0 votes

Time for new party?

The GOP delegate selection process is completed. Now the Ron Paul Campaign has only one major task ahead and that is the showing at the Tampa GOP Convention. It is therefore time to consider what direction the Liberty movement behind Ron Paul's messenger face could go now.

Let's first look at numbers (rounded). In 2008 presidential election there were 206.1 million eligible voters from which 131.1 million (63.6%) voted - 69.5 million (33.7%) voted for Obama/Biden, 59.9 million (29.1%) voted for McCain/Palin, 1.8 million (0.9%) voted for all other candidates and 74.9 million (36.3%) didn't vote.

What a "demogracy" where were less voters who voted for the winner taking all, than the voters who didn't bother to vote for anybody. What a vacuum to fill.

Now, the electoral college projections mostly look like it would be a real miracle for Mitt Romney to win the 2012 presidential election and in my opinion his only chance how to keep a decisive part of the Ron Paul camp on the GOP board and maybe win the election would be by allowing major commitments into the party platform and putting Ron Paul on the vice-presidential ticket, nothing less. But how likely is it after all, really?

On the other hand the Ron Paul camp more successfully than expected used the pretext of the campaigns and the presidential candidate nomination process to promote - in a very consistent manner concerned with real issues - the ideas of Liberty both within and without the GOP.

And it looks like the support for Ron Paul among voters is even greater outside the traditional GOP electorate and generally can be in two digit percent numbers of voters population in the USA.

Moreover the support for liberty ideas looks quite steadily rising (as the number of independent voters does, 80% of voters even say at least are not excluding possibility to support a third party) and does not look too volatile as say in the case of R. Perot in 1992 - prophetically warning then about the debt based policies - who plummeted from his frontrunner status quite quickly after major mistakes, still got over 18% of the popular vote after reentering into the race, yet then gradually disappeared pretty much into oblivion.

The Liberty grassroots movement clearly has a major political potential in the long run despite all the numerous shenanigans in the GOP straw polls and the delegate selection process, and proved it is able to rise significant money and organize big rallies as well as able of organizing itself at the local and state levels to achieve even takeovers of whole state GOP establishments.

And here we come to the core:
Wouldn't it be (in the case the attempts to nominate Ron Paul would not be successful) good for the Liberty movement to employ the current unity, capitalize not only on GOP leaning but on the truly independent grassroots support, as well as on the experience from the local organizing for voting in the straw polls GOP delegate selection process and form (maybe in a "federal flash mob" manner utilizing the current instantaneous communication technologies) a new full-blown official party with local chapters, county & district, state and federal organization, with own official platform and nominating its own candidates without old party establishment interference?

Remember the Republican party of 1854? How quickly it sent the Whig party into oblivion by giving up on attempts to reform it, became a major political power and got the presidency - in times of mail being transported by horses?

What really remains now from the then liberty promoting Republican party?

What much else has this whole GOP nomination game been now about than the establishment trying whatever unfair or outright illegal means to disenfranchise potential Ron Paul voters?

Ron Paul recently said: "We are the future." (they are the past)

Could such a new party - with the independent, young, smart, enthusiastic people who support Ron Paul's message on board - prevent the disillusion about politics, fragmentation of the movement and ensure its future recognition and development into a really serious political power with less old establishment interference and more spirit of the USA founding fathers into everyday political life?

The author Dr. Jan Zeman is an independent political analyst with such achievements as securing the decisive vote in the Senate for the Czech conservative/libertarian president parliamentary re-election in 2008 and subsequently persuading him into a vocal opposition against the Lisbon Treaty which then resulted in securing important exception for the Czech Republic from the EU Orwellian schemes. He is not a native English speaker, so please excuse possible errors.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There are only 2 Parties: Liberty & Tyranny.

All other parties are intentional DISTRACTIONS.

If you ever stoop to thinking of yourself but a member of ANY other party, be it republican, conservative, or Independant even, then the bad guys have already started working their voodoo on you and are winning.

If you are for Freedom, then be proud to call yourself a Libertarian, or even just a member of the "freedom" party... But let all those around you know that the ONLY other party is the Tyranny party.


Yes, it very much looks like that

when one looks at the two official parties, having their presidential candidates in bed with same handlers and practically same tyrannical agenda (yeah ok, they weren't both from Skull&Bones like in 2004).

