Would you have considered the argument against slavery to go against Libertarian dogma?
No. Libertarian "dogma" as you put it, allows for restrictions to liberty when they impinge on the liberty of others. Clearly, slavery falls into that category.
95% of abortions are done as a form of birth control. That should be totally unacceptable to society.
Primarily... Education. We need to teach both abstinence and safe sex, not just one or the other.
Secondarily... A shift in how the debate is waged. I'd argue from the position of science and Individual Rights and leave religion and morality out of the equation completely.
I have other ideas for the topic as well.
I think we have pretty much the same philosophy on abortion. All this time, I thought you were with the "conservatives" who want to outlaw the practice.
Nothing per se.. but its polygamy, not marriage. No need to redefine marriage because polygamy is already the same thing but with multiple spouses.
I'd have a harem if it were legal.
Not me. It's hard enough to keep a positive relationship with one woman.
If you want a harem, though, I don't want to stand in your way. You wouldn't be impinging on my liberty in any way. Go for it.
I've only ever run into gays on the internet that complain about the marriage issue. If gays pushed for Civil Unions that were strengthened to have the same advantages/disadvantages of a heterosexual marriage, they would have overwhelming support but that's not what their doing. They're demanding it be called marriage and thereby creating a highly polarized and politicized issue of the topic. After 10 or 20 years of civil unions and calling themselves married, the definition of marriage would probably change to reflect the accepted use of the term.
I wonder if they represent the gay community, or simply the vocal minority? What is wrong with using a different term? It seems to me like an acceptable compromise for both sides. They could still have a "wedding". They could still have "nuptials". They could even have a "honeymoon." All of the traditional words but one. They could even tell their friends they were married, but the paperwork would use a different word.
Putting a cross in a jar of urine counts as "art" and is subsidized by government grants but a featureless stick figure with the name "Muhammad" is censored as hate speech. There is a clear double standard when it comes to the two religions.
You have a point there. No, putting a cross on a jar of urine is simply inappropriate and disgusting, not to mention an unacceptable use of tax money.
Where, though, has a stick figure of Muhammad been censored in the USA? I don't remember that one.
Name one here on the forum that wants that... Do you know any personally, or have you fallen for the progressivist trick that convinces the non-Christians that the Christians are out to impose their religious views on you?
I'm not sure who
on this forum wants to impose Christianity on the rest of us, but I've heard a number of pundits lately ranting about Obama saying that the US is not a Christian nation, then expounding on how Christian values supposedly guide us, how our founding fathers were all devout Christians, and so on. The so called Christian right would have us have prayers in public schools, by which they don't mean voluntary prayer, nor prayers by another religion.
A Christian nation would mean that other religions have less status, or fewer privileges. That simply is not the case in the USA.
As for the "Christian" nation... Christians are a majority in our nation, and by that same standard we judge Muslim nations to be Muslim, Hindu nations to Hindu and so on. I think that's another out of context term that the progressives use to "prove" their case for a Christian boogeyman.
Not really. We may have more Christians than Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. in this nation, but we don't have them controlling the government. In Muslim nations, it is the Mullahs who have the most power, not the elected officials. Iran is a Muslim nation. It does have a president, but most of the power is in the Mullahs. Some of the south American nations are Christian (Catholic), with that church entertwined with the government. Just having a Christian majority does not make us a Christian nation.
The way the demographics of this country are changing, it seems to me that there is a possibility of agnostics becoming a majority. Would that make us an agnostic nation?
No, the accepted definitions of words change as a result of slang terminology and it happens over time. Ain't still aint a word. We don't all go out and vote (as would be the case in gay marriage) then change the definition.
Blowing someone off is a term, not a single word. The changes in the definitions of Surfing, Gay (and even blowing someone off) are a result of slang and did not happen overnight.
How many of those changes took place over night as the result of a ballot initiative?
They didn't come about as a ballot initiative, but as a result of common usage, yet California passed such an initiative to keep the word "marriage" with the traditional meaning.
It took a long time to get where we are, I'm not looking to return to limited government overnight, just to see movement in that direction would be fantastic.
Yes, it would. Right now, we are headed in the other direction rather quickly, and have been for a very long time.
I think you miss the point. While there are many issues, there are only two possible positions a congressman can take on any given issue, that of the Republicans or the Democrats. He can take a third position but its doomed to failure.
True enough. In the realpolitik of Washington, a pol has to be with one party or the other, or simply be a voice in the wilderness.
My point is that there is no real right vs. left divide between the two parties, as their leaders would have us believe.
What's wrong with civil union? The definition of civil union is precisely what would replace the current definition of marriage.
A marriage is a marriage, a civil union would be a civil union and polygamy is polygamy.
OK, let's call a spade a spade, and carry on. Legalize civil union, polygamy, and (what's the word for one wife, more than one husband? poly something.)
What does it really matter what we call it, anyway, so long as everyone has the same rights?
