Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Damocles said:
The reality is most do want to do just that, it is evident in the laws they propose and those they vote for.
Click to expand...

How do you determine their motivations are necessarily religious? As I said, my opposition to gay marriage is not religiously based. In fact, my entire viewpoint on morality is not religiously based, or predicated on my personal religious beliefs. This is the argument you have made, and it simply doesn't hold water. It is a position rooted in bigotry and misunderstanding of others, and you should really try to examine your own thoughts with more scrutiny. The question is, are you really open-minded enough to do that, or are you too mired in your own ideals to try and understand others?

The coincidental fact that gay marriage is something most religious people oppose, doesn't mean all opposition is based on religious dogma. Just because religious dogma happens to speak out against it, doesn't automatically mean that is why people are opposed. Some are, some are not.

Those that do not want to do that, are fiscally conservative, and wish to protect the constitution are exactly like me.
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the Constitution. You want to throw in the Constitution because you think it lends credibility to your viewpoint, I totally understand that, but it's intellectually dishonest in this 'counseling session'. I believe in protecting the constitution as much as you do, and I am fiscally conservative, but I don't support legalizing gay marriage.

I can see the harm in creating laws based in people's sex lives, especially so when mixing it with "licensing" religious ceremonies "recognizing" those that only fall into one specific dogmatic definition...
Click to expand...

Okay... But even if some people are opposed to gay marriage because that is what they believe from a religious standpoint... is this not their "right" as much as you have a right to your beliefs??? Where does the constitution say we can't endorse the values of our religious faith? Aren't ALL our laws essentially rooted in someone's values and morals? Why would you think the Constitution forbids religious values and morals from being expressed by the people when making our rules of law and establishing our societal behavior?

If we want to protect the rights of individuals, some risks must be taken. Those who are willing to give up necessary liberties for security deserve neither.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the Franklin quote, but again, you are attempting to use the brilliance of Franklin to refute what I am saying, instead of seriously examining your own viewpoint and perspective. This is an "argument" to you, and it's not that for me, I am counseling here. The points and questions I raise, are designed to make you think about things from a perspective outside of your own, and you just want to keep going back to the argument, the fight... even Caboose is interpreting the thread in that way, he thinks it's a fight too, and you and he are winning, you're beating Dixie down with brilliant Franklin quotes and the Constitution! But I am neutral in this, I am trying to mediate between the two viewpoints, and the questions/challenges I am presenting you with, are not arguments.

I can see why Social Conservatives feel like they have the legitimate right to form laws and lobby for laws, based on their religious faith... I am wondering why you think they do not have that right? Are you the only one who gets to voice your political opinion, because you don't believe in God? Where exactly are you at on this? From my perspective, as long as Congress doesn't hold a vote and decide to make Christianity the National Religion, I don't feel they have violated the First Amendment.
 
Damocles said:
It is one of the first rights practiced in nature and is shown through an aggressive protection of territory, it is what ownership is based on, and one of the most natural drives of all animals, including humans. Not wanting to observe nature is another "flaw" that is not often exhibited in libertarians. Another right that I would submit, directly relating to this right, is the right to protect oneself and family from attacks, by force or otherwise (psychological, such as peeping). To that effect I believe that we should have the right to own and bear weapons in order to give us the power to protect ourselves.
Click to expand...

Protecting territory has little to do with privacy. It has to do with resources, ie: food, procreation, etc.

As for psychological damage privacy, in some cases, contributes to it. An example of that is the problems we see in schools. Kids think they're so different, become withdrawn, then violent.

We have seen how it damages adults, as well. When AIDS first appeared on the scene afflicted people hid it and when discovered they were ostracized. Once it was brought out in the open people realized others suffered from the illness and people didn't have to hide.

We saw the same thing with rape. In many cases the victim refused to press charges because of the privacy aspect. Once that was removed, the associated stigma, victims came forward.
 
apple0154 said:
Protecting territory has little to do with privacy. It has to do with resources, ie: food, procreation, etc.

As for psychological damage privacy, in some cases, contributes to it. An example of that is the problems we see in schools. Kids think they're so different, become withdrawn, then violent.

We have seen how it damages adults, as well. When AIDS first appeared on the scene afflicted people hid it and when discovered they were ostracized. Once it was brought out in the open people realized others suffered from the illness and people didn't have to hide.

We saw the same thing with rape. In many cases the victim refused to press charges because of the privacy aspect. Once that was removed, the associated stigma, victims came forward.
Click to expand...
Resources, Food, etc. are all an extension of privacy.
 
Dixie said:
Follow the conversation. As opposed to "natural" rights. Life is a "natural" right. Privacy is a man-made right. There is a reason gorilla's don't wear leisure suits!
Click to expand...

Natural Rights are the basis for American principles, while privacy is not. I would tend to agree with you on that. It doesn't mean that they aren't both man-made...
 
Threedee said:
Natural Rights are the basis for American principles, while privacy is not. I would tend to agree with you on that. It doesn't mean that they aren't both man-made...
Click to expand...