The founding fathers didn't want the parties, but quite quickly the parties were formed - and there was a deception from the very beginning - the Hamiltonian nationalists were and till this days are I don't know why called "federalists" and the true federalists (who wanted the federation of States, not the nationalist state of feds dictating to the States and usurping more and more power not given to them or even prohibited by the Constitution) needed to secretly form themselves a party to oppose the nationalists already in 1791 and there was maybe only independent president in all the history of USA - Washington. Also we could hardly find any Jeffersonian and Jacksonian spirit in todays Democratic party, as well as the liberty ideas of 1850s look quite strange for todays Republican party hijacked by neocons with their globalist compellence doctrine delusions of grandeur. And people again feel being the slaves - at least those who are still able to think after all that brainwashing propaganda pushed into them by MSM and have some time for it between paying all the taxes - for supporting foreign adventures and domestic state bankruptcy while bailout money payed by bankers to themselves on bonuses - and obeying all the piles of regulations for not becoming homeless or inmates.

There maybe is the Liberty party somewhere, but somehow it is barely noticeable.

Why throw away all our hard work to start an EXISTING new party?

Two points:

1) The Ron Paul campaign spend millions of dollars and an enormous amount of hours of effort to successfully carve out a slot for libertarians in the GOP. This will exist post-election and give libertarians outsized leverage much as the social conservative minority in the GOP have long enjoyed. Why would we throw that away? Shouldn't it be built on?

2) There already is a libertarian third party called the Libertarian Party. It, like all third parties, is hampered by a mountain of laws and traditions and any new party would face the same challenges. Its lack of success may be in some ways tied to its marketing and emphasis, but these would have been better honed in a legimately competitive environment. It is unrealistic to believe if the LP tinkered with its platform or marketing materials then these obstacles can be overcome.

Just an idea . . .

If things don´t work out in Tampa. We are too late to put him in the ballot the usual way. How hard is to change candidates for a party? What about we "take over" the libertarian party and put Ron Paul on the ballot on November? Is that possible?

A good way to defend your freedoms: www.libertymagazine.org

That's interesting

Just a rhetorical question - what if tomorrow Rmoney goes, slips in the bathroom, unluckily hits himself to his d*ckhead, causes himself intercranial bleeding and dies. Would then the RNC need to solve the problem how to get Santorum on the ballot in all states to avoid Ron Paul? How is it with this?

Rmoney wasn't still even nominated and somebody says there wouldn't be a time to put somebody on the ballot after RNC where he eventually could be nominated. What really are the terms of getting somebody on the ballots the usual way? I don't really know, I'm not an American, so I ask.

it is merely a misunderstanding

not an attempt of throwing your hard work and I wrote about also because of lack of support for LP - a president nominated by that party is in my opinion patently unelectable, because conservatives and religious people never will vote en masse for a party with LGBT and pro-choice agenda.
I proposed to form the party only for the case if all efforts to nominate Ron Paul and pass major platform commitments within the framework of the GOP RNC would fail (and I stated it in the article - maybe not sufficiently clearly?) - to anyway capitalize on the momentum, enthusiasm and hard work of you all able to oganize yourself and evidently make major achievements at state level - the Ron Paul camp can have much bigger mass behind than LP ever had - with independent supporters of Ron Paul a maybe two digit percentage of US voters population - and the success of a party is about the critical mass of people behind somebody -here Ron Paul - and something - here the ideas of civil rights and liberty, non-interventionism etc. It was Obama who won the last election by fooling people into thinking he is anti-war. Now this winning issue is yours grace Ron Paul and his bright ideas how to integrate the golden rule with other major domestic and international issues.
In fact you can use only just the idea of the party (and evident ability to make it quickly happen in the age of instantaneous communication) as a major leverage against GOP immediately - if they don't give you at least vicepresident slot for Ron Paul and major commitments in the GOP platform you'll demonstrate a power able not only to prohibit Romney the presidency, prohibit neocons to become GOP congresspersons, but potentially destroy the GOP as the GOP itself destroyed Whigs after 1854.
I'm not calling for the destruction of GOP if not necessary and you effectively can take it over and put back to its original purpose of promoting liberty, although I'm still not sure whether it will be ultimately successful or not after seeing the long chain of shenanigans from the side of the GOP establishment, but in any case I also see the potential of the independents and unregistered voters - for many of them apparently neither GOP nor LP is a choice especially not an unconditional one (that they would somehow vote for Romney if having not Ron Paul on ballot at least as vicepresident and with major issues adopted into the GOP platform in a convincing manner - the GOP can forget winning the presidential election without at least that in my opinion). There is apparently over 100 millions of them in USA! (independents and non-voters)

Major wars are won by having sufficient manpower/resources for opening multiple fronts and the fight for rights and liberty of all people is a major war (- against the rising despocy which apparently opines it is good for the planet to kill majority of us and rest lock in martial law policestates) - although at least for the time being not generally a hot one - whether you admitt it or not.
My article was merely about reminding you have the sufficient resources and manpower, which when united could be developed into a major political power, not a proposition to throw something away other than maybe a blind faith the GOP could be reformed (we will see soon at RNC), which can prove fatal for the liberty cause.

