Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You base this on? Republicans were in power and they focused on limiting social liberties not expanding economic liberties. In fact, they limited economic liberty, as well.

How did they "limit social liberties" other than maintaining the status quot? They just didn't EXPAND social liberties, from my perspective. As for expanding economic liberties, I have no argument with you there, and this is often the case with Social Conservatives. While this thread is supposed to be about introspection, it's a good time to point out that flaw of Social Conservatism. Bush called it "Compassionate Conservative" but what it tends to amount to is, fiscal liberalism in the name of compassion.

To someone deluded by their own spin, like you, I am sure it does. Anyone that advocates state force to cleanse or discourage the religious or homosexuals is not in favor of social/civil liberties.

I'm in favor of THE PEOPLE deciding on a state-by-state basis, what social liberties are acceptable in the society in which they live. You are the one advocating THE STATE dictate those constraints and liberties, based on a non-secular viewpoint only, without regard for anyone's opinion if it is associated with a religious view.

I have come into contact with many religious libertarians, including one that was a Catholic Priest. I don't care what you believe about God or homosexuals, so long as you support liberty for all.

I do support "Liberty For All!" But we have a societal responsibility to establish rules, boundaries, and limitations, and those should not dis-include religiously-based or morally based viewpoints. The Bible Thumpers deserve the same consideration as everyone else with regard to opinion and viewpoints.

The view you have expressed here agrees verbatim with modern socialists (democratic socialists). That is, you are advocating complete majority rule.

No, democratic socialists do not believe in majority rule, or majority ANYTHING! They believe in STATE rule, government mandate, and imposing that will on the masses. Far more in common with your godless viewpoint than mine!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It looks like social conservitives, and Libertarians really don't have all that much in common. Judging by your efforts to bring us together.

Well I think they really do, but for some strange reason, Libertarians are all hung up on the religion thing. They seem to have a failure to comprehend we all have our own opinions, and sometimes those opinions are rooted in our religious beliefs. For some reason, they can justify denying liberty and freedom to people who have a strong religious philosophy, while defending this same liberty and freedom for the godless.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Most Libertarians I know go to church. They also believe that gov't shouldn't make laws that you obviously support.

Just going by the context of the arguments in this thread, and it appears the Libertarians have a very "secular" viewpoint across the board.

What laws have been made by government that I support? Isn't it their view that government should make a law to allow gay marriage, which is what THEY support? Why is it okay for that to be the case, but not the other way around? Why do Libertarians think they have some superior right to determine what laws are made, but Social Conservatives do not have the same right, and must be denied that right? That's the part I don't understand... are we all EQUAL or not?

 

[Timshel]

And that's NOT what I said, is it?
You are also "free" to express whatever view you like! Your freedom is also not a requirement on the rest of society to take seriously, or to redefine definitions of 5000 year old traditions and customs.

Of course, it's not. My views are right because they agree with the principles laid out by our founders in the Constitution and DofI, as well as the principles of common law developed over centuries. These principles limit state action, even when supported by majority will, to valid state interests.

For instance, "the definition" of marriage is not 5000 years old and has been changed recently by application of these principles to allow interracial marriage and limited by the valid state interest of protecting those incapable of consenting to marriage (i.e., minors).

Homosexuals are not barred from getting married, they just can't marry the same sex, but neither can heterosexuals!

Round and round you go. Blacks were not denied the right to marry. They had the same right to marry someone of their own race as whites. The court ruled that such limits were a violation of equal protection and that they served no valid state interest.

 

[Timshel]

But aren't you establishing a barrier to freedom of religious expression by claiming religious beliefs have no place in political discourse? Aren't those individuals being denied the freedom to express their viewpoints because they are based in a religious philosophy?

No. No one is would be denied the freedom to express their views by gay marriage.

Well, until a couple hundred years ago, we didn't have the Constitution guaranteeing "equal protection" under the law. So any 'change' now, would have to be done in consideration of that mitigating factor.

