights and not violate them either. I just don't see how that is either liberal or conservative socially speaking.

20 posted on 03/03/2009 11:45:49 AM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

What is a libertarian? A liberal that can add.
What is a gay libertarian? A liberal that can add but can’t multiply.


21 posted on 03/03/2009 11:49:50 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
You have no clue the purpose of Marriage.

Odd. How do you get that? I never said anything about the "purpose of marriage." I suppose you think I am wrong about marriage not being a right, and so you must support homosexual marriage. Care to defend that rather than leaving drive-by posts?

22 posted on 03/03/2009 11:52:40 AM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

The federal government should have no role in making drugs legal or illegal. That should be left to the states, for the most part. Same with prostitution, gambling, etc. The Liberaltarians I run across on FR want the federal government to legalize those things then put their stamp of approval on it by taxing it, thus protecting it and creating more bureaucracy in order to regulate it.

Most of them that I’ve come across are basically Rand disciples who believe individuality is the greatest good for society.

Where I differ is I don’t think the first step to liberty is for the feds to legalize every vice and start regulating it. That’s what I hear over and over again on FR. Let’s strip the feds of 99.833% of its power, give the States their power back, then let’s talk about whether or not we want pot legal in our respective states.

No Libertarians have ever agreed with me on that schedule but continue their mantra. That’s why I say their top priority is breaking society of its morals and blue laws so free thinking Randianism can prevail.


23 posted on 03/03/2009 11:57:01 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
What exactly would conservatism be without its libertarian foundation?

Much better off. Libertarianism leads to devolution of society.

You have got to be kidding. Libertarianism is nothing more than a belief in limits to governments and the inalienable rights of citizens. If you oppose libertarianism then you oppose limited government and liberties.

If you support the constitution, as it is written, you are libertarian. It is a libertarian document. Its entire purpose is to limit government and defend the rights of "we the people." It is so sad how little conservatives know of their own history these days.

24 posted on 03/03/2009 11:57:51 AM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

The problem is the people in your group, for the most part, are only in it for the pot and whores. If that’s not their goal, at least one could the only fruit their tactics would yield would be more pot and more whores and more power for the FDA and OSHA.

I believe in limited powers for the Feds and would listen to arguments that the drug war exceeds their enumerated powers. The first step; however, is not legalizing drugs. The first step is eliminated the FDA and OSHA, and NEA, IRS, etc and giving power to the states.

The end of our nation is at hand and if there aren’t major policy shifts it WILL happen. Legalizing drugs at this point would intensify the speed of our demise.


25 posted on 03/03/2009 12:08:25 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Libertarianism is nothing more than a belief in limits to governments and the inalienable rights of citizens.

You don't get to cherry pick from Libertarian values, to prove how good they are. You and the other Ron Paul loonies would have us looking like Switzerland, shooting galleries(drugs not Guns) in the streets, incest, pedophilia, assisted suicide, the whole gamut.

I admit some libertarians maintain that they are Christians, and maybe they are, but they certainly don't speak out about the moral decay of our society.

Moral decay of our society is exactly why we find ourselves in the current dilemma.

26 posted on 03/03/2009 12:15:08 PM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Obama does it by consent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
The federal government should have no role in making drugs legal or illegal. That should be left to the states, for the most part. Same with prostitution, gambling, etc. The Liberaltarians I run across on FR want the federal government to legalize those things then put their stamp of approval on it by taxing it, thus protecting it and creating more bureaucracy in order to regulate it.

As a general principle libertarians take a view that anything you do should be legal until it affects me. I have never met any actual libertarians who have argued for taxes or regulation. The most common position among libertarians is that things like drugs and prostitution should be left to the states as the Constitution would have it. Many would also say that the states should legalize it, not to tax it or regulate it, but simply because it is wrong to prevent people from doing what they want until they harm somebody else.

Most of them that I’ve come across are basically Rand disciples who believe individuality is the greatest good for society.

Yes, I have spoken to these types too, but not most. Not even close. Ayn Rand was a two-bit hack writer with about as much understanding of society as a toddler. Atlas Shrugged is chock full of stupidity about the monetary system and reveals no understanding at all of supply and demand or the competition of the free market. Her view, along the lines of anarcho-capitalism is certainly libertarian, but is a very extreme one. It would be much like the Birchers on the right, and hardly reflects the thoughts of the main. John Galt, and other such stuff, is invoked constantly, even among your run of the mill libertarian simply because it is so ubiquitous. Believe me, very few people really have such a view as Rand. Most are very much closer to the likes of Glen Beck or Ron Paul.