We already have that, you

We already have that, you guys just need to support it for a change.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

I really don't believe

the Libertarian party can be atractive for conservatives - you would need to purge the LGBT and pro-choice stuff otherwise a presidential candidate for the party is patently unelectable even theoretically. Also some of the GJ stances as the "humanitarian intervention" - we have had the extreme liberal/cosmopolitan president Havel who also called the war against Serbia "humanitarian"...people with opinions like this I don't even marginally consider to be somebody I would support.

Eh. For now. But the

Eh. For now. But the anti-abortion people are slowly dying off. The anti-gay and anti-marijuana crowd are dying off. Every year over 4 million people die and most of those are religious conservatives.

Your last sentences is illogical. If a bad person misuses a word, then a good person can't use it?

Besides, he wasn't talk about humanitarian WARS, but small, defined operations that are obviously humanitarian, let's say saving people from starving when some jackass has cut them off from food and water. Or tracking down this Kony dude. What he said is that he would at LEAST listen to the arguments on both sides before making a decision. It's like forcing someone to say "I won't support my child if they get arrested". Well, what if they're innocent? What if it is a an unconstitutional law? What if they didn't know they were breaking a law? I mean, getting people to pledge to never use the military, even if it costs lives, is just foolish. I don't want a President who will NEVER use the military, just one that will RARELY use the military. It's like those annoying people that gave up drinking. The idea isn't to give it up entirely, but to be SMART and use your BRAIN.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Um, I think the math proves that the PRO abortion people

are the ones QUICKLY dying off.

They are the ones not reproducing remember?

Are you suggesting that being

Are you suggesting that being pro or anti-abortion is an inherited genetic condition?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

No, it was a joke.

I guess it was lost on you.

Around here, you never know.

Around here, you never know.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

I don't recognize

and principially refuse anything like "humanitarian" operation of armed forces, especially on foreign teritory - can you please give me at least one example where the US military was used solely for the "humanitarian" purpose? Is an operation of US military with absolutely solely "humanitarian" purpose even imaginable? I really doubt anything like that is practically possible in the first place and I think that to call any military operation "humanitarian" is merely just a void political rhetoric to somehow justify sinister reasons which are inherently present with any military operation which in reality can take place - in my opinion any military operation is an inherently dangerous projection of power and it must be really responsibly weghted when it is absolutely necessary - I certainly don't think it is the case when a jackass cuts water supply on the opposite side of the planet and to send there US troops to "solve it" I would consider an inadmissible overkill and interference with the internal affairs.

