http://www.libertarianreason.com/2006/06/gay-marriage-amendment-fails-real.html

PS John, it has become increasingly clear to me in recent days that for call for widespread acceptance of homosexuality has a sublte and secondary effect of attempting to impose your own moral views of homosexuality on abrahamic believers; they would have to reject the teaching of their religious texts to vote in favour; is this true Libertarianism?

‘PB- Morality is an entirely different concept to legality. Now, let me give you an example or two based on YOUR logic, PB. If Joe believes that adultery is wrong, should he vote the same way and make it illegal to commit adultery? Another. If Jane strongly believes that drunkenness is forbidden by God, should she take that belief to the voting booth and make it illegal to get drunk?’

If so, thanks, you will have demonstrated how far you are willing to go to have your own morality enforced on everyone else. If not, why not? Basically you’ll need to explain why you treat homosexuality different than you do adultery and drunkenness.

You have side-stepped my challenge to you. I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. I’m trying to deal with what the law SHOULD say about homosexuality, in your eyes - and so far you’re saying that you would not vote for anything homosexual in law. That means you are happy that the law impede the freedoms of homosexuals because you aren’t homosexual! The fact is that, as you admitted to S Quinney, if it came to a referendum on these issues, you would not support the rights of gay people. That is KEY to this discussion. The reason it’s key to this discussion is that by not supporting the rights of gay people, you are content that the law impede those rights. You can’t divorce yourself from the political outcomes of your position - nor can you plead apathy, PB - apathy, if anything, is WORSE!

Then you try and turn it around on me, saying that I am trying to enforce MY belief system upon those who would reject it - Jews, Muslims, Christians. But this isn’t a belief system that requires anything but freedom for anyone else - in law it would not impede, it would free. Thus, I know of libertarian Jews, libertarian Muslims, and libertarian Christians (I am one). So on one hand we have you, who would either actively vote or passively allow the law to infringe on the liberties of everyone who doesn’t agree with a Christian version of events, and on the other hand we have me, who wants to limit the government’s ability to infringe on ANYBODY’S liberty! A huge, gaping, monumental difference.

Finally, you ask me when or where my system has ever worked in the past. There are two answers to that.

(1) We don’t have examples of ANY pure political ideology in practice. Since society began we have had mixed economies based on some forms of democracy, theocracy, tyranny or whatever. Communism in Russia was not pure communism. What we have today is basically mixed economies with the pendulum at varying positions toward left or right. So we can’t say what such pure systems are like to their full extent. But we DO have examples from those nations and periods in history that MOST implemented various political systems; while communist Russia and China were not ‘pure’ communism, we were able to see clearly that it was not so far producing good results AT ALL - far from it. That brings me to the second point.

(2) When the United States of America was founded, it was the most libertarian society that had existed to date. It was founded upon the ideals of liberty - people were not subjects of the state but responsible for themselves and free to make their own choices. Most of the founding fathers were Christian, yet they were also what we would describe today as ‘libertarian’ - they separated church from state so that people would be free to make their own moral choices. The United States Constitution is one of the most explicitly freedom-granting legislative documents in history.

In short, one only needs to look as far as one of the youngest, most prosperous nations on earth to answer your question about the principals of libertarianism working in practice.

It’s even simpler than that, Rosalita. Let me try and explain how it would not be an infringement of ANY moral code to treat politics as I do. It is obvious to me that when I move my arm, it is mine to move. When I try to move somebody else’s arm, it won’t move unless I go over there and force it to using my own body to do so. I am responsible for my own life, my property and my own sense of right and wrong. We are all in the same boat, from this perspective.

There are people who wish to use such force to control other people. ‘Freedom’ is the societal idea that they should not be able to do so. It already applies, in the West, to things like what clothes we choose to wear, whether we choose to be married or not and what food we want to eat.

Libertarianism simply recognises that we are free to make our own moral choices in life. God gave such freedom to Adam and Eve (which they later abused). By voting for freedom in matters of sexuality, this is my statement: “I am not you. I am not responsible for you, nor am I able to make your moral choices for you. I respect your rationality and your capacity as a human being to make such choices for yourself. I may not agree with your decisions, but since your life is yours, what I believe happens to be irrelevant. What I ask in return is that you allow me the freedom to make my choices likewise.”

Or, let’s look at it from another angle. Why does it follow from my decision NOT to infringe on the freedoms of others that I am endorsing the actions that they make with that freedom?

PB- Morality is an entirely different concept to legality. Now, let me give you an example or two based on YOUR logic, PB. If Joe believes that adultery is wrong, should he vote the same way and make it illegal to commit adultery? Another. If Jane strongly believes that drunkenness is forbidden by God, should she take that belief to the voting booth and make it illegal to get drunk?

If you REALLY did what you suggest you do, PB, and attempted to enshrine your belief system in law, you would be lobbying for much more than you are, I’m sure. So here is your challenge, if you don’t accept a libertarian premise.

Where do you draw the line?

Rosalita I am genuinely pleased you are not angry at me. I can seem like a bull but I mean no harm.

S Quinney, the hand of friendship to you! I wouldn’t vote for anything homosexual in law. But I have to say, if you really need me to explain questions 7 and 8 in my opinions I really don’t think there is much point even beginning. Anything else you want me to address friend?

PB