Where I differ is I don’t think the first step to liberty is for the feds to legalize every vice and start regulating it.

I, as a libertarian, absolutely agree. So would any libertarian I know.

That’s what I hear over and over again on FR. Let’s strip the feds of 99.833% of its power, give the States their power back, then let’s talk about whether or not we want pot legal in our respective states.

Absolutely. Government should be close to the people, where we can watch it closely.

No Libertarians have ever agreed with me on that schedule but continue their mantra. That’s why I say their top priority is breaking society of its morals and blue laws so free thinking Randianism can prevail.

I don't know about that. I would love to break society of its blue laws, because they are onerous. But, it isn't so that so-called "Randianism" can prevail. I just wish to be able to buy some liquor when I want. Why shouldn't I? Did I break a law and get restricted? Is it because somebody, who is not my pastor, thinks that Jesus is okay with me drinking on Saturday, but not on Sunday? I don't buy it, and neither should you. The day is fast coming when muslims will outnumber us, and guess what that precedent for government control is going to allow? I hope you don't want a ham sandwich.

But, in basic principle I agree with you. And I see little in your position which would offend my libertarian sensibilities.

27 posted on 03/03/2009 12:19:41 PM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
The problem is the people in your group, for the most part, are only in it for the pot and whores.

This just isn't true. Sure, there are some real sad people among libertarians, but have you met many of the so-called conservatives? I don't think that is a fair assessment.

I believe in limited powers for the Feds and would listen to arguments that the drug war exceeds their enumerated powers.

It does. To illegalize alcohol they knew they needed an amendment to the Constitution, but now they don't even pretend. They just set up an office and let them define what you or I can do. Am I pro drugs? Not at all. They are an evil on society. But so is the government, and I certainly don't want them to be allowed to exceed their powers just because drugs are a problem. Murder is a problem too, and gun control is the obvious remedy. We must stand for our rights, regardless.

The first step; however, is not legalizing drugs. The first step is eliminated the FDA and OSHA, and NEA, IRS, etc and giving power to the states.

I agree. But, that is a libertarian view too. You are confusing the philosophy with tactics. We agree that the feds have limits, and that is libertarianism. How we go about enforcing those limits and acheiving change is not what determines that. Some ideas are good, some not so. But, I think that is another conversation.

The end of our nation is at hand and if there aren’t major policy shifts it WILL happen. Legalizing drugs at this point would intensify the speed of our demise.

Well, maybe, but I think there are even worse situations at hand than that. But, I agree that legalizing drugs is not the big deal right now, and so I am have not spent my time really fighting about it. I am also not a pothead which might have something to do with it. ;-)

28 posted on 03/03/2009 12:30:06 PM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
You don't get to cherry pick from Libertarian values, to prove how good they are.

You are confused about what you call "libertarian values." You have confused the many ideas that different libertarians have which are not in themselves libertarian and are then trying to say that they are. Many Christians believe in Democracy, but democracy is not a Christian value. You should keep things straight. Libertarianism is nothing more, nor less, than a belief in personal liberty and limited government. You can exaggerate that position until it becomes anarchic, or you can temper it greatly, as most do. Straw men about paedophilia, incest and assisted suicide are ridiculous. Libertarianism has nothing to do with such concepts, and if you have any intellectual honesty you would accept it.

I admit some libertarians maintain that they are Christians, and maybe they are, but they certainly don't speak out about the moral decay of our society.

I am certainly a Christian, and I am also libertarian. But, what does the decay of our society have to do with government? From where I sit most of the decay I have seen has been put in place by people who see government as an advocacy group for their causes, or who think that they should wait for the government to come along and fix it. Not me. You can wait or seek your Great Society but I would rather look for answers elsewhere. If you think Congress should pass a law to make everyone morally blameless then good luck with that. But I won't support it.

29 posted on 03/03/2009 12:42:44 PM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

“More than half of the nearly 9,000 conservative activists at CPAC last week in Washington were under the age of 22. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says most of the young people he surveyed at CPAC were against the legalization of same-sex “marriage,”

That’s encouraging. There is nothing “true” about sodomy.


30 posted on 03/03/2009 1:00:20 PM PST by ZULU (Obamanation of Desolation is President. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative
If govt minded it's own business on social issues, these issues would not even be in public view. It is only because of courts, perverse people entering politics, and these perversion activists that the govt is involved. They should all be laughed out of courts, but they are not. When activists are allowed to frame these issues under civil rights, which has been allowed for too many years, the govt is involved.

Definitely get the govt out of it, it is a issue, made out of a non issue.