With the abortions I see fundamental and irresolvable conflict between the unalienable right to life and the right to liberty - here to kill the unborn child and purportedly be happy without. This fundamental moral conflict will in my opinion never be universally resolved and will not die-out the same as the religious opinions that the life is a gift from God, Creator, or whatever the religion calls the supreme entity or phenomena and that it cannot be taken from an defenceless innocent.
I'm absolutely not religious but I'm against deliberate abortions without very serious medical reasons because I understand there is this fundamental moral conflict and I know women who regret - In any case I'm against any legal means to take the real choice in this private dilemma from the biological mother and father and somehow legally instituonalize the abortions - the right to life is declared unalienable (prohibited to be restricted by legal means) by the organic law of the USA, so it is at least in the legal sense prohibited to make any laws neither prohibiting nor supporting abortions, both on state and federal level, and for abolishing this in the legal sense you would literally need to abolish the legal entity USA found by its organic law called the Declaration of Independence.
I'm also against the legal institutionalization of the same sex marriages and I firmly believe there is no such right on the side of gay men and lesbian women to have it legally instituted and given with it equal legal rights as in the case of the marriage between opposite sex, and especially there's no such power of the federal government to institutionalize it enumerated in the US Constitution whatsoever and on the state level it is at very least disputable and controversial.
Again my reasons are not religious but principial - an opposite sex pair has a real natural potential to perpetuate the mankind - have family - father, give birth and foster own children together, and the originally religious institution of the marriage was created to honour and protect it.
Also as somebody with a doctorate in clinical psychology I'm principially against the legal institualization of the same sex pairs adoption of children because the children undoubtedly have the natural right to have a complete family with sane both male and female identification model which the same sex pair principially cannot provide, moreover there is a very real threat the homosexual "parents" could serve as a model of undesirable types of behaviour and attitudes as reducing sex to its physical component and promiscuity, highly prevalent at the homosexual scene.
This my reasons are not driven by a hate or phobia against homosexuals, I just generally think that everybody would be better off when the state would not put its nose into principially private issues which undoubtedly will never die-out otherwise than together with the whole mankind. And I would even think that when one calls him/herself libertarian he/she shouldn't wish the state to take care about him/her - as for example provide them with legal protection of their relationships or even arrange children into their custody - not speaking whith whole the "social state" machinery taking them - not rarely - from own biological parents and often threatening with it - to intimidate and demonstrate power of the state over its citizens.
So I would reduce libertarian endeavours to those which strive to fight social exclusion of homosexuals and the state puting its nose into their affairs and bedrooms.
For simmilar reasons I would not legalize prostitution, not because I hate or have phobia from prostitutes - I'm in this more radical and principled than you American Libertarians - I firmly believe it is nobodys bussines to put nose into a prostitute's budoir, it is her/his body in a consensual leisure activity and I generally think that even if we would consider the prostitution as mainly economic activity, it should be principially fully tax exempt - because to take revenue for the state bureaucrats feeding from somebody so low that he needs or even likes to sell her/his body is clearly extremely immoral - so the state shouldn't have a bussines with it - and to prevent spreading of STDs is anyway everybodys responsibility regardless whether it has something to do with a prostitution or not. In our country is the consensual prostitution of adults not prohibited and rarely somebody has a problem with it. (Yeah, it is true that in our country one finds less than 10% of population which would regularly attend a church according to own internal census of the churches and not more than 20% consider themselves religious in general according to last state census in 2011.)
With the pot - simmilarly I would concern to repeal all laws about illegal drugs including cannabis - principially you can maybe ban a distillery using a stupid constitutional Amendment - with a very bad outcome of mafia rise -as after 18th Amendment which needed to be repealed because the situation was not defensible after just couple of years, not a plant.
I would not legalize drugs - I would absolutely prohibit the state (in case of USA the state where already its first president happily growed the pot) to put its nose into this bussiness, because it absolutely clearly does much more bad than good.
It's the simmilar thing as with the death penalty - it was abolished in our country and the principial reason given in the report for the parliament was that when you analyze what for the death penalty was given in just the last 70 years history of our republic before it was abolished you can find out that it was abused so much that a vast majority of the death penalties were given for political, retributional and military delicts and only a fraction of less than 10% for the 1st degree murders - where only the death penalty is maybe justifiable - to avoid dangerous natural tendency to private blood feud vendetta and all the potential chain of violence against the rights of innocent around the perpetrator often comming with it.

Okay, well, there was our

Okay, well, there was our military intervention in the typhoon just a few years ago.

We also run operations in Mexico, Colombia, etc in order to help track down cartel heads. Which of course, wouldn't exist if we relegalized drugs.

And then we have used our military to attack and kill pirates and control water ways, rescue hostages, etc.

But this is the point. He has ONLY said that he will look at what the situation is BEFORE turning it down. Is it truly humanitarian? Is there a net benefit?

And there is NO such "power" of the Federal government to recognize marriage at all or provide any benefit for it. And if you do, then you must do it equally. To say that two men can't create a contract that the government refused to recognize WHILE recognizing THE SAME CONTRACT between a man and a woman is indefensible using libertarian theory. A contract is a contract. That's the fundamental theory of libertarianism. And equality under the law is the fundamental theory in the Constitution. Contracts. Fundamental basis of libertarianism.

Sounds like you have a PhD in homophobia. I assume you would admit that if a child at an early age were to be geneticially tested and found to be gay, that it would be better placed with two men or two women than to be placed with homophobic parents right? Not saying it should be done, but to say that a child should rot in the foster care system rather than be adopted by gay parents is silly.

I think the death penalty is generally risky on multiple levels but if someone kills another person, they shouldn't be allowed out of jail ever.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

stop calling names

I surely don't like fanatics resorting in arguing ad hominem.

My problem with homosexual marriage certainly is not a product of homophobia - problem is a homosexual pair is not practically equal to heterosexual - they obviously cannot fulfill the primary purpose to perpetuate mankind by making children for which the protection using mariage was originaly instituted (by religion, but clearly is independent on religion - that's why state bears the role of marriage garant for non-religious although it clearly shouldn't be a bussiness of feds). So they cannot have equal rights, because they simply wittingly waive them. -It is the right of everybody to go and make sexual intercourse with somebody of the opposite sex consenting and have children from it, homosexuals have this right, but this right doesn't even marginally imply they should have a right to take the child to their relationship with somebody else.
It is - so far - impossible for homosexuals to have children from their sexual intercourse, so if they would want a child it would need to be a child of partially or completely somebody else even if we would use contemporary artificial conception methods, but why then protect their marriage and give to it the benefits from public money - instituted for the protection of bilogical family and avoiding the infidelity and subsequent non-biological cuckoos in the family?

