OH! Libertarians....? Nevermind....
Posted on 02/27/2013 9:28:02 AM PST by Kaslin
in before the zot, too sensible to be tolerated
Seems more and more people are leaning in the direction of ‘get out of personal lives’.
Agreed, as I like to say, we need more Barry Goldwater and less Barry Soetoro.
As long as 'personal lives' are tied to legal issues such as taxation, it is not a 'personal' or even 'social' issue. Many gay people now get married in private ceremonies that have nothing to do with government recognition. The Unitarian church performs these regularly. It is when they demand that the legal definition of marriage be changed that it is no longer a personal matter. The definition has spanned almost all cultures, religions (it isn't just a 'Bible thing' as many put it) and nationalities. It is a recognized legal definition. The Constitution does give Congress the authority to ensure equal application of legal issues (Article 1, Section 8 to 'define standards for weights and measures', legal definitions used in contracts and laws fall under 'measures'). Coulter is right. The law doesn't prevent gay people from getting married, it just defines who they can marry if it is to be a legally recognized marriage contract. It is blind to if someone is gay or straight. The legal definition is a partnership between two people of the opposite sex, who aren't already married, who are not close relatives, and who have reached a minimum age. That is a uniform definition of that legal term that is recognized almost everywhere.
Let me add, although there are some differences, we need to work together against the Federal Leviathan or we are all dead. Ben Franklin was probably the libertarian of his time and we put it, “if we don’t hang together, we will all hang seperately.”
I don’t particularly like Libertarians. I just like to say that I have to bump into them at two sites mainly, The Blaze and youtube. They have some difference with me on defense, war on terror and on drugs. I don’t agree with them. So despite every attempt, I just don’t know how the differences can be bridged.
A bunch of us have always been like that. We need to stop protecting people from their bad decisions.
When you advocate a Nanny State, you really shouldn’t complain when the State obliges you and creates something like the Free Sh*t Army.
Yes. You should be free to screw up your own life. No, don’t expect us to bail you out. No, we don’t want to associate with you until you clean up your act either.
This used to be common sense.
Notice drugs and homos goes hand-in-hand here.
..and I will say that Stossel is falling for the same problem of associating small l libertarian philosophy with big L Libertarian Party. I believe it was William F Buckley who said something along the lines of ‘there is very little libertarian about the Libertarian party’.
It is much of what Ayn Rand complained about the Libertarian Party. She called them the ‘hippies of the right’ who ‘traded rationalism for whims and capitalism for anarchy’. The Libertarian party has always had the problem of trading rationalism for whims. They get hung up on two or three fringe issues (pot for example) and it always seems to be the big base for their arguments. Even Reason Magazine which used to be a strong supporter of small l libertarian values has of late, been almost solely focused on the big L Libertarian Pot issue as if that somehow is the make or break definition of liberty.
EXCEPT he is wrong. It DOES matter what marriage is. I do NOT care if government on all levels gets out of the marriage business, which seems to be the libertarian argument.
But it DOES matter that marriage has a specific definition: the union between a man and a woman. It is the only workable family unit that assures continuation of the species and of any society. It offers a model of a family unit that works, not for the benefit of the couple but for the benefit of the children. That it is not perfect does not change its desirability. That heterosexulas abandon their marrages on whims, only proves the strength of the institution as a device to raise and comfort children.
Homosexuals do not get to change that.
Not having gay marriage IS gubmint staying out of our “personal lives.” Or at least refusing to further intrude upon it, which is what gay marruage fans want. Libertarians are usually more honest about this sort of thing. Either you see a compelling state interest in creating special legal status for gay couples just like we have for heterosexual couples, though I have absolutely no idea what that’d be, or you don’t. In any case creating gay marriage would be inviting more gubmint in, not limiting it.
I agree about prohibition. Unlike the absence of gay marriage it is an intrusion into aspects of our lives which are none of the state’s business.
Where the chasm will never be bridged is between those who believe any kind of activity between consenting adults is to be allowed and those who believe, like I do, there are limits to tolerance. I tolerate a lot of activity, but I don't approve of it. And nobody can force me to tolerate things I don't want to tolerate i.e. homosexual "marriage", bestiality, polygamy, pedophiles. But if Stossel believes homosexuality is irrelevant to today's youth, then he's not paying attention. The NFL players beg to differ.
Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."
Amen! I like what John MacArthur has been saying lately: legislating Christian behavior on non-Christians is casting your pearls before swine and trusting government over God.
the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.
the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.
Why does anyone take this woman seriously?
None.
But how moral is it when a corrupt government is putting a gun in your face and forcing you to be "moral" along their guidelines?
If all government disappeared tomorrow... How would you live your life? Would you suddenly go out and start raping, stealing, and doing every drug available? Or would you continue to live as you have, with maybe some additional resources given to protecting yourself against predators?
If 'stay out of my personal life' means appropriating something less than 60% of my labor and resources - let go of their claim of 60% of my LIFE - then I'm all down with the libertarians.
But the silly, completely inconsequential issue of gay marriage makes a mockery of the subject of government intrusion into our lives. Its a twisted little distraction.
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.