31 posted on 03/03/2009 1:40:51 PM PST by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

It’s always been obvious to me that the homosexual crowd were trying to slip in ‘civil unions’ specifically so they could then file lawsuits for ‘same-sex marriage’. This has been their agenda all along. They won’t be satisfied until our kids are forced to accept this sick lifestyle in their classrooms. The brazenness of the alternative lifestylers is mind-boggling.


32 posted on 03/03/2009 1:47:14 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
"If you support the constitution, as it is written, you are libertarian. It is a libertarian document".

Our "libertarian" founding fathers would be appalled at the disingenuous sophistry of the modern libertarians idea of liberty. Freedom was never intended to be a trophy for perverts, reprobates, degenerates, et, al. Sodomy was a capital crime, Pornography wasn't considered "free speech" and they all encouraged prayer in schools. Moral relativism and revisionist history are the cornerstones of modern libertarians.

33 posted on 03/03/2009 2:12:59 PM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative
"More of a philosophy that people, and the government, should mind their own business".

See #33

34 posted on 03/03/2009 2:26:37 PM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K
Our "libertarian" founding fathers would be appalled at the disingenuous sophistry of the modern libertarians idea of liberty. Freedom was never intended to be a trophy for perverts, reprobates, degenerates, et, al.

This is an exaggeration based on nothing. Libertarianism is not about perversion. Yes, there are libertarians who subscribe to odd behaviours, but there are such people in any group. And yes many perverts, especially public ones, are libertarian, for obvious reasons. But, that does not mean that the opposite is true and that libertarians are also perverts.

Libertarianism has nothing to do with any morality, but with smaller government. And I am smart enough to know that if while I am in the majority I allow the government to legislate who you can have sex with then eventually there will be enough of you to legislate who I can have sex with. I don't like that. And this country has been full of perverts for years now, and that is under non-libertarian governments. Instead of blaming libertarians for sodomy, drugs and abortions perhaps you should take credit for that yourself. I seem to recall a rather long period when Republicans were in power and all they managed to do was expand the size of government exponentially. And yet there still seems there are an awful lot of drugs, gay sex and abortions everywhere one looks. Nice job taking care of all that.

Moral relativism and revisionist history are the cornerstones of modern libertarians.

Libertarians are historical revisionists? Just see my point above, or even look at your school in prayer issue. You blame that on libertarians, but they have had nothing to do with it. The entire argument is founded in the monopoly of state schools, and that is something that libertarians have always fought against. And while we have struggled to free our youth from government indoctrination camps what have you and yours done? The "conservatives," upon ascending to power, not only tightened the state grip on education, but took it massively federal with the incredibly unconstitutional NCLB. Another good job from pseudo-conservatives. And you blame libertarians for taking prayer out of school? Talk about revisionist history. If it were up to libertarians you would be totally free to raise your children with the morals you hold dear and so could your neighbours. It is statism that has caused our moral decay and I promise you it will not now cure it.

35 posted on 03/03/2009 2:51:33 PM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
but democracy is not a Christian value.

Democracy is not an American value either, this is a Republic.

The idea that we cannot legislate moral behavior is utter nonsense, we regulate morality now, just not some of the more destructive ones.

You are deeply confused about you own position in relation to mine. The government has taken positive steps to undermine moral behavior in this country, they use the same methods a drug dealer does.

The notion that what goes on in your neighbors house is none of you business, is head in the sand, self delusion.

I am 70 years old, I know what a moral society looked like, do you?

36 posted on 03/03/2009 3:14:35 PM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Obama does it by consent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K
Perversion is not a civil right.

What 2 adults do in the bedroom is not what I want the GOVERNMENT to worry about. I have a friend who is conservative and he is gay. He could make Rush look liberal. He would love to run for office, but he knows he can't be elected because he is GAY.

being gay doesn't make you a LIBERAL.

37 posted on 03/03/2009 3:44:45 PM PST by NoMarxist2010 (Rush: I hope he fails meant Rush wants Obama's SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMS to fail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Democracy is not an American value either, this is a Republic.

That is irrelevant. The issue is what you call "libertarian values." If you are talking about small government, free market economics, and personal freedom, then sure. Anything else may be a value of a libertarian, but not a libertarian value. Libertarianism is what it is, and nothing more. Don't try to misdirect. The fact is you are defining libertarianism with a broad brush which serves your purposes but is not accurate. That is fact.

The idea that we cannot legislate moral behavior is utter nonsense, we regulate morality now, just not some of the more destructive ones.