I surely don't agree that the homosexuality can be genetically tested at early age. That's a premise for reasoning which simply doesn't exist. There could be partial complex genetic predispositions but no known scientific study found a direct 100% causality (and statistical causality from major twin studies is around 25%). If there would be such a "100%" study it would be a breaktrough - but not in your desired direction - it would most probably lead to a justified future ban of artificial conception from homosexual genomes where both parents have homosexuality genes - because if not banned it would lead to a selective perpetuation of homosexuality which probably has its function otherwise it wouldn't be there, but obviously such "homosexual eugenics" would be very undesirable.
To recognize mariage is clearly something else than supporting it. I'm not against people nor state recognizing a faithful partnership of same sex people, I have friends which are homosexuals and I don't have anything against them to be together - you even have the 1st Amendment so I would not have anything against them to found a "homosexuality church" and have weddings there if they like (in normal churches nobody will marry them - and that's obviously the right of the church not to marry them, so why it should be a duty of the state?) - but I definitely don't wish the state will support it by recognizing them and grant them same rights and benefits as a heterosexual marriage has - derived from mutual commitment to support making and raising posterity.

With the life sentence should I understand it, that well a half of the abroad deployed US troops should be in prison for life? -Sorry, just a bit absurd example - I would be not so categorical - I think that there could be cases of violent crimes of guys repeatedly raping girls or policemen repeatedly abusing violence against peaceful protesters I would never let out of prison ever even it would not be quallified as a manslaughter or a 1st degree murder, but there could be also cases of the 1st degree murder, where for example a systematically tormented wife ultimately murders the husband, where I could as a juror vote for acquiting her. My test would be this: if somebody repeatedly killed someone abusing his superiority against defenceless or repeatedly violently abused the power given, delegated to him/her by the society together with funding of the resources needed - life sentence without parole - on the other hand when a murder was a likely only available way how to avoid further systematic abuse - minor sentence or acquital in any case where beyond a reasonable doubt was a considerable threat that the murderer could be killed by the abuser. The principle I derive this from is: always doubt and question powerfull while supporting the weak if abused. When I was a child I've repeatedly seen the big boys gangs bullying the weaks - I defended them - even for the price of the big boys teeths - its better to go to a dentist than grow into a psychopath.

You can't accept that

You can't accept that homosexuals are otherwise normal people apparently, so I view that is homophobia.

The primary reason to get married isn't to have kids. It really never was. It was about contracts, generally with respect to property ownership.

I just can't agree with your anti-homosexual agenda, sorry.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

I accept they're normal people

What I don't accept (together with the continuation of names calling) for obvious reasons is that a homosexual marriage is a normal type of marriage.

I firmly believe that one of the primary reasons of the heterosexual marriage is to protect the children from such marriage - also in regard to the property rights - if for example one or both die (which everybody eventually) the children inherit his/her/their property, which would not happen if you're for example a rich guy fu*king a poor girl, having children with her and then eventually leave her with the children alone, die and the children will not get a penny. The ages when it was like this notoriously - and girls for very obvious reasons refused sexual relationaships with such guys and were strongly discouraged to do so without marriage - are not so far in the past yet somehow the libertarians in America have the selective amnesia.

The heterosexual marriage clearly is a contract for offspring posterity in both practical and legal sense and the homosexuals for obvious reasons cannot have own posterity so there is no property rights reason for them to have a marriage in the first place. The partial property rights problems - as for example a homosexual pair living in a house, which one of them owns, the one dies and the other is chased out can simply be resolved by mutual ownership contract and/or last will testament - you don't need to solve it by a marriage.

Also there is clearly a LGBT agenda to legalize children adoptions by homosexual pairs - which in normal circumstances of normal homosexual pairs is usually allowed in a case they're in a stable marriage where the children can expect an inheritance - so clearly there evidently exists a reason for homosexuals - having alot to do with the kids - to push for instituting homosexual marriage - a reason even much stronger than in the case of heterosexuals (for them to get children can be a question of 5 minutes of pleasant intimous activity and they don't need anybody to it) and it is either a result of selective blindness of the fanatical American libertarians not to see it, or it could of course be a direct mendacious demagoguery - to claim that the reason isn't there and never was.
I don't even wonder the vast majority of heterosexuals does not want homosexual marriages and adoptions - I would also not want the children to be given to and fostered by people leaving themselves to be advocated by selective blinds or demagogues.

And let me put it this way.

