[Kevin Curry]

The list could go on, but the point should be clear.

LOL!

In other words, "The list could go on, but then I'd be discussing our REAL agenda, i.e., the legalization of drugs, sodomy, and gay marriage--and genuine conservatives would tune me out."

The man isn't stupid. Disingenuous maybe, but not stupid.

[dheretic]

There is no reason to license marriage other than to gain benefits under the tax code. If two gays want to get married, they can in effect get married right now. The only difference is that they don't have a license. There is nothing stopping a preacher from giving them a ceremony and them living as.. well.. whatever they live as. The government has no right to get its foot in the door to make sure that 2 consenting adults aren't having sex "the wrong way." Your love of big government is really showing! Good work pal, your comments are showing your state-worshipping side quite well. I thought you worshipped God, not Big Brother....

[aspasia]

Hear no evil, see no evil, have lots of fun!

[Beenliedto]

In other words, "The list could go on, but then I'd be discussing our REAL agenda, i.e., the legalization of drugs, sodomy, and gay marriage--and genuine conservatives would tune me out."

That is an absolutly absurd contention.

[murdoog]

In other words, "The list could go on, but then I'd be discussing our REAL agenda, i.e., the legalization of drugs, sodomy, and gay marriage--and genuine conservatives would tune me out."

Why don't you critique the article based on what he *does* say instead of what you read into it?

[Salgak]

Marriage is a covenant between a couple and God (or the God or Gods of their choice, in any case. . . .). Why, pray tell, should the State be involved ?

The whole push for "gay marriage" is about Tax and Fringe benefits. . . .

And as for sodomy, last time I checked, us boring Heterosexuals often practice it too. . .

[Exnihilo]

LOL! Good call Kevin. Glad to see you're still frequenting these Libertarian threads.

[supercat]

In other words, "The list could go on, but then I'd be discussing our REAL agenda, i.e., the legalization of drugs, sodomy, and gay marriage--and genuine conservatives would tune me out."

On the subject of drugs and sodomy, many libertarians' [small 'l'] objection to laws against such things is not that they themselves favor such behaviors, but rather that there is no way to write and enforce such laws without infringing severely on the rights of everyone--even those who would not engage in such behaviors.

The laws libertarians support (laws against things like robbery, rape, murder, etc.) can generally be enforced without the state having to 'look' for crimes. Generally, someone who is robbed or raped will call the police; murder victims, of course, can't call the police personally, but usually some other person will either find a body or notice that the victim has gone missing and, in either case, let the police know about it.

Even lesser laws, such as those against intoxicated disorderly conduct generally pose no problem because--as with the major crimes--people who are bothered by violators will let the police know. Someone who is stoned and wandering down the middle of the street will likely be a public nuisance, and will reported as such. Most libertarians have no problem enforcing such laws when violations result in genuine complaints.

What libertarians object to is the state's attempts to enforce laws against "crimes" which involve only consenting parties. Such laws cannot be enforced effectively except by having the state actively snoop in people's affairs and sometimes arbitrarily search their property.

BTW, the "gay marriage" thing is a red herring. Libertarians support "gay marriage" to the extent--and only to the extent--that people have the right to call themselves whatever they want, but they do not have the right to force others to recognize their appelations. If a man wants to claim anyone or anything to be his wife, that should be his right, but no legal or other significance should attach to such claim except as defined in a contract between or among all affected individuals.

[armedandtotallysafe]

I believe you take a very shallow view of libertarianism. Wanting the legalization of drugs is not the same as condoning drug abuse. As we are all aware, the drug war is a joke that will never yield the desired results (unless those results are the incarceration of more of our population). On the drug issue, people should be free to make stupid mistakes. The government shouldn't be the "big brother" who decides your conduct. As for sodomy, it shouldn't be illegal for the same reasons. In a free society, you should be able to try and convince people of the immorality of sodomy, drug abuse, etc., but you shouldn't be able to incarcerate them for it. One of the points that "conservatives" seem to ignore is the basic principles behind their agenda. If you think it is okay to legislate morality, the next question is who's morality. As you are well aware, democracy is simply majority rules. So if we don't shut down the borders, make drugs, sodomy, Islam, Judeaism, Black Nationalism, etc., illegal, once they are in the majority your brand of legal morality is out the window. The key is to protect freedom is to try and convince people of the error of their ways. Once you start legislating you may find yourself out of the majority and your cherished way of life in jeapordy. The only way to make sure that you will have the freedom to hold the beliefs you do (drug's, sodomy, etc. are immoral), you have to defend the freedom to do those things. If you wish to have a "Christian" state where the bible is the law of the land, and you stone people for transgressions, you have just become the taliban, (just a different set of rules). I know the difference is that you are "right", but the muslims are as sure they are right as you are. The only viable option is freedom from coercion. The state shouldn't dictate personal conduct when it doesn't interfere with others freedom. Once you open the door (as we already have), all hell breaks loose.

[Moby Grape]

The only thing nuttier than the Libertarian idea of legalizing drugs, is their vastly overblown sense of status as a poltical force....they have only ONE significant impact on the political landscape...they help elect democrats.....and as they do, they pound their chests and proclaim themselves the only true principled among us, wanting all we lessors to admire their unwaivering devotion to our Constitution....as they ELECT democrats.....go figure!!!

[dcwusmc]

And some people wonder why libertarian threads dissolve into anti-WOsD threads. Only THREE posts and there you are, kevin, with your fear and loathing of freedom and self-control and self-responsibility...

[Protagoras]

Hey goofy, care to address what the article says for a change instead of your tired old screed.