Here are the facts. I have no concern for legislating morality. Federally there is absolutely no Constitutional support for it. Congress has no such power since the tenth amendment retains it to the states and the people. And if my state wants to outlaw sodomy or try to enforce the missionary position then we can deal with that then. But, in any case, putting a homosexual in prison, where he has unlimited access to homosexual sex acts, only ever seems to cost taxpayers massive amounts of money and increases the amount of gay sex happening at any given moment. Just how do you call that moral? Me, I don't care for it.

The notion that what goes on in your neighbors house is none of you business, is head in the sand, self delusion.

Is it? Then how exactly do you keep track of what your neighbour is doing right now? Have you installed a camera? Or are you one of those who thinks that what is unacceptable when done privately is suddenly okay if done by majority rule? Are you waiting for Big Brother to spy on your neighbour so they can send him away for self abuse, autoeroticism or some such? How exactly does the sex life of your neighbour affect you? How is your point of view actually morally superior to mine? I think I will worry about the beam in my eye, and leave other people's specks to themselves.

38 posted on 03/03/2009 3:57:37 PM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NoMarxist2010
What 2 adults do in the bedroom is not what I want the GOVERNMENT to worry about.

This issue isn't about "Consenting adults" or "bedroom privacy" or "individual or civil rights" like the advocates of homosexual marriage dishonestly and vehemently insist.

"Gay Marriage" is the "Trojan horse" method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups in the effort to legitimize the perverse behavior of homosexuality in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school children by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a "safe" and "normal" alternative "sexual lifestyle" choice and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and acceptance, kowtow or else.

Nobody cares what they do in their bedrooms, It's what they do in the parks, the mens rooms, and on the streets at their perverted pride parades, Not to mention trying to adopt children, and be scout masters etc...

We've heard all the complaints before..


Homos R NORMAL GOT IT? ps.. leave Brittany ALONE!


Yoo Hoo! Haven't you heard, You can't question or oppose my lifestyle choice you hateful NAZI FACIST BIGOT!!!!


And you better let us adopt children (we're tired of poodles), We can give them ALL the love you can image! Better than you breeders! We know best you hateful slope headed knuckle dragging Fundie/ NAZI/PHOBES!!!

39 posted on 03/03/2009 4:23:14 PM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NoMarxist2010

BTW, welcome to FR.


40 posted on 03/03/2009 4:26:47 PM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NoMarxist2010
Oh, Did I mention,There's no private bedrooms in the military?


41 posted on 03/03/2009 4:33:01 PM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

I am a jihadist but I am discriminated from giving to charities of my choice.

I am a jihadist and my rights are infringed because I am not welcome in my local PTA.

I am a jihadist, I have applied for a position in the White House, America said Yes! You are being misunderstood and we love misunderstood people. Congratulations!


42 posted on 03/03/2009 4:34:22 PM PST by widdle_wabbit (Rush Is Right; Does understanding that make me a Conservative?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K
Thanks for welcoming me to FR...

However, I have to say that I do know a gay couple raising 3 kids (They were fathers - 1 widowed the other divorced) that goes to my church. Their kids are polite and I know that they hate what is shown on tv (when the news show those pride parades). They both are business owners, and one would love to run for Congress (Our Conservative congressman is retiring from Congress, because he wants to be the Agriculture Secretary in this state.) but he knows he can't because he is gay. He was never a Democrat, and he wants people to know that gays can be CONSERVATIVE.

As my girlfriend is a social worker for kids I have to say that I'd rather have a kid being raised by a gay couple -- then having them in FOSTER FAMILIES who cares not about the kid, but the $$$ the family gets for the kid.

43 posted on 03/03/2009 4:48:50 PM PST by NoMarxist2010 (Rush: I hope he fails meant Rush wants Obama's SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMS to fail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K
DirtyHarry: Those pictures are not what most gays would want!! My friends would rather have lower taxes - then having GAY RIGHTS. What they want is the right to inherit property and the right to adopt their lovers kids. Most gays do want want to dress up as freaks!!

Unless my friends aren't 'NORMAL'!!

44 posted on 03/03/2009 4:54:11 PM PST by NoMarxist2010 (Rush: I hope he fails meant Rush wants Obama's SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMS to fail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NoMarxist2010; manc
Freeper (manc) knows a thing or two about about foster homes and such, Perhaps he could fill you in.

We have one to many perverted Congress critters already!

Ever hear of Bawney Fwank? (D) MA... Seems he can't keep it in the privacy of the bedroom either..


45 posted on 03/03/2009 5:01:35 PM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NoMarxist2010
'DirtyHarry: Those pictures are not what most gays would want!! .."

I know, I'm not allowed to post images of what they really want. But anyone can type "gay" into a search engine and see for themselves. BARF.....

