When I first turned 18 I initially registered Republican. It was my belief as I have been taught by my grandfather (anyone involved in GOP state politics knows him) that the Republican party believed in less government, not only fiscal but socially as well and these are beliefs I strongly hold. Everyone knows I have strong libertarian leanings even at 18, but now at 25 they have become full blown, and a lot of this has to do with what I feel is the Republican party going away from it's true meaning.

 

I don't think it's a secret that it's my belief they have and this has led me to change my registration and will probably only vote 3rd party except in extreme cases (i.e. if Obama had any shot at all in Kentucky because I feel it's my duty as a good American to keep him out of office). While I can support someone like McCain or Palin and admire their more "maverick" attitudes I don't think I can push that button anymore. Their support of government interference in abortion issues, gay marriage, and book censorship to name a few won't allow it anymore (though if forced I'd definitely go that route over Obama and I admire Palin tremendously, her time as VP might allow her to grow on me). So I ask, do you believe that taking the pro-government side on social issues the Republican party has went completely away from what it should stand for? Please don't turn this into an abortion thread, I just want to talk about government interference in our lives and how I feel it isn't consistent with the "true" Republican platform.

I heard a great description of the two parties on a radio show a short while ago....The Democrats feel people are smart enough to make their own social decisions, but are too dumb to be able to handle their own finances, whereas the Republican party feels people are smart enough to handle their own finances, but are too dumb to make social decisions.

 

I am 100% against some things such as gay marriage, abortion, etc., so it's tough for me because I feel the government should be as small as humanly possible, but I personally want abortion and gay marriages to be illegal.

I heard a great description of the two parties on a radio show a short while ago....The Democrats feel people are smart enough to make their own social decisions, but are too dumb to be able to handle their own finances, whereas the Republican party feels people are smart enough to handle their own finances, but are too dumb to make social decisions.

 

I am 100% against some things such as gay marriage, abortion, etc., so it's tough for me because I feel the government should be as small as humanly possible, but I personally want abortion and gay marriages to be illegal.

LOL, I like the descriptions.

 

See, for me it seems like those two go against each other. Not only are Republicans against those two things now, they are also against casino gambling, they continually make a mockery of seperation of church/state, make a mockery of first amendment laws/ for censorship, and for stronger drug laws to name some more.

 

BUT, if the government wants to do anything to take away gun rights they are quick to tell them to get out of their lives! I don't see the difference here as a principle, less government should mean less government all around.

I heard a great description of the two parties on a radio show a short while ago....The Democrats feel people are smart enough to make their own social decisions, but are too dumb to be able to handle their own finances, whereas the Republican party feels people are smart enough to handle their own finances, but are too dumb to make social decisions.

 

I am 100% against some things such as gay marriage, abortion, etc., so it's tough for me because I feel the government should be as small as humanly possible, but I personally want abortion and gay marriages to be illegal.

Gay marriage, from a libertarian standpoint, should be kept illegal because of the tremendous burden it puts on taxpayers/health insurance receivers because of adverse health effect of homosexuality. (Yikes. Did I say that out loud?)

 

Then again, there are few points to make from there. Taking it one step further, should we make homosexuality illegal? It's a fine line to cross.

LOL, I like the descriptions.

 

See, for me it seems like those two go against each other. Not only are Republicans against those two things now, they are also against casino gambling, they continually make a mockery of seperation of church/state, make a mockery of first amendment laws/ for censorship, and for stronger drug laws to name some more.

 

BUT, if the government wants to do anything to take away gun rights they are quick to tell them to get out of their lives! I don't see the difference here as a principle, less government should mean less government all around.

Agreed 90% with what you are saying.

 

Now for the 10%. Separation of Church and State, on the other hand, is a different matter for me. It was written 10 years after the Constitution, and I truly believe that the point of it was that the government should not be able to choose what religions are or are not practiced. I don't know if the government should be amoral.

 

But I feel more and more libertarian every day. Not supporting Ron Paul is a regret of mine.

Abortion and gay rights are religiously stemmed issues. These issues have to be in the republican agenda because it gives them the rural religious vote that has become a major base of the republican party. Many people who care about these issues care only about these issues. I think more people who are pro choice or progay rights will vote based on other issues, but the many prolife and anti gay hold these as paramount issues.

Gay marriage, from a libertarian standpoint, should be kept illegal because of the tremendous burden it puts on taxpayers/health insurance receivers because of adverse health effect of homosexuality. (Yikes. Did I say that out loud?)

