The definitive word on "gay"marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh...and MM, the libertarian party on the issue of separation of church and state:

Issue: Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals’ religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others.

Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.

Solution: In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.

and on the issue of reproductive rights:

The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

and on gay marriage:

I.9 Sexuality and Gender

The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.

Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.

Transitional Action: Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation. Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files. Repeal all laws discriminating by gender, such as protective labor laws and marriage, divorce, and custody laws which deny the full rights of each individual

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#freereli
 
musicman said:
If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community, I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian.


I think that's kind of disingenuous. You can't realistically say that when people don't want the government to interfere with individual liberties that that they "seek to impose authoritarianism".

I'm sorry - could you clarify?

jillian said:
I'm not a libertarian, though there is a great deal that the libertarian party stands for that I agree with. And "self-representing communit[ies]" aren't what's embodied in the libertarian platform, because when you talk about self representing communities, you are actually talking about government calling the shots in our personal lives.

Ummm...yeah - "the government" being US. The shots being called by US. You seem to not be hearing the part about a community being made up of individuals, all of whom have rights. When one person wishes to thwart the will of all the individuals who make up his community - in the name of his individual rights - how's he going to do that? Who's going to wield the club? Central government, THAT'S who. Mission accomplished; freedom squashed.
 
I'm going to augment and amplify my statement a bit. I'm doing this because I find it extraordinary that the left has been able to hijack language and discourse to the point where the right are portrayed as "authoritarian".

If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community - preferring instead the edicts of a brutish, unelected authority which happens, in this case, to agree with YOU - I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian, and me an authoritarian.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to musicman again."

Agreed.
 
Actually, those ARE conservative values... came down from good ole Barry, himself...

What you guys are is something quite different, hence my belief that today's republicans are anything but conservative.

Ah, yes - we're EXTREMISTS. Tell me - who said this?:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".
 

I find current political idealism fascinating what with everyone shifting around and jockeying for a piece of the spectrum. Equally fascinating is the denial from those who refuse to acknowledge traditional definitions as tenets of their beliefs if it doesn't suit them to.

Last I checked, an all-powerful, controlling central government was a tenet of fascism.

Libertarianism requires great individual responsibility; which, would never work with , and is in direct opposition to liberalism. Liberals just like to cherry-pick through the parts they like.
 
Actually, those ARE conservative values... came down from good ole Barry, himself...

What you guys are is something quite different, hence my belief that today's republicans are anything but conservative.

You're partly correct. A good portion of today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals. We got left out on the curb in the rain by our party when it shifted far-left.
 
Ah, yes - we're EXTREMISTS. Tell me - who said this?:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

I know who said it... Barry Goldwater. But he'd see everything your party is doing as anti-freedom and he'd have been extreme in fighting it. If you get the chance, there's a wonderful documentary about him done by his grandaughter, CC Goldwater. I think it's on HBO. Definitely worth the watch.

BTW, the line you quoted.... probably what made him unelectable, and rightly so.
 
I know who said it... Barry Goldwater. But he'd see everything your party is doing as anti-freedom and he'd have been extreme in fighting it. If you get the chance, there's a wonderful documentary about him done by his grandaughter, CC Goldwater. I think it's on HBO. Definitely worth the watch.

BTW, the line you quoted.... probably what made him unelectable, and rightly so.

I disagree. There is no other way to defend liberty but with everything you have. If it isn't worth that, you will lose it.
 
I find current political idealism fascinating what with everyone shifting around and jockeying for a piece of the spectrum. Equally fascinating is the denial from those who refuse to acknowledge traditional definitions as tenets of their beliefs if it doesn't suit them to.

Last I checked, an all-powerful, controlling central government was a tenet of fascism.

Libertarianism requires great individual responsibility; which, would never work with , and is in direct opposition to liberalism. Liberals just like to cherry-pick through the parts they like.


Facism is the interrelationshp between government and corporations. strong social control by a centralized government, and an aggressive nationalism.

Nothing wrong with cherry-picking.... a little from libertarians, a little from conservatives, a little from liberals... might end up with a pretty great place to live. ;)
 
I know who said it... Barry Goldwater. But he'd see everything your party is doing as anti-freedom and he'd have been extreme in fighting it. If you get the chance, there's a wonderful documentary about him done by his grandaughter, CC Goldwater. I think it's on HBO. Definitely worth the watch.

BTW, the line you quoted.... probably what made him unelectable, and rightly so.

Damn - you lost your warm and fuzzy feelings for Barry Goldwater in a hurry, didn't you? Hope you didn't get whiplash!
 
Facism is the interrelationshp between government and corporations. strong social control by a centralized government, and an aggressive nationalism.

Nothing wrong with cherry-picking.... a little from libertarians, a little from conservatives, a little from liberals... might end up with a pretty great place to live. ;)

I like my cherries with a constitutional flavor to them.
 
I like my cherries with a constitutional flavor to them.


As do I... but let's look at what the purpose of the Constitution is/was... it was intended to limit the powers of government and assure the rights of the individual. That's why you got Amendments 1 thru 10... And I'd defend the Second Amendment same as I would the First....
 
Facism is the interrelationshp between government and corporations. strong social control by a centralized government, and an aggressive nationalism.

Nothing wrong with cherry-picking.... a little from libertarians, a little from conservatives, a little from liberals... might end up with a pretty great place to live. ;)

Nothing wrong with it as long as you aren't choosing something with opposing views. Reality dictates we don't get to pick and choose.

While you are championining libertarian views, I didn't see your mention of the fact they are the next best thing to anarchy. Just wonding how that fits in with your central-government-forced multiculturalism.:poke:
 
Damn - you lost your warm and fuzzy feelings for Barry Goldwater in a hurry, didn't you? Hope you didn't get whiplash!

No whiplash. I respect him as a man true to his values. And he's be horrified by todays so-called conservatives based on what I saw. Doesn't mean I'd have voted for him. I'm not the conservative, remember? :bow2:
 
Nothing wrong with it as long as you aren't choosing something with opposing views. Reality dictates we don't get to pick and choose.

While you are championining libertarian views, I didn't see your mention of the fact they are the next best thing to anarchy. Just wonding how that fits in with your central-government-forced multiculturalism.:poke:

It's not government-enforced multiculturalism... it's everyone being able to live their lives as they wish so long as those life-choices don't affect anyone else. In other words, my freedoms end at the tip of your nose.... and visa versa.

I don't agree with every aspect of libertarianism... I think they're a bit naive about what happens when there's no government. But on social issues, they are pretty good.
 
No whiplash. I respect him as a man true to his values. And he's be horrified by todays so-called conservatives based on what I saw. Doesn't mean I'd have voted for him. I'm not the conservative, remember? :bow2:

Ah, but remember - the terms "conservative" and "Republican" are not interchangeable - not by a damned sight.
 
It's not government-enforced multiculturalism... it's everyone being able to live their lives as they wish so long as those life-choices don't affect anyone else. In other words, my freedoms end at the tip of your nose.... and visa versa.

I don't agree with every aspect of libertarianism... I think they're a bit naive about what happens when there's no government. But on social issues, they are pretty good.

I reference this statement:

It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality. It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no? I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us. Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"... not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.

I'm reading that you think people should not have the right to segregate themselves if they wish, while libertarians beleive exactly the opposite.

In all actuality, libertarianism is at least a completely honest ideology. As little government as possible in all things. Keeps the hypocrisy to a minimum.

Government at the lowest level is hardly a libertarian original though. It's been a tenet of traditional conservatism for years and years. One that some neo-cons need to be reminded of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top