46 posted on 03/04/2009 2:30:01 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
How exactly does the sex life of your neighbour affect you?

Do you have children in public school? Homosexuals have invaded the Public schools where they teach values clarification classes.

They have little rainbows in their classroom doors, many schools have prayer rooms for Muslims. But a Christian teacher can be fired for wearing a cross on a simple necklace, if it is seen.

Ever work in a school where the administration has been openly gay?

Ever hear of NAMBLA?

Ever read the story of Lot in the Bible?

Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

I can imagine that further effort in getting you to see the destructive nature of Libertarianism is useless, so I give up.

free market economics.

This has worked so well with immoral men at the heads of major banks and corporations, has it not? Until they grab the money and run anyway.

And if my state wants to outlaw sodomy or try to enforce the missionary position then we can deal with that then.

You picked a bad example considering what the Supreme Court did to that state law. I still maintain the unalterable position that Libertarianism and its sister philosophy of diversity, and tolerance always lead to a perverse society.

47 posted on 03/04/2009 8:20:38 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Obama does it by consent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

How exactly does the sex life of your neighbour affect you?

It doesn’t if they keep it in their own home, but having worked in Interior Design, I know it doesn’t stay at home. Their sex life comes to the office, the storeroom (ugh), and even the job site.


48 posted on 03/04/2009 8:27:50 AM PST by kalee (01/20/13 The end of an error.... Obama even worse than Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Do you have children in public school? Homosexuals have invaded the Public schools where they teach values clarification classes.

Which is why I, as a libertarian, do not support the public education monopoly. If you hadn't voted for so much government power over the last 70 years my children would be free to be raised by me, their conservative minded parent and not by a nanny state bureaucratic public school system. How can you argue for such a system and then against the use of the system by those that you supported implementing the system? It reminds me of all the crazy leftists screaming that GWB's administration abused its power, and their response is to call for more government power.

Ever work in a school where the administration has been openly gay?

Ever hear of NAMBLA...

I can imagine that further effort in getting you to see the destructive nature of Libertarianism is useless, so I give up.

More silly straw men. You talk about NAMBLA and public schools and then imply that they are libertarian organizations. Yeah, right. That, and other such groups, exist entirely to use government to further their schemes. Libertarians seek to disable government from doing any such things, so that parents can once again make decisions about their children. It is strange but that used to be a conservative principle, back in the days of your youth when the society you grew up in was still moral. Funny that.

This has worked so well with immoral men at the heads of major banks and corporations, has it not? Until they grab the money and run anyway.

Oh, so you don't support free markets. You would rather continue with the state managed ones we have now, and by the way which the above "immoral men" operated under. That is what always makes me laugh. The Left loves to berate the "free market" for any failure or abuse that comes along, and yet there hasn't been any actual free market in this nation for years. But, regardless, just how can you call yourself a conservative and call for state run markets, otherwise called socialism? Has so-called "conservatism" fallen so far that laissez faire is now even despised? And people wonder why the GOP and other "conservative" groups find it hard to be successful.

You picked a bad example considering what the Supreme Court did to that state law. I still maintain the unalterable position that Libertarianism and its sister philosophy of diversity, and tolerance always lead to a perverse society.

Maintain it all you want, but you are wrong. The current immoral and perverse society came about all under Republicrats. First you say that the "free market" that isn't free but instead run by non-libertarians is proof that free market economics are a bad idea. And now you say that society under statist morality laws is proof of the evils of libertarianism. Every time the statist philosophies fail its opponents get blamed. Very typical.

And, btw, there is nothing libertarian about tolerance. In a libertarian society I would be free to be as intolerant as I like, because the government would have no power to stop me. In a libertarian society my Church can preach against the sin of Sodom without fear of repression. In a libertarian society my money stays in my pocket and doesn't fund overseas abortions. In a libertarian society my children don't get indoctrinated by public schools run by militant homosexuals and perverts. All of those evils are the fault of people like yourself, who three off the libertarian ideals of the Constitution and adopted statism. Hasn't worked out so well thus far, if you ask me.

49 posted on 03/04/2009 9:44:04 AM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
If you hadn't voted for so much government power over the last 70 years my children would be free to be raised by me, their conservative minded parent and not by a nanny state bureaucratic public school system.

I have never voted for a liberal in my life, unless you count GW, and I do. I encourage all my friends to home school. You know nothing about me me cause you don't listen.

If Homosexuality, Pot, Open borders are so important to you, then do us both a favor, and let it go.

You have way to much time on your hands.

50 posted on 03/04/2009 10:01:40 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Obama does it by consent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson