The problem that the social liberals miss is that all of what would be called the West is undergoing a major demographic collapse. The problem with social liberalism is that under such a regime people don't reproduce. So yes, the problem is going away in a bit. Just not the way social liberals would like.

rick,

I'm a social liberal and I have 4 children. Go figure. Not only that, I tell every one I know that having children is the greatest adventure life offers. And I have had more than a few adventures.

I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S. Thompson

More HST with pictures:

http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00076

rick,

Long term you may be correct. But unless the right becomes more accepting of social liberals there is a lot of damage the left can do before the Demographics kicks in.

Maybe I'll have to check what the current definition of "soc con" is because I'm more social con than libertine but I and my peers don't think same-sex love "isn't real". And "whole" with what? Decided by whom?

Libertine libertarians have to recognize that as "free" as they want to pursue their whims, actions do have consequences and acting like arrogant teenagers sneering at a parent that sez "wear your seat belt" isn't going to gain an adult's respect or cooperation.

I cover the debate here:

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15439

M Simon

That "accepting" thing works both ways.

Personally, I hate that term. As a supervisor that has to get people to work together that hate each others guts, I constantly am telling people "cross that person off your Christmas card list, don't invite them to your birthday party, but you still have to tolerate them and act civilly in their presence."

Toleration and civil behavior is the minimum standard. No one should be forced to "accept" that which they disagree with.

I like libertines. I like hanging out with them and hearing libertinish anecdotes. I laugh and live vicariously because, sadly, my libertine days are over. However, I don't like dining out with my parents and hearing libertines discussing their libertinish anecdotes at the next table at unduly high volumes, often spouting numerous vulgarities and blue tales of sexual conquest and/or desire.

Gay people seem like regular people to me, on average; but please keep the Dildo Exhibition private... I don't want to see some guy wearing nothing but bananas over his groin and waving a butt plug about in the Gay Pride Parade in the middle of Midtown Atlanta. The pride of being gay shouldn't devolve onto the actual sexual practice, should it? I am not "proud" of the portals wherein I place my peter. The pride should be in loving another human being of your choice, be that person male or female. What's next, the Autoasphyxiators' Autoerotic Pride Parade, replete with nooses and lubricant? What's to be proud of?

Furthermore, if "you" are unknown to me, I simply don't care about your sexual proclivities or other tantalizing degeneracies. Why the constant search for public approbation for many an otherwise reasonable libertine? But the Squeaky Libertines "get the grease", as it were...

Libertarianism is an attractive proposition, kind of like driving your new hot convertible on a gloriously sunny day except the driver doesn’t realize the monsoon season starts tomorrow; bummer. The record seems to indicate that libertarian thought usually arises in Judaic-Christian cultures after all the heavy lifting is done. In our own culture libertarians seem to be telling us to enjoy the ride down. If I recall correctly libertarian thought didn’t fare too well under totalitarian regimes in the past. That possibility ought to make for a really exciting ride.

Darleen,

I should have been more specific and singled out Culture Warriors.

How can a libertine life be responsible? Well for one I have paid for it myself. I have avoided direct harm to others. I have fathered no children out of wedlock.

For starters.

Darleen. Civil behavior is exactly what I call for. No Culture Wars. No more calling out government guns because people are not living the way you like. A disability gays have been under until relatively recently. And of course a disability pot smokers still live under. Not to mention users of other drugs.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson

And Darleen you missed:

I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone

And I don't.

BTW you know how it is with kids - if you tell them NO FUN. They will do the opposite. If you tell them HAVE FUN they will probably at least temper their funning.

Of my four children one has graduated from U. Chicago with honors and the two are in engineering schools. The fourth has a life threatening permanent disability through no fault of his own.

All are responsible despite (maybe because) of my libertine attitude (I'm getting too old for the behavior).

So am I saying Republicans must be libertines? No. I'm saying that a responsible libertine should be accepted.

The bed rock for Republicans ought to be: fiscal responsibility, limited government. And that is it. And they should govern ONLY on those principles. End the Culture War.

I agree with your PW post. Political Parties ought not be a vehicle for cultural impositions.

Really watch the Breitbart video. Go to the source.

Great post! And God bless Andrew Breitbart for trying to break the impasse.

As to libertinism, the word causes a great deal of confusion. Liberty, liberate, liberal, and libertine all stem from the same Latin root "Liber" -- meaning free. The word "libertine" traditionally meant "free thinker" and sometimes "Antinomian" (the Calvinist heresy holding that the Christian Elect need not obey moral laws). It also has a secondary meaning, which is "a licentious man." Normally, a licentious man is thought of as immoral in the lewd and lascivious sense. Because of these multiple meanings, the word can be misleading, and when the word is used, it causes confusion, because it tends to conflate a philosophy which might tolerate lascivious acts with the commission of the acts themselves.

The problem comes with people who do not practice the freedoms that they preach. Some people who would allow hedonism are real squares (if not puritanical) in their personal lives, and some are the other way around.

Advocating legal heroin does not mean one uses it!

How dare you describe Ayn Rand as a "sexual libertine"? To yours, my or anyone's knowledge the woman slept with two men in the nearly 80 years she was alive. One of them she remained married to for fifty years, and the other she had an important decades long relationship of mutual friendship and love. I don't know what standards you have for promiscuity or libertine behavior, but to describe her life that way is a disgusting (and probably misogynous) slander.

I see we have an Objectivist among us.