And let me put it this way. What if a woman can't have a baby, but wants to get married? You wouldn't deny that. I know a lesbian couple that have several kids from male donors, but their children so yes, they can procreate and have a family and the need to pass on common property.

If you want, I can hold your hand so you're not scared of the evil gay agenda.

Or you can talk with my 3 year old and she can tell you about her fear of bears.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

what i think

in the case how people having no own children pass on common property - testament, private contracts.

Again I have no fear from LGBT agenda - if there's something bad or unjustifiable it anyway hasn't much chance to be perpetuated for long time against the will of the natural majority - I just think that to defend some of its planks from the libertarian positions is not principially consistent. -We don't want the state nanny to put nose into our private affairs - neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals. And I think the aggressive demagoguery of some of the activists often defies common sense and often polarizes heterosexuals against it even more than they would care if no such activism present. And when one calls himself/herself libertarian and at the same time wants the feds to give them marriage rights and benefits including procuring them children for adoption or subsidize the abortion cliniques somehow principially stinks, that's what I fear - the confused people with not firm principles, who more than defending what is right pursue their particular interests by whatever demagoguery at hand.
I firmly believe the homosexuals as individuals should have same individual rights as heterosexual individuals - and I think all restrictions in this sense should be abolished - my problem with homosexual marriage and adoptions is that the marriage is not a right of an individual, or whatever pair, it is a right of a heterosexual pair instituted to protect children and family they need and the rights of the family for securing the biological posterity of mankind - which is exactly what homosexuals don't want to do and especially homosexual males living in a pair principially can't do. For a homosexual woman it is clearly not illegal to be artificially inseminated (or naturally), problem is then that hers female partner couldn't be the bilogical parent of the child and in the future maybe can, but only of girls. Where's no practical equality between heterosexual and homosexual pairs hardly can be a legal one at least not which would lead to good ends like their children understanding both male and female roles, having stable relationships, responsibly able to produce biological offspring to perpetuate the mankind - which I very much doubt would be ever the predominant outcome of the homosexual marriages.
That would be something like to expect something good or even education from the advert I still have from the communist 50's that they look for new university professors (because they fired all who knew there something else than couple of quotes from Marx&Engels) and that they search especially for the industry laborers and peasants and that there are no other conditions than they have only the groundschool - how it ended we know...
In my opinion the social engineering experiment with the homosexual marriages is now anyway running, so we will see how it really works. Honestly after seeing two my homosexual married friends in Spain threatening by divorce twice a day on marginal issues fights I'm very skeptical and I would not give them a dog to watch not speaking about a child. Also what I see from the experience the mutual bond of having with somebody own biological children v. children of somebody else is a really very special difference and I don't believe the adopted children by a homosexual pair would be a guarantee of a lifetime faithful family relationship. I remember the long childless pair of extremely intelligent heterosexual married couple, both university teachers, who then eventually adopted a long desired child from an orphanage. The end of this was tragical - the incompatibility of the child with the parents, especially on the level of intelligence and aggressivity was so high that the mother on the end disinherited the boy after long chain of his serious problems with law and last I've heard about him he was in jail - and the woman died shortly afterwards on cancer provoked quite probably by late hormonal instability, protracted stress and lack of will to live. So even in the case of a heterosexual pair unable to have children - maybe there's a reason why the nature does this. That's why I speak about potential possibilities of the homosexual pairs to have own biological offspring - because in the relationship of parent-child and also child-parent the biological compatibility given by genetical identity of half of the genes is something what is underestimated and clearly rarely known to the political activists who rarely know in sufficient detail pros and cons of whatever agenda they have, which they often base rather on confused sub-fanatical ideologies than careful weighting of facts.
To have family, children or even adopt children is not a childs game it is a serious bussines not open for those who are not reluctant to do various bizzare practices with scores of partners, but for some reason are very reluctant or unable to have a sexual relationship with the opposite sex partner they naturally need for having children.

"it is a right of a

"it is a right of a heterosexual pair instituted to protect children and family they need"

STOP. "Rights" are not "instituted" nor given. They are fundamental to existence.

If a straight person has the right, so does a gay perosn. Because we are all PEOPLE.

Clearly you don't understand a right from a hole in the ground.

Your homophobia doesn't become you.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

again wrong, lack of reading skills?

a right comming with benefits from society (as the right of a heterosexual pair to marry each other, have the children and get so the benefits for their service as parents for biological perpetuation of mankind) is a privilege, privileges are always instituted, given, for example any major church would not give the privilege of marriage to any open homosexuals not speaking about to marry a pair of homosexuals and so they clearly are not considered fundamental for existence -and one can of course imagine other system of human existence, where a family is completely disolved and children produced in vials and everybody f*cks whoever wants or where a marriage comes not with benefits but penalty perhaps to encourage people not to reproduce themselves naturally but give this function to the kid factories. But our human society recognizes this privilege of marriage for heterosexual pairs across the cultures but also since milenias doesn't find such privilege fundamental for existence for somebody who is not even principially able to deserve the privilege because is for obvious reasons unable to fully serve the fundamental purpose of the marriage.
The privileges needn't to be equal and the privileges which heterosexuals have for making and rising kids aren't authomatically given to homosexuals, because nobody expects them for obvious reasons to make and rise own kids - that's the reality which in my opinion is quite just and what you want for homosexuals - you want the equality in benefits but not equality in the service given by the heterosexuals for it to society and humankind I definitely don't find being just.
Problem is that you don't understand there are rights which come with a responsibility and conditions - for example everybody has a natural right to see, but the condition for exercising the right is to have eyes or at least not to wear pitch black glasses. Everybody has a legal right to keep and bear gun, but not to go and shoot with it a drugstore clerk to easier take some bucks from his register - then he would lose that right to keep and bear the gun and many other rights, maybe even the right to life. Everybody has the right to go and marry an adult opposite sex person, have a consensual sex with that person, have children and rise children with the person and have all the legal and financial benefits comming with the marriage, but if cheating the person when married and the other person finds out and fills for divorce, not only the cheater would lose the marriage and benefits comming with it, but most probably also the right to full-fledgedly raise the children, most of the share from the mutual property or everything, spend at least several months with lawyers and in courts, paying dearly and then even pay every month the maintenance until children adult and out of school. If I would be a lawyer in USA I would not much recommend to people accustomed of having dozens or even 1000+ sexual partners to strive for the eligibility for a marriage and adoption rights, nobody ever knows if the other would not take the marriage fidelity really seriously...

With the homophobia - for example my friend a pure homosexual, ended homeless because of debts on health insurance and penalties (our infamous individual mandate) and I leaved him live for free in my flat for more than year to get under radar - I somehow don't remember I would feel a fear or even a phobia to come home. OK, sometimes he didn't pay his internet for months and when I gave him once the money to pay it to avoid the company disconnecting him and ask the reconnection fee and he then subsequently went and lost the money gambling on the slot machines and not comming back for several days then I had a bit fear and when he eventually came back and I finally got from him after several hours of unbelievable stories the truth I eventually asked him to move somewhere else, mainly because I was not sure about the origin of his debts and who could one day come and confiscate my stuff. A pure episode of homophobia...

Okay, clearly you don't

Okay, clearly you don't understand the difference between rights and privileges and entitlements. You should read up on that.

You're really hung up on gay people, aren't you?

You can rationalize homophobia anyway you want.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

If you repeat something over and over

it doesn't mean it becomes true.

Nope, sometimes it's true all

Nope, sometimes it's true all by itself.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"


not always.
I was thinking about some of your attitudes and I found maybe you're right in the gay rights assertion, although you use in my opinion too rude means. What are you not right about is that I'm a homophobe, you've not right to claim it about a person who you don't even know and I have right to express my argumented opinions.

How did I call you a name?

How did I call you a name? I'm addressing specific things you are saying which I regard as quite homophobic.

No matter how you attempt to intellectualize your statements, they are dramatically homophobic.

You are scared of this so called "agenda". It truly bothers you.

It's okay, the world is growing up, so you will either grow up or die a child, but either way, the world will progress.

I think you are better off being a social conservative Republican and not pretend to be libertarian.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

first I'm not homophobic

second I'm obviously not a social conservative when I'm for unregulated prostitution, drugs, pornography, gambling, against restrictions of homosexuality (yes I don't think state has right to peep into somebodys bedroom or somehow regulate what they do in their sexual relationships) - for consenting adults, for free markets with minimal "rules" regulations only based on equal law (equal law is not only that all have equal rights, but also that so much power you have so much responsibility comes with it)...and I'm qute clearly more libertarian than you and GJ in the crucial litmus test case of the golden rule.

On the other hand I'm against misconceptions of the rights equality in the case of homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals for factual reasons I stated in detail.

Even if the science would make possible to combine genomes and artificially create the offspring of homosexuals the process and outcome wouldn't be normal - in the case of two homosexual men there would be both male and female chromozomes to have both male and female offspring - what is missing is the mtDNA and womb, so they would need to have a (woman) assistance. In the case of two homosexual females there are two wombs and mtDNA, but no male chromozomes, so they would either principially need a man donor and only one of the two women would be a parent or they would produce only daughters - which is undesirable. So there is no much acceptable way how homosexuals can achieve having own normal offspring even with an assistance, so there's in my opinion no reason for a marriage equal to the heterosexual one to be instituted for them by state whatsoever. Also from psychological point of view I don't think the state should support same sex families because of the principial lack of both male and female identification models in such a family.

