I'm a libertarian and don't understand Conservative political philosophy, but it seems like the rights of the individual are the core concept. The individual's house belongs to him (or her of course) and the fact that he is American does not mean his house belongs to America. He has a right to defend his property (2nd Amendment) because it's not just part of something bigger-- it's his. The government does not have a right to take the money he earned and spend it on social programs, etc. It's his money and he is perfectly able to donate it to the charity of his choice without help from the government. If he decides to gamble on having good health he shouldn't be compelled to buy insurance-- it's his life and his body.

A summary of this attitude might be: "I'm an intelligent adult who can manage the various aspects of my life on my own, thanks. I don't appreciate being bossed around. I'm willing to serve in the military if an international problem needs to be addressed. But when it comes to me, my family, my work, and my household I would like the government to butt out and leave me alone". I can relate to a lot of this.

But then Conservatives refuse to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples. I'm not talking about issues like "should gay legal partnerships be called 'marriage'?". I'm talking about financial things like being included on your partner's health insurance or filing joint income tax. Or whether one partner has a right to call the shots medically if the other partner has a medical disaster and can't make decisions. To me it seems like the logical extension of Conservative thinking would be, "It's none of the government's business who I chose as my partner or what I do in bed. My partner is my partner. I do not need the government's help in chosing a partner". Of all the ways the government can butt into our personal lives surely the most offensive of all is the most private-- our sex lives.

But no. At this point Conservatives suddenly take a radical step in the opposite direction and say "Yes, the government has a right to meddle in the most intimate part of our lives" (meddle meaning depriving people of financial rights that other households have).

Could someone please explain this inconsistency to me? Why should this one aspect of our lives be subject to governmental control (as in, "sorry you aren't a real couple so you can't have the money that other couples get") when all other aspects should be private? If the government tries to control gun ownership Conservatives holler bloody murder, but if the government butts into your choice of a sexual partner-- no problem.

I honestly don't understand this.

Same with gambling and drugs... it doesn't make sense.

I also consider myself a Libertarian. And I agree with you 100 %. This is one of the reasons I have never considered voting Republican. I agree with them on many issues. But I disagree with them on civil liberties issues.

It's probably because the majority of Republicans are church goers and they think that everyone else should live by their bible based morals. No gays, gambling, prostitution, personal drug use, etc.

All of which I think are personal decisions that the government should stay out of. Just like private gun ownership.

Same... unfortunately most libertarians seem to be religious, and let those religious views get in the way of their political values. My personal issue in this is gambling as I enjoy poker. The others I stand for on principle as I'm straight, don't use drugs, don't want a gun, and don't have any intention of visting prostitutes... damn you Dobson.

Your sure you don't use drugs? I bet you do, in fact I will bet you everyone here on these boards use drugs. Pain killers, antibiotics, alcohol, caffeine along with a near endless list of chemicals people take on a daily basis all legal and some illegal even though they shouldn't be.

Drug use like gambling, prostitution and gun ownership are really all civil rights issues.

Yeah, good question. Except I'm not so sure the conservative movement these days is really all that conservative. It's more fascistic.

Illegal drugs was obviously my intention...

On what do you base that statement? Is it your opinion? OK, it's obviously your opinion. I disagree, entirely.

I was a registered Libertarian until my state decertified the party, because of a lack of votes cast for Libertarian candidates, in my state's recent elections.

It is very fascist... so is the liberal movement. Even the libertarian party has some fascist views... it is quite sad.

I based it on the views of the Libertarians I personally know.

Hey, all I have to say is:






LOL. Cornhuskers...ACK!


But yeah, I don't know that many religious libertarians myself. That isn't to say he is making it up - he probably isn't. He might know a lot of religious libertarians. But from my own experience, I've not met any.

I know six libertarians. All six are born-again evangelical Christians. So in my own personal experience... 100%.

Just curious, have you ever checked out the national party's planks and positions?

Your viewpoint is entirely subjective.

Yeah...Not surprisingly, all the super religious people I know are Republicans. Seems you know free thinking evangelicals.

Feel free to pound sand.

I know the party's plank, yes. I've read their platform and agree with them on most if not all issues.

I know hundreds of evangelicals. So six is a very small percentage. The others are your typical fascist republicans.

Then would you agree there are precious few religious related platforms in the national party?

Stereotype much?

You don't know many black people do you?

LOL. Tu shay. My God Mother is an African-American. I don't know why I didn't consider them. I was thinking of my best friends family at the time, and they are whiter than ghosts.

Haha...even when people know better they still think in the stereotypical.

No... how do you stereotype people you personally know?

