Posted on 08/22/2011 10:21:04 AM PDT by HerbieHoover
On Thursday night's "Stossel Show," which airs on the Fox Business channel, Brian Brown was unable to convince host John Stossel or his libertarian guest (and nationally syndicated columnist) David Harsanyi that civil marriage for gays and lesbians harms, or even changes, marriage between heterosexual couples.
In fact, Harsanyi's suggestion that the marriage debate could be solved if the U.S. decided either to privatize all schools or all marriage contracts was treated as a more legitimate idea by Stossel and Stossel's audience....
"It is a mistake to allow government to define what marriage should be -- gay or not," Harsanyi said....
Brown argued. "The state should support what is true and good and beautiful...."
Stossel's live studio audience erupted in laughter at this comment, and Stossel replied: "I don't want the state deciding what's good and beautiful."...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanindependent.com ...
Just W O W !
Eventually, yes. Now? No.
Nothing that juicy was left, Deo! LOL!
That’s a lovely pup you have there, tidying up after the zot.
So, you’re saying if we legalize drugs, all drugs, we’ll get our civil liberties back? Is that the operating assumption?
You don’t think the statists will find new ways to encroach (cough, TERRORISM, cough).
I’m not worried about kids finding the drugs near the play dough and the crayons. I’m worried about mommy now engaging in a legal activity, that in her and many other addled little minds has now become SOCIALLY ACCEPTIBLE, burning some rock and starving, burning, or otherwise killing her kid. Pair this with the fact that ‘mommy is queen at family court’, and I see nothing but trouble.
When drugs were illegal, dad had a patent legal reason to get law enforcement to bust down the door and get the kids. Now mommy the crack whore is a solid citizen, what with prostitution and drug use being legal. That mommy is bringing johns in while the boy is watching Spongebob is probably not a problem either.
The warning signs on the printed on the packages of black-tar heroine should deter that sort of behavior pretty effectively.
I can see the net gains for society right now, both absolute and net.
The generations of poop-outs we will have to deal with in order to get ‘to the same place smoking is now, societally’ will cost billions, if not trillions.
I think the notion of returning to the days of orphanages, under rule by the ‘fabulous furry freak brothers’, is going to be looked at by many as ‘what choice do we have? We used to have babies raising babies, now we have zombies raising zombies, or much, much worse.” You think that’s a net, or an absolute gain.
This is why libertarianism isn’t taken seriously. They are only interested in fixing the part of the law that keeps them from getting high, and not the rest of it that is actually, and in fact, robbing us of our sovereignty.
I’ll start taking them seriously when the rise up to abolish the IRS for a flat tax. That some are taxed and others aren’t is the ultimate form of statism. “Do as I say, or I’ll sick the ‘have-nots’ on all your assets, and they’ll burn them down.”
I wouldn’t use smoking as an example of successful libertarianistic policy deployment. First, smoking IS legal, but despite that the states have made smoking illegal practically everywhere. As a business owner, I should be able to choose whether I want to allow it or not.
As a smoker, should I have to pay more for insurance? That is the prerogative of the insurance companies.
Should I be able to open a cigar bar, hire staff that know what they are getting into, and then serve patrons legal substances there in, including (for the moment) steak and potatoes? Absolutely.
There’s no stigma on smoking - there are LAWS against it. I smoke cigars myself, I occasionally chew leaf tobacco, and on rare occasions smoke a pipe - all legal activities, but only near my home (for the moment). I can’t do it in a bar, a restaurant, a public park, and other areas. That’s ‘enforced stigma’.
Illegal drug manufacturing is a business. Like all businesses, the people who run them will innovate. They’ll find new drugs that are so effective and so destructive that there will be a call to make them illegal.
The net benefit to society of drug legalization is that a generation of kids are going to be killed or seriously injured, if not through use than by the actions of those under the influence. All of the Education and blah, blah, blah - that all costs money.
Both government and business is going to demand that employees submit to ever more invasive tests to see that their employees aren’t using, and the cost of litigating all of that is going to further tax and wreck business.
Again, libertarians haven’t thought it through, but they can’t wait for the day they can smoke a blunt on a golf course (better hurry before someone passes a law outlawing smoking on golf courses too).