Well the word "natural" generally doesn't apply to things that are "man-made." I'm not sure what your point is. We have certain natural rights, and privacy is not one of them. That was my point to Damo, who claims that survival instinct is an 'extension' of a 'natural' right of privacy... I called bullshit.
 
You both need to have your heads knocked together for being globalists who want to destroy the american standard of living by doing business with dictators.

A pox on both your shameful houses.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Are you suggesting that our laws don't have a moral basis?
Click to expand...

He suggested that we shouldn't establish laws based on morality. I posed the argument that we should strike down the laws which prohibit him from peeking into his neighbors window and watching their 16-yo daughter undress, because it didn't directly harm anyone, it gave him pleasure to do so, and it is a restriction placed on him by someone's moral views. This is where the "natural right" to privacy emerged.
 
I have to say, I am a bit disappointed in the Social Conservative feedback here. I understand this board is heavily weighted toward Libertarians, but so far, it is only Libertarians who have participated in the counseling. I'm kind of surprised that we've yet to have ONE Social Conservative to join in.

Could it be, social conservatives don't really have as much of a problem with libertarian views, as libertarians seem to have with social conservative views? I wonder!!
 
Murdering someone is not wrong because the bible or any other religious doctrine says so. Murder takes away one persons right to life that another cannot intrude on.

Theft is not wrong because one of the ten commandments says so. A one year old will fight another one year old that is trying to take his ball because it is HIS. A one year old has not had the misfortune yet of being indocrinated in relgious belief. Instead, the one year old wants what is his and knows that when someone takes it from him it is wrong. Unfortunately it takes the same one year old several years to put together his dislike of having things taken from him and developing the empathy required to keep him from taking others things.

To say that privacy is something found in only men makes it man made completely ignores where that concept comes from. Our brain, our naturally occuring human body. Tribal peoples, such as the Lakota, had sex with each other in the same lodge as their children, NOT because they thought there was no need for privacy, they did it out of biological necessity. As tribal, nomadic people became stationary, and as their resources becaming more abundant, they also built houses with different rooms. The wealthier a person is the more private areas they have. Privacy is very much a natural desire. It just has to be accompanied by material gain. Even in the US, large poor families live in small residences with less privacy, but only out of necessity.

With humans, natural does not mean found in nature in OTHER species, if that was so, then parents killing their newly born disabled children would be completely natural, as animals in the wild do it all the time, some of them even eat their young afterward.
 
Dixie said:
No, those are extensions of survival. Privacy is a man-made right.
Click to expand...
Which begins in the understanding of "territory"... the basic, and most elemental, principal of which is simple privacy. It is the penultimate right from which all the others spring.
 
None of the posters here seem to know what social conservatism is. If a man wants to put his manhood where another evacuates stools, I don't really care. What I care about is folks lying about the nature of these queer acts, and especially lying to children about them.

You social liberals must really hate children.
 
Damocles said:
Resources, Food, etc. are all an extension of privacy.
Click to expand...

I'm not following your logic. You mentioned territory, resources and food following from privacy. If anything, it's the opposite of privacy. People and animals let others know what territory is theirs.
 
Southern Man said:
None of the posters here seem to know what social conservatism is. If a man wants to put his manhood where another evacuates stools, I don't really care. What I care about is folks lying about the nature of these queer acts, and especially lying to children about them.

You social liberals must really hate children.
Click to expand...

Then you'll have to take it up with some more extreme social conservatives, because there are certainly people I know in the movement who think the legality of same-sex sex acts (and perhaps even heterosexual acts) should be up to the government.
 
Socrtease said:
Murdering someone is not wrong because the bible or any other religious doctrine says so. Murder takes away one persons right to life that another cannot intrude on.
Click to expand...

However... Most religious teachings condemn murder, most religious people do not believe it is moral to murder others. The fact that this is the case, doesn't necessarily mean laws against murder are "religiously based" as you are pointing out. The same can be said for homosexual marriage, blue laws, and other social conservative ideals found in our laws. The fact they are promoted and endorsed by religious entities, doesn't automatically make those things "religiously based."

This is where the Libertarian complaint against social conservatives fails, because it presumes opposition to things are based on nothing more than religious dogma and belief, and that is not actually the case. Because a connection can be made, does not conclude that connection is the reason for the viewpoint, or that the viewpoint is based on religion.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Then you'll have to take it up with some more extreme social conservatives, because there are certainly people I know in the movement who think the legality of same-sex sex acts (and perhaps even heterosexual acts) should be up to the government.
Click to expand...

And as I asked Damo (who failed to respond)... IF this is the case, what is wrong with that? Should people be forbidden to express their views because those views are based on their religious faith? Where does the Constitution make this clear? Where does it say that we can't establish laws which are based on what we believe as part of our religious faith? I understand we can't make laws establishing a religion, but we are talking about laws established based on teachings from our religion, and from my understanding, the Constitution certainly doesn't say we can't do that, or don't have the right to do that. You may not agree with it, you may not like it or approve of it, but religious people have every right that you do, in forming the laws and rules we live by as a society. ALL men are created equal... not just Libertarian Men!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top