 

Then again, there are few points to make from there. Taking it one step further, should we make homosexuality illegal? It's a fine line to cross.

 

Wouldn't those in a committed, monogamous gay marriage be just as unlikely to spread STDs as those in a committed, monogamous heterosexual marriage? I think you're operating under the fallacy that all gay people are highly promiscuous.

Gay marriage, from a libertarian standpoint, should be kept illegal because of the tremendous burden it puts on taxpayers/health insurance receivers because of adverse health effect of homosexuality. (Yikes. Did I say that out loud?)

 

T.

 

Homework since I'm lazy and since I know you have found other stats previously:

 

I'd be curious to know the spend on AIDS/HIV vs heterosexual diseases.

 

But I feel more and more libertarian every day. Not supporting Ron Paul is a regret of mine.

 

:thumb:

 

His wanting to get rid of government programs is a huge plus in my book. I was talking to my friends the other day about one that I feel we need to do away with, that I'm not brave enough to post on here, due to the amount of backlash I'd get. :lol:

:thumb:

 

His wanting to get rid of government programs is a huge plus in my book. I was talking to my friends the other day about one that I feel we need to do away with, that I'm not brave enough to post on here, due to the amount of backlash I'd get. :lol:

Aww, c'mon let's hear it!

Abortion and gay rights are religiously stemmed issues. These issues have to be in the republican agenda because it gives them the rural religious vote that has become a major base of the republican party. Many people who care about these issues care only about these issues. I think more people who are pro choice or progay rights will vote based on other issues, but the many prolife and anti gay hold these as paramount issues.

 

But if the Republicans leave that issue alone won't those people still vote? Maybe they will vote on the other beliefs they have and still choose GOP, or make their own party, or maybe even the Democrats will pick it up.

 

It just seems to me that issues involving government interference shouldn't be Republican issues. If Republicans are going to be true to the belief of less government. I guess the question I am trying to raise is aren't promotion of pro-government social issues in direct conflict with the belief I feel most Republicans have of as little government as possible.

Agreed 90% with what you are saying.

 

Now for the 10%. Separation of Church and State, on the other hand, is a different matter for me. It was written 10 years after the Constitution, and I truly believe that the point of it was that the government should not be able to choose what religions are or are not practiced. I don't know if the government should be amoral.

I would agree with you that the original intent was "just" for the government not choosing what religions were practiced. But as we have evolved it seems that a lot of things really step on this line. When my government supports providing government money to faith based programs isn't this promoting one faith over another? What if this money is used on outreach/missionary endeavors? The basis of this endeavors is to spread "their" vision of god/faith to others and generally provide need.

 

I don't know how lacking faith makes an individual or institution amoral? I don't have a standard faith, but I definitely have morals and more or less a code I live by, I don't need faith for that.

Agreed 90% with what you are saying.

 

Now for the 10%. Separation of Church and State, on the other hand, is a different matter for me. It was written 10 years after the Constitution, and I truly believe that the point of it was that the government should not be able to choose what religions are or are not practiced. I don't know if the government should be amoral.

 

But I feel more and more libertarian every day. Not supporting Ron Paul is a regret of mine.

 

Not wanting to threadjack but I would disagree with the bolded paragraph when I view history. First, the principle you speak of was uttered by Jefferson about 20 years after the First Constitution (1806 Danbury Confession).

 

Secondly, I think it's clear from many that the purpose of "NO Establishment" was there from the beginning from Madison and other Virginia leaders. In fact religion was to be so secondary that they put a "no religious test" disclaimer in the Constitution concerning seekers of public office.

 

Thirdly, I don't think the word "amoral" applies to what you are stating. No one expects the government to not be moral or morally ambivelant. They did not (IMHO) seek to create a theocracy whereby religious matters held sway and direction above the democratic republic they were governing by. I've long said that Christians and Demi-Christians (such as Deists) were some of the founders and their view is hard to see in 2008 because we are so far removed from the influence of the Enlightenment that so radically inspired the Founding Fathers.

Wouldn't those in a committed, monogamous gay marriage be just as unlikely to spread STDs as those in a committed, monogamous heterosexual marriage? I think you're operating under the fallacy that all gay people are highly promiscuous.

 

I was curious about the same thing.

Aww, c'mon let's hear it!

 

Fine, I would have no problem with the elimination of publicly funded education. And before anyone tries to convince me I'm wrong, I'll just go ahead and tell ya, you're wasting your time.