We have changed marriage laws since then.

And I presented a perfectly valid legal argument for my opposition to gay marriage. And why the hell is someone's personal religious philosophy not a valid reason for them to support or oppose ANYTHING pertaining to the society they live in? That seems to be an obtrusive limitation on THEIR liberty!

What was your valid legal argument or what do you think was a valid legal argument?

Again, my opposition is not based on religion. Homosexuals are not prohibited from marriage or anything else the heterosexual community is allowed to do! Murder most certainly IS a religiously-based morality! It is one of the TEN FRIKIN COMMANDMENTS! If we operated by the "law of nature" the act of murder would be viewed as nothing more than survival of the fittest! Other animals are not guilty of murder... it is a humanistic morality we established a long time ago, and we can argue what the basis is, but it's certainly rooted in mankind's civilization and spiritual enlightenment.

Bullshit. You show your complete ignorance with this argument. The state has a valid interest in protecting against initiation of force or violence against individuals and it has nothing to do with religion. It is the reason for government. Read the DofI, dumbfuck.

You're not being forced to agree with anything, I never asked you to do so. You don't have to agree with what the state allows or doesn't allow, that is your own personal liberty, I just wondered why you wish to deny that same liberty to those who don't agree with you?

Then, you acknowledge that your argument, religious people would be forced to accept gay marriage, is bullshit.

I'm not religious, I am spiritual. I do demand the right to express myself, and I am shocked you, as a supposed libertarian, don't support that right. I have not ever supported denial of liberty to anyone, gay people are perfectly welcome to marry whoever they please, even same-sex partners if they want to, but the state shouldn't sanction their sexual behavior, and we shouldn't redefine laws to accommodate a sexual lifestyle. At the very least, it should be left up to the people of the many states, to determine what standards are set for the society they live in, and those determinations shouldn't be restricted to only secular viewpoints.

Nothing but blatant straw man nonsense. I support your right to express yourself. That does not include the right to force others to or prohibit others from acting, so long as the acts are peaceful.

Call it what you will, but there is a reason you mentioned "slippery slope" and not me. As much as you want to argue it wouldn't lead to a "slippery slope" you know that what I said was valid and accurate. I presented the basis... The Constitution! It says very clearly, if we establish a law to offer something to one group of people, it must be offered to all groups! We can't discriminate and allow something for one sexual lifestyle, yet deny the very same "right" to other sexual lifestyles, based on our personal taste or moral constraints. Legal precedent is used ALL THE TIME in courts, and they certainly DON'T reject cases on such basis!

What you said is not valid or accurate at all. You do not make a valid argument as to why gay marriage would allow people to marry their dogs. Why didn't Loving end in people marrying their dogs?

Why is that laws against homosexual activity have been overturned while laws against sex with a child have only become more restrictive? Why aren't there cases being brought to overturn laws against bestiality or sex with your mail box?

The rights of the individual may be limited when they violate the rights of another. The state can prohibit you from having sex with a minor because it has a valid state interest in protecting the minor from predation.

 

[Timshel]

How did they "limit social liberties" other than maintaining the status quot? They just didn't EXPAND social liberties, from my perspective. As for expanding economic liberties, I have no argument with you there, and this is often the case with Social Conservatives. While this thread is supposed to be about introspection, it's a good time to point out that flaw of Social Conservatism. Bush called it "Compassionate Conservative" but what it tends to amount to is, fiscal liberalism in the name of compassion.

With DOMA, Patriot Act etc.

I'm in favor of THE PEOPLE deciding on a state-by-state basis, what social liberties are acceptable in the society in which they live. You are the one advocating THE STATE dictate those constraints and liberties, based on a non-secular viewpoint only, without regard for anyone's opinion if it is associated with a religious view.

So Jim Crow was cool with you? Virginia's law on interracial marriage was okay? If California passes a law denying Christians the right to marry, own property or whatever, you are okay with that? And the Chicago gun ban was okay with you too?

