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.

 

 

You know...I had the same thought the other day! :lol:

 

 

To answer the question, I don't believe that any of the types of issues you mention belong on any agenda, politically. I know Republicans who are pro-choice, and I know Democrats that are staunchly pro-life. (I use the terms pro-choice and pro-life only because those are the universally accepted terms).

 

I think the majority of America has differing opinions on different components of the agendas claimed by each party. And, that's the single reason that I registered Independent. I can't stomach the thought of aligning myself with either "agenda", because neither "agenda" fits my personal "place".

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.

 

I think that this would be a very interesting discussion! Let's make it a thread sometime...maybe post election?

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.

While I don't know if more gay people are highly promiscuous, I do know (believe?) that homosexuality goes against natural law and there are health risks to it. I could cite statistics all day; it would end with you saying my sources are biased, and this thread being jacked.

 

Basically, I think that homosexuality is against natural law--it causes health risks--improper burden on others. Due to my nature of disliking government intrusion, and the very fact that homosexual tendencies can be restricted, I don't believe the government should be promoting what I believe is a dangerous and cost-imposing practice.

 

FWIW though, I don't vote on gay marriage really. Not sure if it matters.

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.

Not sure what you are asking.

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.

:thumb: Can't disagree with what you said. I don't want the government supporting faiths with government money. Tax breaks don't bother me, as I am sure they don't you either.

 

I am not saying lacking faith means amorality; just I don't like when people argue "abortion should be legal because the government can't legislate morality." The law should exist in accordance with morality and ethics- which does not have to be drawn from Christianity.

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.

:thumb: I can't disagree with what you said either. My facts were a bit off.

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.

I can not disagree with you more.

While I don't know if more gay people are highly promiscuous, I do know (believe?) that homosexuality goes against natural law and there are health risks to it. I could cite statistics all day; it would end with you saying my sources are biased, and this thread being jacked.

 

Basically, I think that homosexuality is against natural law--it causes health risks--improper burden on others. Due to my nature of disliking government intrusion, and the very fact that homosexual tendencies can be restricted, I don't believe the government should be promoting what I believe is a dangerous and cost-imposing practice.

 

FWIW though, I don't vote on gay marriage really. Not sure if it matters.

 

 

I can respect the natural law argument, but I'm not sure where the health risks come from if we're talking about monogamous relationships.

I can respect the natural law argument, but I'm not sure where the health risks come from if we're talking about monogamous relationships.

It remains to be proven (or unproven), but I'd say that (being against natural law) sodomy causes adverse health effects, whether it is HIV, ghonnorea, or whatever STD. Even though monogamy would limit the spread of the diseases, I can't imagine that legalizing gay marriage would make it decline.

 

Let me go one step further. In a true libertarian society, government would have little control. Insurance would be privately run of course. If insurance companies were allowed to choose to not cover homosexuals, then my position (at least the health risk standpoint) would be a mute point, at least in terms of whether or not the government could regulate it, because I could choose to use insurance companies that do not allow homosexuals because of the burden they pose on other customers.

 

The chances of that happening are minimal though, because of discrimination laws. Just saying in a true libertarian society (where discrimination by private enterprises would be legal), my argument would actually be weakened.

I think that this would be a very interesting discussion! Let's make it a thread sometime...maybe post election?

 

I wouldn't be against that.

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.

 

Here is a big key point:

 

While it may be the dealbreaker, it is NOT the only issue.

 

I love to have two prolife candidates (Geoff Davis and Ken Lucas or the Republican primaries) and be able to look at the other issues.

 

We are not a single issue voter, but that single issue is a dealbreaker.

 

As EVERYONE here knows, I was a Huckabee supporter. I looked at all of the other issues and after Thompson didn't seem to want the job, liked Huckabee.

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, from a libertarian standpoint marriage as is should be made illegal.

Then, from a libertarian standpoint marriage as is should be made illegal.

 

Not only that, but it seems to me that by true Libertarian principles, insurance wouldn't exist. By its nature, insurance is a collective shared risk venture, and it seems a true Libertarian would follow the "each according to his or her means" mantra -- making health care a strictly "pay as you go" proposition.

Not only that, but it seems to me that by true Libertarian principles, insurance wouldn't exist. By its nature, insurance is a collective shared risk venture, and it seems a true Libertarian would follow the "each according to his or her means" mantra -- making health care a strictly "pay as you go" proposition.

 

So librarians are basically Darwinists, survival of the fittiest???

So librarians are basically Darwinists, survival of the fittiest???

 

I don't know about librarians, though I guess the Origin of Species may be handy. Libertarians, yes.

I don't know about librarians, though I guess the Origin of Species may be handy. Libertarians, yes.

 

too many letters to type and worry about spelling this late on a school night.

Not only that, but it seems to me that by true Libertarian principles, insurance wouldn't exist. By its nature, insurance is a collective shared risk venture, and it seems a true Libertarian would follow the "each according to his or her means" mantra -- making health care a strictly "pay as you go" proposition.

 

Any kind of government insurance shouldn't exist.

 

But Geico, Allstate, Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc. are private businesses and I have no problem with them.

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.

Umm, yea, where to start. I'm gonna skip over the adverse health effect comment and get to the main point. The main belief of a Libertarian is freedom of choices without government interference. So a person should DEFINITELY have the freedom to make the choice to enter into a homosexual relationship and thus should also be able to be recognized as an equal to a heterosexual relationship.

 

But, off subject, the question in the thread is whether the Republican party can be the party of small government but still endorse such big government ideas?

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.

 

cch, not trying to pile on, but my inner Federalist is working right now.

 

The fact that the words God, Jesus, Bible, Saviour are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Religion is mentioned in EXCLUSIONARY terms only in 1787, shows how radical and liberal:sssh:, the Constitution really is. No Christian nation would do this, hence there is no Christian foundation of the government. Christian foundation of the people, different story.

 

 

Sorry for the extension of a slight treadjack.