I wasn't stereotyping, because, as blind said, how can you stereotype someone you know. LOL. I know a lot of religious people, and all the Caucasian ones I know are Republicans. All the African-American ones, save a family, are Democrat. Yes, I know an African-American family that are strong Republicans. I disagree with them, but they are damn good people. Do anything in the world for ya.

Herein lies my problem with this entire thread. This is the stereotyping.

I'm a Libertarian, and fairly conservative. I can't care less what two adults do within the privacy of their own property/domicile. The Libertarian in me sez if they want to pour caustic lye into certain body orifices, that's their business. They shouldn't expect society to pay their hospital bills, but what they do is their business.

Gays shouldn't expect to force any organized religion into performing religious marriage services, but I support civil ceremonies for them.

To the OP: Do you know no liberal homophobes? Your opening post reeks of stereotyping.

Why do liberals seek to kill babies? See, that's a ridiculous statement, and yet the OP seeks to make a similar statement.

Yes IrishAiden. Please do pound sand

Click to view attachment

Kidding with ya dude

Time for a little College Football, eh boys?

I'm writing about standard Conservative thought as represented online on a zillion forums. The overwhelming majority of them are against gay union. Find me five self styled Conservatives online with a strong pro-civil-union stance. I think you'll have problems. Are there any Conservatives in the world who are pro gay-marriage/ civil union? Sure. There are plenty of Conservatives who are gay. But if you took any sort of poll and asked which of these platforms is commonly presented as Conservative political philosophy and which is associated with Liberal political philosophy (1)pro legal union for gays (2) against legal union for gays (3) pro choice (4) pro life, I don't think the results would be ambiguous.

And I think you fully realize they wouldn't be ambiguous. You are using an intellectual affectation "it is unfair to make sweeping statements about liberals and conservatives" to try to confuse the obvious reality that there is a recognized stance that goes along with each party. Spare us the sophistry and address my original question. Why shouldn't the government regulate what guns we own or where we send our kids to school but regulate who we chose to have sex with.

I hope that you won't dodge the answer with more "you can't stereotype anyone" cliches. I'm talking about a school of thought not individual people. I'm interested in your response
Incorrigible1, if you can control the urge to dodge the question.

God forbid any liberal or any conservative should be so vacuous he toes the political line of his party on every issue.

"Why shouldn't the government regulate what guns we own or where we send our kids to school but regulate who we chose to have sex with."

Siara, what laws are two gays breaking should they choose to live with each other? The sex police aren't active in my neck of the woods.

Again, I'm all for civil bonds for them, but they shouldn't expect to force religious recognition of their bond.

BTW, I don't attend a Christian church, nor am I Christian.

Now, have I answered your question or will you continue to insult me? I found your original question to be stereotypical, and stated as much.

I agree.
But when the government withholds aid to a gay couple that they would offer to a hetero couple they are stepping outside their juristication and differentiating between the two couples on a religious basis.

Isn't that right? If two couples are the same in every way besides sexual orientation and they are treated differently by the law, they are being treated differently because of their sexual orientation by process of elimination. If a hetero couple are raising a kid the kid can be covered by either one's insurance, even if one parent has adopted the kid. There are some policies and situations where step kids can be covered. That's not true for gay couples.

I think you're on to something. It's when it comes to gays being legally married is where many people have an issue.

I don't think civil union should be referred to as "marriage" whether it's homo or hetero. "Marriage" is a religious term.

I must admit there are some current inequalities. Gay rights have come a very long way, in the recent past. Children within the gay couple's purview is still a touchy subject for many. Me? Lord knows there are a vast number of completely freaked-up households raising kids, so I'm in favor of allowing gay couples to do so. Of course there is then the need for a civil union, to legally bond the couple.

As I've heard before, why should heterosexual couples share all the pain and misery of marriage? (Happily single, myself.)

LOL Well, maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised one day.

Don't do it Incorrigible. Women are the devil.

Signed

One happily divorced man ( me )

I knew you were kidding, just as soon as I seen your moniker, OHIO, man.

Hey, how do you get an O.S.U. grad off your porch?

Pay for the pizza!

What do you call an O.S.U. football player with a national championship ring?

A thief!!!

LOL.

Although, I'm worried about my team this year. YOUNG! offense.

I appreciate the advice, and from Siara, too. Hey, I'm old, and have been divorced a long time. My ex-wife is one reason I spend most my time on the cryptid forum.

You guys haven't mentioned anything I don't already regret.

Still, I'm a happily single (hopelessly heterosexual) kinda guy!

Awww, come on. We're not all that bad.

Oh, I hold out that hope, and must admit, it's fun looking..............

Yea. I know you're not. I was just funnin'

It's just a matter of time till I jump right back in with both feet again.