Civil government and Social acceptance of Same Sex relationships

[christundivided]

@ christundivided,
(Not sure why I am bothering).
You win the prize - for arrogance, rudeness, and crudeness.

Unbelievable.

Thus the reason I've stopped replying to any of their posts. I've even typed several replies out only to delete them before submitting.

That's not why you stopped. You lost the argument. You can't compare the actions of homosexual sex with heterosexual sex. There is no comparison. The Scriptures declare such actions "against nature".

Have you even read

Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

or maybe...

Rom 1:27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[Bou]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

You do realize there are differing philosophies under the umbrella of "libertarian", right?

In fact, the basis for some are quite incompatible even though they might look the same from a distance. (e.g. "Ayn Rand" libertarianism vs. Christian libertarianism)

You do realize that they share basic principles, right?

In some areas, sure. There is always overlap, at least in some minimal regards, in all political/social/economic/religious systems, if one doesn't want to look too closely.

You do realize that Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity share some basic principles, right? Would you put them under the same umbrella?

It's hardly a stretch to say different strands of libertarianism share essential basic principles.

I would not put Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity under the same umbrella because they do not have the same genes.

To make your analogy more

 

[rsc2a]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

You do realize there are differing philosophies under the umbrella of "libertarian", right?

In fact, the basis for some are quite incompatible even though they might look the same from a distance. (e.g. "Ayn Rand" libertarianism vs. Christian libertarianism)

You do realize that they share basic principles, right?

In some areas, sure. There is always overlap, at least in some minimal regards, in all political/social/economic/religious systems, if one doesn't want to look too closely.

You do realize that Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity share some basic principles, right? Would you put them under the same umbrella?

It's hardly a stretch to say different strands of libertarianism share essential basic principles.

I would not put Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity under the same umbrella because they do not have the same genes.

To make your analogy more

 

[Bou]

I'm not sure if you just like to argue or what.  Who are you on the old FFF?  I would say Stasis Point, but he didn't like to argue just for the sake of arguing.  You're too smart to be Marty Braemer or TRB.  You're not caustic enough to be Route_70.  You're not as articulate or long-winded as Duncan Ferguson.  Hmmmm. 

But not all strands of libertarianism share the same "genes". That's why I deliberately used the examples that I did.

My philosophical reasons for being (mostly) libertarian are incompatible with Rand's. We have a completely different basis (i.e. different genes) on which we base our positions, even though those positions may align at times. It's comparable to saying a bat and a bird belong in the same class because they both have wings.

It was unfortunate that I said genes because I did not mean to imply that they had common ancestry.  Rather, I meant to suggest that they are the same essence or animating force, but that was a poor choice of words.

Libertarianism has certain core principles that define the contours of what it means generally to be a libertarian.  While the reasoning to arrive at these principles are different (like maybe you reasoned from Scripture and Izdaari reasoned from natural law), they share the same worldview which is basically that in the conflict with the individual vs. the state or the collective, extreme deference is given to the individual.  This is fleshed out in various arenas such as foreign intervention, economic liberties, civil liberties, etc. etc. 

I would argue that it is consistent for libertarians to embrace democracy as opposed to siding with control by a centralized and aristocratic power, like the Federalists wanted, the same Federalists that AresMan might point to to show a few of the Founders' disdain for democracy.  But I guess Izdaari and I will have to agree to disagree.    Rousseau and Locke would probably agree with me as well.  lol.

If you think that every libertarian is a special little snowflake, go ahead. lol.  I'll have to disagree, though.

 

[Izdaari]

I am a Lockean Natural Law person, as Jefferson was. But I'm also pragmatic and utilitarian to a large degree, like Milton Friedman. And I like democracy procedurally. I applaud my state's (WA) penchant for doing a lot of stuff by ballot initiative. But I think there are lot of things (things in the realm of individual liberty) that democracy has no right to touch, matters that government has no right to legislate on, regardless of the system of government.

 

[rsc2a]

I'm not sure if you just like to argue or what.  Who are you on the old FFF?  I would say Stasis Point, but he didn't like to argue just for the sake of arguing.  You're too smart to be Marty Braemer or TRB.  You're not caustic enough to be Route_70.  You're not as articulate or long-winded as Duncan Ferguson.  Hmmmm. 

Wasn't on the old boards. 


[quote author=Bou]It was unfortunate that I said genes because I did not mean to imply that they had common ancestry.  Rather, I meant to suggest that they are the same essence or animating force, but that was a poor choice of words. [/quote]

No more than anything else that shares some commonality.  Serioulsy, that's like arguing that a bat and a bird share the same essence because they both have wings.

[quote author=Bou]Libertarianism has certain core principles that define the contours of what it means generally to be a libertarian.[/quote]

I have a problem with boxes.

[quote author=Bou]While the reasoning to arrive at these principles are different (like maybe you reasoned from Scripture and Izdaari reasoned from natural law), they share the same worldview which is basically that in the conflict with the individual vs. the state or the collective, extreme deference is given to the individual.  This is fleshed out in various arenas such as foreign intervention, economic liberties, civil liberties, etc. etc. [/quote]

In some respects. Just like in some respects, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism have common themes. (I would even argue all of these commonalities (both in politics and religion) have the same root cause.)

[quote author=Bou]If you think that every libertarian is a special little snowflake, go ahead. lol.  I'll have to disagree, though.
[/quote]

I wouldn't limit it to libertarians. Go ahead and widen the scope to "all of humanity."

 

[Route_70]

You're not caustic enough to be Route_70.

Edit: [You're not good-looking enough to be Route_70.]