Some of the homosexuals - maybe one day even a majority - are normal (so far not because their promiscuity is so far clearly way out of the ceiling of normal), which no way implies also their marriage would be normal. I respect and tolerate honest and loving homosexuals as people and individuals - and I personaly know many people in the LGBT community - and I don't support any legal restrictions for them - but to not let them have equal right marriage with the possibility to adopt children is not a restriction in my opinion, because a right to marry somebody is not a right of an individual, it is an unique right of opposite sex pairs to secure their relationship for their offspring in the first place.

Maybe it can look "homophobic" for you, but I assure you I really haven't any such phobia and my reasons are purely pragmatic. So for me it is a name calling. I have nothing against homosexual pairs, I don't fear them, and especially not pathologically, but I would not support state supporting their marriage which is anyway more - than anything like an equal right - a privilege for those pairs who are at least principially able to fully fulfill the responsibility comming with such a privilege.

The same for the children adoptions - it is a right of a pair, not individual and...There's anyway a lack of children for adoption so there's no real general need to let them to be adopted by homosexuals.

I firmly believe a family consisting of maried father and mother fostering the children as the sacrifice for present humankind posterity is a basic building block of a free human society and nobody obstructs an equal right of the homosexuals to have such a family. The fact that they prefer the homosexual sex, in reality often with a long chain of partners, often as the studies show over 1000 and in majority of cases more than 100, often with inclination to exhibitionism, rather then intimity, to bizzare practices, rather than real merger on not only physical but spiritual level is maybe a result of them being not cappable to have a loving stable heterosexual relationships, I don't know, but surely it isn't a fault of the heterosexuals. I could also invent a label "heterophobic", but I don't use it, because it is possible that the incappability of the homosexuals isn't their fault either.

In any case to construe an allegedly "individual" right for them to marriage or even adopt children is for me completely out of question and this my I admitt social consevative opinion is well in line with the Ron Paul's opinion.

Also my opinion about abortions is clearly based on principial reasons and I think the "libertarians" not seeing that the right to liberty is limited by and the state is forbiden to infringe on the same important right to life (so a "libertarian" pro-choice agenda is a patent nonsense in the first place) using the right to liberty to actively support killing of unborn innocent defenceless are more leftist extremists notoriously falsely believing a human has a liberty to do everything then people who could be called rightists or even libertarians - because again the case shows they at all don't understand the golden rule (- treat others as on wish to be treated himself/herself and not treat others as one doesn't wish to be treated him/herself - sometimes called silver rule - in other words use the rights only in cases when not infringing on other rights with same importance one wishes to have - or in yet another words nobody has a right, liberty to kill in other cases than when avoiding somebody to be killed - or on the other hand especially in the case of avoiding of the killing of own partner, children, friends or even nation there could be in my opinion even a duty to kill - which in my opinion was declared also in the case of preventing violent enslavement and unhappiness caused by few to many - when there is no other way how to avoid continuation of their rule and real possibility to effectively put them in front of an impartial jury to decide their fate.)

Anti-gay then. Intolerant?

Anti-gay then. Intolerant? Unaccepting? What do YOU want to call it?

Because it's not normal or healthy.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

I would call it reluctant, careful

there clearly are reasons why the state shouldn't support homosexual marriages and adoptions and I think this reasons are based on legitimate opinions about relevant facts.
I think there's nothing like an individual right of the homosexuals to marry each other which should be supported by state and it is rather a privilege of a pair given by some states where the establishment is overtly tolerant - as well as the heterosexual marriage is clearly a privilege - comming with benefits - for the crucial role of the heterosexual marriage in biological, psychological and spiritual perpetuation of mankind.
I surely don't think the homosexuals have any right to adopt children, even less a natural one which somehow would be protected by the 9th Amendment in USA. A homosexual right to have children is in my opinion an oxymoron. Not even heterosexuals have such a right if they don't fulfill the conditions to be eligible to get such a right - to be married heterosexual pair able to fulfill the family roles of father and mother. For factual reasons I think the striving for recognition of such a right for homosexuals on the base of equal rights doctrine is not only not normal, but an insanity and legaly a patent nonsense.
You can call me names how you want but an opinion based on facts is patently impossible to change by ad hominem attacks. Such a strategy works maybe with confused leftists, I don't know, but not with me.
Intolerant? Maybe - I don't want to tolerate government supporting nonsenses from public money.