Libertarian Poll !

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
And I was informing you that you are wrong. Read the libertarian party platform.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont need to read this at all. I am talking about libertarian posts on this forum. As far as I am concerned they show the bias I have outlined.

I only talked about abortion etc in counter to your comment about the left and drugs.

I understand the platform of the Libertarian party, that is why I am questioning why libertarian posters on this forum seem much more motivated about attacking democrats about tax than they do republicans and there trend of interfering more heavily in our personal day to day choices.

Instead of just informing me that I am wrong, perhaps try constructing an actual arguement that proves that assertion.

[James Boston]

Here is the only problem I see with it. Marriage is a concept/institution that was borrowed from the church and adopted by the government, much like making Christmas a national holiday. Now, there are those who want the government to modify it's stance on what defines marriage. I don't see it as the government's place to do this, as they didn't define it to begin with, the church did. I have no problem at all with implementing a system where same-sex couples can file joint tax returns, share family insurance policies, etc... But don't take a concept that the government borrowed from the church and modify it in way that is not in concordance with what the church would want.

[The once and future king]

That seems fair.

As long as same sex couples have exactly the same rights in law as maried couples I have no problem with the union being called something else other than marriage.

If same sex couples have a problem it is therefore something for them to take up with their church not there government.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is a concept/institution that was borrowed from the church

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? The concept of marriage existed long before Christianity.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as same sex couples have exactly the same rights in law as maried couples

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's all I'm saying. Equality for everyone, including the church. While the church has no right to dictate the legal rights of homosexuals, the government has no right to modify religious institutions.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of marriage existed long before Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that Christians invented marriage. I'll be the first to admit that I am no scholar on the origins of marriage, but I am fairly certain it's roots are that of a religious ceremony, not a tax break. If you can explain in greater detail, I'd love to know.

[Gamblor]

In fact, marriage for love is a relatively new (19th century) phenomenon. Marriage back in the day existed mainly for economic reasons, where families would combine financial power through their children.

Think Will Ferrell and Shannon Elizabeth in A Night at the Roxbury

[spamuell]

James:

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be the first to admit that I am no scholar on the origins of marriage, but I am fairly certain it's roots are that of a religious ceremony, not a tax break. If you can explain in greater detail, I'd love to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not a scholar on the subject either, I just know that it was around before Christianity. If you do want to know more, google is your friend. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Gamblor:

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, marriage for love is a relatively new (19th century) phenomenon. Marriage back in the day existed mainly for economic reasons, where families would combine financial power through their children.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, mainly, yeah but the concept of marriage for love definitely did exist before then. Think of Shakespeare, that was 16th Century. Actually, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales were what, 11th Century? And that talked about marriage for love. That's about as far as my knowledge in this area goes.

EDITED TO ADD: Yes, I am aware that the beginning of Christianity was before Chaucer. This post sort of makes it look like I might not be. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jakethebake]

These cannot be separated! Taxation is the deprivation of the fruits of one's labors. It is nothing less than economic slavery!

[MMMMMM]

If you won't read the LP platform then you have no business arguing about what Libertarians think. Go ahead and read it; it won't hurt you and it isn't terribly long.

www.lp.org

Also, in response to your argument, Democrats do a helluva lot of interfering in the civil rights department too, with Kerry being a prime example with his push for asset seizure and forfeiture laws and his authoring of money-laundering provisions of the Patriot Act.

Seriously, if the government can just come and take your money and you have to prove yourself innocent in order to get it back (and proving yourself innocent is a process which is lengthy, cumbersome and expensive), what kind of civil rights are we talking about here? If you don't have any money you are f*cked, so I view government abuse of seizure/forfeiture laws, and draconian seizure/forfeiture laws themselves, to be direct infringements on one of the citizenry's most important rights (the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures).