National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dragoon68, May 27, 2008.

  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Their platform on "Personal Relationships" states:

    "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."
     
  4. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh-Oh Ken, looks like it's time to switch parties again! :laugh:
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I have stated before I advocate the separation of marriage and state.

    I have no problem with a plank that states that the government should stay out of our bedrooms and personal relationships.
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    The platform covers considerably more than just homosexual "marriage". Are you okay with homosexuals adopting and raising children? Are you okay with sex offenders adopting and raising children? How about underage marriages? How about incest? How about polygamy? These are all things regulated or prohibited by law aren't they? So should the government "stay out" of all these "personal relationships"? That's what the platform states! Does the afterthought clause about "consenting adults" provide enough protection?
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you okay with homosexuals adopting and raising children?

    I haven't made up my mind on this subject yet. This may be on the ballot in Arkansas in November. If so, I will consider the debate and decide.

    Are you okay with sex offenders adopting and raising children?

    The plank does not authorize such and you know it. It's a strawman argument.

    How about underage marriages?

    The plank does not authorize such and you know it. It's a strawman argument.

    How about incest?

    The plank does not authorize such and you know it. It's a strawman argument.

    How about polygamy?

    The plank does not authorize such and you know it. It's a strawman argument.


    Everything is concerning adults, not underage children. If you want reasoned debate, fine. I have no time for strawman arguments.
     
    #7 KenH, May 29, 2008
    Last edited: May 29, 2008
  8. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, the strawman says that it does "authorize" these things if it does not stand against them. It proposes removing government from all aspects of regulating "personal relationships" and, Ken, you know that! Polygamy, after all, can certainly be among "consenting adults" just as can be homosexual "marriage". And if a child can be "tried as an adult" then what's to say a young teenage boy or girl can be considered an adult for marriage. After all, at one time such was not so uncommon.

    This is one of two main stumbling blocks for joining hands with this party no matter how good the rest of the platform might be.
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, then, don't. :)
     
  10. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I probably won't but I'm still going to evaluate the options including this one.

    I can say that I don't like their platform on "personal relationships" because it's too extreme. I also don't like platforms that go too far the other way.
     
  11. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Their platform on "abortion" states:

    "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."


    This suggests that we, through government, should not have laws prohibiting murder.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the other side of the story see:

    www.l4l.org

    For those intereted, LP presidential candidate, Bob Barr, is pro-life and, unlike Senator JSM III, has always been pro-life.
     
  13. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Libertarians for Life state:

    "Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong, not a right. Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional. Politically, of course, our perspective is libertarian. Libertarianism's basic principle is that, under justice, each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy."

    I certainly agree with their conclusion and find it more palatable that the other Libertarian statements on this subject.

    However, their reasoning is "expressly scientific and philosophical" which implies a man-centered view rather than "religious" which to Christians would implies a Christ-centered view. I'm afraid that a man-centered view will be corrupted in the same way the present view on abortion has been corrupted. I'd like to elect leaders that are willing to humbly state the only true basis or righteous convictions - God Almighty - without shame, without apology, and without hiding behind "science" or "philosophy".
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    As long a someone is pro-life I really don't care, within the narrow confines of this one issue, how he/she arrives at the correct(in my view) conclusion.
     
  15. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    The basis behind a person's decision means everything as to how firm and steadfast they will be in holding to it. A person who makes their decision on man-centered philosophy is on very shaky ground compared to one who does so on God's law. The former is every changing but the latter remains eternally the same.

    It's great that Bob Barr is pro-life but unless he's based this on God's law he's likely to compromise his beliefs - or have them compromised for him - for political favor of his party and the many others with whom he needs alliance.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree.
     
  17. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    One of the core policies of those running this country now, the international community is global population control...for "the greater good". Makes no difference who sits in the oval office or what his or her personal beliefs are.

    If they want to be POTUS then they'll have to carry water for the globalists who think massive population reduction is a good thing. Doesn't matter what you or I think is right. We have no say in the matter. We only get to pick between those whom the globalists feel are best suited to carry their water.
     
    #17 poncho, May 31, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2008
  18. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    The proper order of our government is God, the people, their constitution, their representatives, their laws, their leaders, and their judges. This is why the pledge of alliance rightly includes "one nation under God". The right plan starts with God. Without God it is based upon man and all things of man are corrupt. This is the weakness we have and the reason for the problems we face. We, the people, are not following God and do not want Him to be at the head of our government. We want Him out of the way so we can make our own rules. We should always come back to God for the basis of all aspects of our government. Our laws - especially the core that defines right and wrong in society - were and should continue to be based upon God's laws. The only God is God the Father, God the Son, and god the Holy Spirit. This is the God of Chrisitanity and no other. We can tolerate other beliefs for the purpose of our own liberty and freedom of worship. We need and want no state church. But we need and should want God to be the basis of our personal and national fiber.

    I'm afraid none of the political parties nor their candidates really understand this.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The pledge of allegiance did not originally have the phrase "under God". That was added during the 1950's.
     
  20. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that's correct, and for good reason was it added. God's name had been mentioned often since the founding of our nation.
     

Share This Page

Loading...