Libertarianism is GOOD. I just think that most libertarians are picking the wrong battle first. It’s something a lot of conservatives that are at their hearts libertarian cannot understand.
All I have to say to you is one word: Portugal. Read their story with decriminalizing heroin. They have fewer addicts now.
I hope you understand that using the Commerce Clause to mandate homosexual marriage on the state would be as unconstitutional a maneuver as the current War on Drugs.
Almost every reputable free market economist that has studied the drug problem has agreed with me that the war on drugs produces substantially more harm than benefit, not just economically, but in the loss of civil liberties. I am in good company with men like Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Walter Williams and Jeffrey Miron. Let’s just try it. The federal government has no right to tell us what drugs we can or cannot take while at the same time forcing us to accept abortion on demand. If a woman has a constitutional right to kill her baby, then I have the right to smoke heroin. I don’t want to, but I have that right. My rights come from God, not the federal government.
Of course. Just as it would be wrong to force Texas to reconise “marriages” from other states.
However, because of the importance of the family as the basic unit of society and the necessity of preserving the stability of society for the future, so that all our children of tomorrow may be free, I would support an amendment to the Constitution to prevent the redefinition of marriage.
What business does the federal government have regulating any drug? Drug regulation is the province of the states or consumers. Do you agree that the Feds are perverting the Commerce Clause as justification for the war on drugs and that it is unconstitutional? The FDA and DEA are tyrants using our constitution as toilet paper to wipe their overpaid butts.
I support a DOMA constitutional amendment that would let Texas to refuse to accept the validity of New York’s gay marriages. The Supreme Court seems intent on legislating newfound rights on states like the right to an abortion while they simultaneously fail to do their actual job of restricting the federal government in what it can and cannot do. We need the amendment because they can’t strike those down, fortunately.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Stossel and other libertarians want homosexuality legally equivalent to normal sex. Actually the goal of the homosexual agenda is to have "queerdom" dominate everyone and everything, socially and legally, and they've made great progress so far. The libertarian argument that government should "get out" of marriage is another attack on marriage, as marriage - a man and a woman - has been recognized legally since history legally recognized anything related, such as paternity. "Getting the government out of marriage" is another way of saying "Full steam ahead with the homosexual agenda".
Faggots can already sign any kind of contracts they want, buy houses together, sign power of attorney contracts, make their wills out to each other, whatever.
What they want to do with “gay” marriage is destroy society.
Here’s what homosexual activists have to say about why they want “gay” marriage:
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
If you think the founding fathers would have been a-okay with the normalization of homosexuality you're out of your mind. Every colony and then state had anti-sodomy laws and everyone was perfectly fine with such laws, and they were not considered unconstituional until a few faggots conspired to get them overturned via leftists at the SCOTUS. Thomas Jefferson, enlightened gentleman that he was, tried to get the Virginia laws against sodomy mandate mere castration and banishment instead of the death penalty. I think his lukewarm punishment didn't pass at the time, though.
Nice try on the straw man but let us review the points. Its not about normalization of anything. Its about the government staying out of people's private lives.
Marriage got along fine LONG BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS FORMED. There is no need whatsoever for them to define it or get involved in it. The only obligation the government has in regards to marriage is the disposition of property and dependent children if the contract is broken either due to a court process (divorce) or death. The rest is none of their business.
The very reason we are in this brouhaha is because Government tried to Social Engineer Marriage. PERIOD! If Government had not handed out goodies to married couples there would be NO STANDING AT ALL for those who are trying to legalize Homosexual Marriage and multiple marriages.
You said:
“The idea behind libertarianism is that you should be able to do what you want to do as long as it does not harm someone else.”
This is no different than the wiccan motto - “Do As Thou Wilt but Harm None”. This motto was originated by Aliester Crowley (the beast) and is a libertine philosophy made softer by the wiccan community.
This is one of the reasons I cannot stand libertarianism. It is a cult like movement with no basis in real freedom but instead in anarchy.
Do you think the federal government’s war on drugs is constitutional? Do you think the DEA and ATF are agencies with a constitutional basis? Careful, if you answer the wrong way, you reveal yourself to be a liberal.
The only reason the fedgove may be involved is because homosexual perverts want to "marry" and force everyone else to accomodate them in ways from A to Z. The problem is the faggot agenda, and anyone who openly or tacitly supports it.
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.