I do support "Liberty For All!" But we have a societal responsibility to establish rules, boundaries, and limitations, and those should not dis-include religiously-based or morally based viewpoints. The Bible Thumpers deserve the same consideration as everyone else with regard to opinion and viewpoints.

I agree. They can keep their views to themselves and off my person or property, like everybody else. The will of the majority alone is not a valid basis for state action, regardless of the religious beliefs of that majority.

No, democratic socialists do not believe in majority rule, or majority ANYTHING! They believe in STATE rule, government mandate, and imposing that will on the masses. Far more in common with your godless viewpoint than mine!

Nope. They argue that majority will alone justifies limits on the individual. The average democratic socialist is slightly more limited government than you as they do tend to support equality before the law.

 

[Timshel]

Just going by the context of the arguments in this thread, and it appears the Libertarians have a very "secular" viewpoint across the board.

What laws have been made by government that I support? Isn't it their view that government should make a law to allow gay marriage, which is what THEY support?

It is our view that laws prohibiting gay marriage should be overturned or repealed as they do not serve a valid state interest and violate the rights of the individual, just like the Chicago gun ban.

Why is it okay for that to be the case, but not the other way around? Why do Libertarians think they have some superior right to determine what laws are made, but Social Conservatives do not have the same right, and must be denied that right? That's the part I don't understand... are we all EQUAL or not?

Libertarians do not believe they have a superior right to determine what laws are made. They simply adhere to the supreme law of our nation and its founding principles, while you reject those traditions in order to further your religious beliefs. Libertarians reject laws against actions they might find objectionable, but do not victimize others, because that is a fundamental principle of government. This has been explained to you numerous times.

Your views are not coherent or consistent, which is why you evade all the questions concerning other bad laws that were/are supported by a majority.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is our view that laws prohibiting gay marriage should be overturned or repealed as they do not serve a valid state interest and violate the rights of the individual, just like the Chicago gun ban.....Libertarians do not believe they have a superior right to determine what laws are made....They simply adhere to the supreme law of our nation and its founding principles, while you reject those traditions in order to further your religious beliefs.

That's a little "sanctimonious" isn't it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

With DOMA, Patriot Act etc.

DOMA maintains the status quot, and how does the Patriot Act limit anyone's social liberties?

So Jim Crow was cool with you? Virginia's law on interracial marriage was okay? If California passes a law denying Christians the right to marry, own property or whatever, you are okay with that? And the Chicago gun ban was okay with you too?

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman! Got anything else to offer?

I agree. They can keep their views to themselves and off my person or property, like everybody else. The will of the majority alone is not a valid basis for state action, regardless of the religious beliefs of that majority.

So you don't believe in democracy? We have liberty, but just not the liberty to determine our own standards of societal living? For that, we need the State to step in and dictate to us, how we live and what rules we establish, and it should only do so from a libertarian secular standpoint?

Nope. They argue that majority will alone justifies limits on the individual. The average democratic socialist is slightly more limited government than you as they do tend to support equality before the law.

You're an idiot. Democratic Socialists argue that the State is the Supreme Authority, that is why it's important to destroy religious ties. Secular or Atheistic style government is much easier to implement on the people when they don't have a God to worship, and they have to rely on the Government. It enables the Statist philosophy.

 

[Liberty]

Just going by the context of the arguments in this thread, and it appears the Libertarians have a very "secular" viewpoint across the board.

What laws have been made by government that I support? Isn't it their view that government should make a law to allow gay marriage, which is what THEY support? Why is it okay for that to be the case, but not the other way around? Why do Libertarians think they have some superior right to determine what laws are made, but Social Conservatives do not have the same right, and must be denied that right? That's the part I don't understand... are we all EQUAL or not?

Answering your questions;
1. Supporting gov't recognizing marriage at all.

2. Every Libertarian I know looks at the constitution and doesn't see where the the Gov't has constitutional authority to recognize marriage. Contractual agreements maybe, but not out right marriage. Peeople like RStringfield aren't true Libertarians, and I don't know why he claims to be one.

