2 votes

Ron Paul voted to ban same-sex adoptions

I'm not 100% sure if this is true yet. I've heard some people say that he only voted against the federal funding of adoptions. But anyways, here are my thoughts.

While I'm certainly against same-sex adoption on a personal moral level, I believe that there is a more voluntary free-market way of preventing same-sex adoption. I've hears some people argue that same-sex adoption is a violation of the non-aggression principle since it does effect the child. But I don't see that argument as valid because the same could be said of children who are raised be single parents and yet we don't say that the government should take away children from single parents.

So do you guys think that Ron Paul voted against Libertarian principles?

[UPDATE: I just did a little research and I am pretty certain that the bill Ron Paul voted 'yes' on was to ban federal funding, not same-sex adoption.]



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Hmmm, regarding the

Hmmm, regarding the discussion below- How would you feel if the parents who are giving the child for adoption had the option of stipulating that the child could only go to a straight couple? Or do they relinquish any claim on the future of the child on giving him up?

Yes. That is one of those

Yes. That is one of those "voluntary free-market" ways I was alluding to that could prevent same-sex adoptions.

Brad

If you take the

non-aggression principle to the extreme, the act of conceiving a child would violate it because you don't have the child's consent. However, our species would cease to exist if we waited for their consent.lol

Perhaps he voted no because it is at the federal level and the feds should not be in the business of child care?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

You've got to be kidding me...

"I guess it could be argued from a
Libertarian view that same-sex adoption is a violation of the non-
aggression principle since it does effect the child."

Actually no, no it can't.

Homosexuality is not an act of aggression.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Well, if you had read the

Well, if you had read the post, you would know that I agreed with you. I've just heard some people attempt to make the argument that same-sex adoption, not homosexuality, violates the non-aggression principle. Which, of course it isn't.

Brad

Best to change the title,

Best to change the title, yeah?

Nope. Its an attention

Nope. Its an attention grabber.

Brad

Good call.

Good call.

It logically follows...

that if someone says they think same sex adoption is aggressive and straight adoption is not, that they would be suggesting that homosexuality is somehow an aggressive act.

I did read your post, if the only difference between straight adoption and same sex adoption is the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents, then it is rational to assume someone taking issue with same sex adoption but not straight adoption, is taking issue with the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents.

Those who make the argument that same sex adoption is an aggressive act, don't have a leg to stand on.

Also, you edited your post to include your disclaimer after I had already posted my first reply.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I thought it was pretty clear

I thought it was pretty clear from the get-go that I didn't think same-sex adoption was an act of aggression. I only edited it to make it even more clear.

Brad

Ok, I can see your point. And

Ok, I can see your point. And as I said, me and you are in agreement.

Brad

his position was that it's not the fed govs place to tell people

who they can or can't adopt.

If he didn't

He should have.

Come on now.

Do you really believe the federal govt should be in the business of telling individuals who they can and cannot adopt?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

libertarian does not mean libertine

.

Of course it doesn't. It just

Of course it doesn't. It just means that you can't use the force of government to promote your moral values.

Brad

The force of government is going to enforce moral values,

the question is: whose. A law against murder is enforcing a moral value. A law enforcing clean air is enforcing a moral value, just like having no law about clean air is enforcing a different moral value. The only question is whose moral values will be enforced, not whether moral values will be enforced.

Wrong. Murder being immoral

Wrong. Murder being immoral is not an opinion. It is a fact that all humans know intuitively. That non-aggression is illegitimate is an absolute, not an opinion. And not having a law is not enforcing anything.

Brad

When there is no law against murder

then the state is enforcing the moral notion that there is no right to life. When everyone is prohibited by reason of no laws against murder from arresting the movements and plans of a known murderer, that is enforcing someone's morality.

The same goes for theft. If there is no law against theft, then the state is enforcing the moral notion that there is no right to property.

If I believe, for instance, that morality should be based on the principle of "love your neighbor as yourself", I would want our laws to reflect that. If I can get enough people to agree with me, say, then that is what our society will believe and it therefore follows that our laws will reflect that. If you believe that non-aggression (which is not the same as loving your neighbor as yourself) is the basis for morality, and you can get enough people to agree with you, then our laws will be based on that. In the end, it's not whether morality will be legislated, but whose morality.