Posted on 12/11/2012 6:55:52 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Libertarians are selfish perverts who see no need for social order as it gets in the way of them indulging in their pet perversion(s). They claim to be free market however see no need to protect the institutions resulting from the free marketplace of ideas e.g. marriage. They disavow any government support of maintaining such social order.
Plain and simple -Libertarians are anarchistic perverts and enemies of social order.
Marriage between one man and one woman is social engineering? You must be a Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party Platform states (last time I looked, some time within the last year) that all of the homo-agenda should be legal - same sex marriage, adoption, fostering, and in the military. All prostituion and porn legalized, and all - ALL - drugs, no holds barred. And the LP party is also pro-illegal with little to no restriction on illegals pouring over the border. Oh, and abortion is “a woman’s right to choose”.
So it’s a bit more than “small government”. A whole lot more, actually. In fact, the LP and whoever agrees with it is basically the kook anarchy gun loving fringe of the hard left. Don’t forget that Bill Ayers calls himself an “anarcho-communist”.
And their platform never says that they’re okay with states having laws against the dope, porn, prostitution, fag agenda or abortion. They want it all legalized, without restricion.
Islam considers a girl who has had her first menses (or even before, many Islamic clerics say) is ready for marriage. Who are YOU to say they are wrong?
And Germany has an organization claiming that there are 100,000 bestiality practitioners who do not want bestiality made illegal. Who are YOU to say they shouldn’t be allowed to get their jollies?
What are you, a prude or a Puritan who wants to infringe on the freedom of others to live their lives as they see fit? Imposing your morality on others! Fie!
Freepmail wagglebee 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.
And some are even closer than a half step from anarchists. I suppose they fondly imagine in their world of "freedom" everything would be peaceful and happy since everyone can puruse their faggotry/porn/hiring prostitutes/ingensting every kind of dope without fear of the law. And since the Libertarian Party also is for "a woman's right to choose", then the annoyance of unwanted pregnancies would not impede anyone's life of "freedom", either. What they either don't or won't see, or lie about, is the total social breakdown and ensuing violence and chaos that would be the inevitable and quick result of their utopian adolescent fantasy.
Aside for beer, cigarettes, and perhaps spending a bit too much on firearms related stuff(from my wife’s point of view), I literally have no vices. I’m kind of boring like that.....
I was not even thinking about the “Libertarian Party” platform when talking about libertarian philosophy of limited government. Btw, abortion is against libertarian philosophy because it is about snuffing out life and liberty of a living person for somebody’s convenience. No amount of twisted logic can justify it.
That's their twisted religion. I certainly wouldn't agree with it, since it doesn't involve CONSENTING ADULTS.
"And Germany has an organization claiming that there are 100,000 bestiality practitioners who do not want bestiality made illegal."
I couldn't care less. Again, I stated that marriage should be between consenting adults. I don't believe that would involve animals either. On the other hand, if someone goes out and buys a cow, and decides to bugger it, rather than slaughter, I really don't give a damn. They can knock themselves out.(chances are the steer will take care of that anyway. lol)
If someone talks about “libertarian” or “libertarianism” then they should define what they happen to mean by it. Beacuse I have carefully read both the official LP platform and website, and read many comments on FR by self admiited libertarians, and pro-abortion is definitely part of the Real Official Libertarian Party platform, and many self admitted libertarians say it’s up to the states. Which is saying that a state can legalize murder and it’s fine with said self-admitted libertarians.
Give me a logical reason why Islamists who want to marry 12 year old girls should bow to your POV, which. I see no reason why you are right and they are wrong. And supposes some bestiality practioners want to marry an animal? Why are they wrong and you right?
It’s personal preference, after all. You just want to be right because you like your viewpoint better than theirs, but hey - they feel the same way! Create your own reality, personal freedom, and all that good stuff. Oh, and keep the gov out of our bedrooms (and barns.,..) and out of our private lives.
That’s the libertarian way.
Just re-read your comment and noticed that. Well, the Official Real Libertarian Party thinks it's okay.
Maybe libertarians should use another word to describe themselves if they're not on board with the Libertarian Party.
• If we cast our focus on male homosexual behavior; we know that disgusting acts that result in fecal oral passing of infectious agents, doing such acts in filthy public restrooms, forming organizations devoted to the rape of young boys (ie NAMBLA and B4U-ACT), spreading venereal diseases like typhoid Larry, lacking basic sanitary behavior, and marching in parades to expose their genitals in public, then yes, it is at the least a huge threat to public health and children. If this behavior is anything else but sinful, the supporters are masters of downplaying the reality.
The problem is you leave out consideration of the public health threat of the lifestyle on normal people and their children. If the spread of their infectious diseases to the innocent was not a concern, then yes, we are on the same page. The reality is very different.
It isn’t government so much in marriage that is causing the problem. It is the damnable lawyers. Lawyers run all branches of government to their advantage. This profession is most responsible for our decline.
There’s a reason why government has a vested stake in marriage: namely, family law.
How do assets get divided between family members in the event of death/divorce/accident/etc? How do you DEFINE a family member in that context?
Even if government got out of the civil marriage business, there would still be a need for family law, and you’d have the same debate as now but from a different angle (aka how come John and Meryl and their kids qualify as a family while Bill and Steve and their adopted Chinese girl do not?).
The fallacy that civilization can exist with no legal (aka “government”) recognizition of marriage is adolescent fantasy at best; in fact, it is often used as a dishonest argument to destroy (real) marriage entirely.
“...many self admitted libertarians say it’s up to the states. Which is saying that a state can legalize murder and it’s fine with said self-admitted libertarians.”
Those sound rather statists. No government has rights over innocent life, whether it is a local government, State government, federal government, or the world government. The governments sole reason for existance is to protect the rights of people by punishing rights violators (murderers, thieves, moochers, etc) and freeing up the market for trade.
Abortion is the worst kind of violation of the rights of people; it is where an innocent life is murdered for convenience of others. If a government(local/State/Federal/World) condones it and, worse, funds it, then that government does not believe in liberty despite what the its constitution says.
I cannot explain other libertarians, but this libertarian believes that when a person violates somebody’s rights and government turns the blind eye(worse, funds it), then that is the worst kind of government. Abortion-supporting governments (local/State/federal/world) cannot be for liberty, thus cannot be libertarian ideal.
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.