"Why is it okay for that to be the case, but not the other way around?" I'm not sure what you mean by this.

3.Social conservitives want to make laws that make government bigger. they legislate morality. We don't want to deny your right. We just want our rights back that have been taken away.

 

[Liberty]

Well I think they really do, but for some strange reason, Libertarians are all hung up on the religion thing. They seem to have a failure to comprehend we all have our own opinions, and sometimes those opinions are rooted in our religious beliefs. For some reason, they can justify denying liberty and freedom to people who have a strong religious philosophy, while defending this same liberty and freedom for the godless.

This is new to me. You would have to be more specific. I don't know any Libertarians that would deny liberty and freedom to people who have a strong religious philosophy, unless they wanted to violate someones rights.

 

[Liberty]

Well I think they really do, but for some strange reason, Libertarians are all hung up on the religion thing. They seem to have a failure to comprehend we all have our own opinions, and sometimes those opinions are rooted in our religious beliefs. For some reason, they can justify denying liberty and freedom to people who have a strong religious philosophy, while defending this same liberty and freedom for the godless.

Also, If social conservitives put repealing the 16th amendment at the top of their agenda, doing away with the federal reserve, the EPA, Department of Education, as a start, we would have something in common. But of course they don't, and this is why there really isn't much difference between the dems, anf the reps.

 

[Timshel]

DOMA maintains the status quot, and how does the Patriot Act limit anyone's social liberties?

DOMA was a change in the law and one intended to deny individual rights. The patriot act contained numerous violation of civil liberties including violations of 4th amendment rights to privacy and 1st amendment rights to free speech.

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman, Strawman! Got anything else to offer?

Evasive, evasive, evasive, evasive. These were all examples of majority will. On what basis do you oppose them? You evade this because your current position leaves you with no option but to support such laws.

So you don't believe in democracy? We have liberty, but just not the liberty to determine our own standards of societal living? For that, we need the State to step in and dictate to us, how we live and what rules we establish, and it should only do so from a libertarian secular standpoint?

I believe in the Republican form of government the founders gave us. Majority will decides our course, but can not be allowed violate the rights of the individual. Individual rights are not some new thing dreamed up by libertarians. The principles were cherished by our founders, grew out of the enlightenment and find seeds in concepts going back to the Magna Carta.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318

[W]herever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents. - Madison, letter to TJ October 1788

[In a pure democracy] there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. - Madison Federalist no 10

You're an idiot. Democratic Socialists argue that the State is the Supreme Authority, that is why it's important to destroy religious ties. Secular or Atheistic style government is much easier to implement on the people when they don't have a God to worship, and they have to rely on the Government. It enables the Statist philosophy.

You don't know what you are talking about. They argue that the government is justified by majority will alone.

 

[Timshel]

Further, how can a question be a straw man? You are being blatantly dishonest and evasive, because you know the principle you have latched onto is a real slippery slope to tyranny. Of course, you will contradict this argument and likely deny you ever made it tomorrow.

 

[Timshel]

Peeople like RStringfield aren't true Libertarians, and I don't know why he claims to be one.

Based on what? I am likely the most consistently libertarian person on these boards.

I don't live in fantasy land where we are going to get the government out of marriage anytime soon. I would fully support that, it just aint gonna happen and I am not willing to watch millions have their rights trampled while we hold out for some Utopian position. As long as the state is involved it must not be allowed to discriminate or create barriers that violate equal protection of the laws and/or do not serve a valid state interest.

 

[DamnYankee]

Libertarians do tend to be socially liberal, but isn't it odd how there seems to be a division between social conservatives and libertarians based on religious beliefs? If you read through this thread, that's the glaring contrast between the two groups. For whatever reason, Libertarians are all in favor of individual liberty for a homosexual to marry a homosexual, but the individual liberty to oppose that, or to base your views on any religious teaching, is a big no-no! They apparently support any liberty anyone wants to express except the liberty to express our religious faith. With Gay Marriage, they have tied the issue to this forbidden religious faith, and break from their "small less intrusive government" position, in order to have government mandate a social policy. I'm sure they would be opposed to government mandating that we all accept a religious philosophy, but they are perfectly okay with government mandating we all accept a social philosophy.

Excellent observation.

 

[DamnYankee]

So, then, you might be gay in SF or in another environment.

I chose my parents wisely.

 

[Timshel]

I chose my parents wisely.

You think this is clever but it is just evasive. Either sexuality is innate or you would be just as susceptible to environmental influences as everyone else.

Personally, I doubt any amount of nurturing would make me attracted to males. But you claim that you could suck dicks without issue, but you choose not to because the bible says it's bad.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Also, If social conservitives put repealing the 16th amendment at the top of their agenda, doing away with the federal reserve, the EPA, Department of Education, as a start, we would have something in common. But of course they don't, and this is why there really isn't much difference between the dems, anf the reps.

Well but okay, let's take a look at what you advocate here... You want to do away with the DoE? Are we just supposed to not educate children? Leave it up to the states how to do so? Let everyone fend for themselves and learn the best way they can? Do we just divorce government from the education system completely in one felled swoop, or do we do this gradually over time? Just trying to get an understanding of how you intend to implement your idea. Have you considered all the pitfalls? What are we going to do with all of the people working in all of the DoE related business across America? Do you really think we could practically eliminate the entire department of education, without any subsequent problems? I'm not arguing in FAVOR of the DoE, I don't like the bloated federal bureaucracy either, it's full of waste and inefficiency, and it's not producing quality results in educating the children, which is supposed to be the objective... but before we destroy it, we need a plan, a course of action to take in order to move forward and not backward. You can't just willy-nilly decide to axe something because you don't like it, other people do like it, or maybe depend upon it, and they are effected as well. Do they get a voice in this decision at all, or are you only concerned with invoking your particular will on them?

Bottom line, you can cling to some Utopian Ideology, where the world would be a better place if we all listened to you and did this and that... but we're not magically going to wake up in the morning and be in complete agreement with you... EVER! Just not going to happen! So what do you want to do? Keep clinging to the hope of something that is not going to happen, or find a way to work toward what you believe in?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

DOMA was a change in the law and one intended to deny individual rights. The patriot act contained numerous violation of civil liberties including violations of 4th amendment rights to privacy and 1st amendment rights to free speech.

No, I am sorry, Stringster... DOMA didn't change one single solitary law in America. It REAFFIRMED that marriage is between a man and woman, that was a maintaining of the status quot, not a change. And while you may argue the Patriot Act violates civil liberties, it doesn't do anything to limit your social liberty.

Evasive, evasive, evasive, evasive. These were all examples of majority will. On what basis do you oppose them? You evade this because your current position leaves you with no option but to support such laws.

We're not arguing about segregation or racial discrimination, those are completely different issues, and they do not pertain to this debate. You bring them up because you think it stirs an emotive chord to do so. You'd make a damn fine Liberal!

I believe in the Republican form of government the founders gave us. Majority will decides our course, but can not be allowed violate the rights of the individual. Individual rights are not some new thing dreamed up by libertarians. The principles were cherished by our founders, grew out of the enlightenment and find seeds in concepts going back to the Magna Carta.

How about shutting the fuck up about the Founding Fathers, since you don't really seem to understand what they were about in the first place? No one is having their rights violated! How many times do we have to go through this? Marriage is MARRIAGE... Gay or Straight people can GET MARRIED! Same sex unions are NOT marriage, and they aren't recognized as such by our laws, and never have been. Now, most all of us... 80% or so... think this is fine and dandy, and aren't the least bit concerned with changing the law... a small (very small) minority of people, want to redefine things and change what has always been the law. I support their right to voice their opinions on this, but we live in a democratic society, where the will of the people supersedes the government or state, in determination of the laws and liberties we enjoy.