My understanding is that she was sleeping with some one else's husband and the wife was shall we say not entirely happy about the situation despite agreeing to allow the situation to develop.

I would consider that libertine behavior.

But of course I don't consider being called a libertine a slander.

So if you consider it a slander I will say she was no libertine. She merely was the other woman in a consensual adulterous relationship.

BTW I have often been described by my detractors as disgusting. I carry it as a badge of honor. I'm honored.

While both were married to other people at the time, both of their respective spouses consented to the affair before it started. According to Barbara Branden, however, "the affair was agonizingly painful," both to her and Rand's husband.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Branden

I like that! A "responsible libertine"... you hear rumors of these folks' vices through the grapevine, rather than straight out of the horse's mouth. The other day, I was introduced to this fellow and, after greeting me, he turns to my friend and says "I was high as balls yesterday and..."

Also, one remembers fondly the "cultured libertine" from way back when... these were the degenerates that sometimes read books and spoke to other libertines of weighty matters.

"Responsible libertine" is an oxymoron. Also, it's sad to see a professed conservative--Andrew Breitbart--advocating conservative surrender in the culture wars. Can you say, "fifth columnist"? With conservatives like that, who needs liberals? I know that there's a type of "conservatism" concerned only with how big government is and how it spends money, but if that becomes all that conservatism is then a moral culture will cease to exist. For true conservatism is about more than money, or the size of government; it's about the preservation of TRADITIONAL VALUES. To reduce "conservatism" to nothing but a demand for limited, fiscally responsible government, is to ensure conservatism's demise.

If the Republican party becomes the party of abortion, gay marriage, legalized drug use, handing condoms to fifth graders, etc., etc., then there's no reason to vote Republican. You can get all of that from the Democrats. Hmmmmm, maybe that's what this is really all about. Make the Republicans/conservatives so like the Dems/libs that it becomes unnecessary to vote for them, and the Dems/libs become America's sole party. And--presto!--a one party state. Yeah, that's got to be it. Shoot Andrew Breitbart.

Seane-Anna:
You represent the epitome of everything wrong with Republican social conservatives, and why I must hold my nose every time I vote.
I bet a pair of pliers and a crow bar couldn't pull that needle out of your butt.

Yes, M. Simon: GREAT POST!

Seane-Anne: Yours is the type of Republican that will kill the Republican Party, IMO. And if that's what the Republican Party is to be, then it also deserves to die. Quickly.

Conservatives--real conservatives--believe that one's own business is exactly that: one's own business. Government and the neighbors should have no say beyond very narrowly drawn lines.

I certainly see myself as a Republican--I've voted that way since Nixon I--and I'm conservative on a lot of issues, primarily economic. I am not a 'conservative' who thinks it my duty to tell other people how to get their rocks off, how to have a good time, how to spend their weekends, and what clothes they must wear, anywhere.

That is the realm of personal liberty, something that a large number of so-called Republicans just don't understand. You have to be included in that hapless group.

Seane-Anna,

So your values are so worthless they can only be obtained at the point of a government gun?

And you would deny St. Augustine his opportunity to learn the error of his ways?

The Maker gave us free will for a reason. Evidently you have something against the Maker. I pity you....

"Shoot Andrew Breitbart."

I cannot believe that I actually saw that in a comment left by a purported conservative. I can only hope that "Seane-Anna" is some sort of agent provocateur.

I think that the question that the deranged (and possibly murderous) "Seane-Anna" is asking, is this:

"How do I keep myself and my family away from the ill-effects of the IRRESPONSIBLE Libertines."

The assumption being, apparently, that if you are a RESPONSIBLE Libertine you are nevertheless tacitly endorsing state-sanctioned Irresponsible Libertinism. So, if the difference between a responsible and irresponsible libertines is what I mentioned above (the former you only know as a libertine by rumors and/or innuendo, the latter lets you know at every turn from his own mouth), then there is no such thing as a Responsible Libertinism EVEN POSSIBLE from the government. The government must act as ADVOCATES for Libertinism, and therefore they are/become IRRESPONSIBLE Libertines, de facto.

Mike,

There is no way to protect yourself from irresponsible people except to isolate yourself from them as much as possible and be careful out there.

Laws only protect you from repeated acts of irresponsibility (hopefully). You prosecute the irresponsible and hopefully they learn their lesson.

And what is deemed irresponsible should be strictly limited lest the government become a tyranny.

Force and fraud. Consensual acts that do not directly harm third parties are not the purview of limited government.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

You have to allow for bad choices. Other wise there is no opportunity for good choices.

You can't make everyone wise by law. It is impossible to outlaw stupidity.

Seane-Anna places government in the same category as unicorn rainbows. i.e. they will give me what I want if I just repeat the right magic spell. Utopian thinking. i.e. not of this world. Nowhere.

M. Simon, that is very true. However, I wonder, for instance, about these Jabronis that show cartoons about middle-aged male transvestites in yellow polka-dot bikinis to junior high and high school students in California (featured on O'Reilly some weeks back). I believe we can agree that this is pushing an agenda and not doing anything to advance anybody's freedom to cross-dress.

This type of thing (kind of a diminution of cultural standards, in my opinion) obviously stems from activist governance or policy-making. Kind of a mainstreaming of "irresponsible libertinism" under the guise of "tolerance".

I always advise Federalism and Constitutional Originalism to social conservatives. The Feds became activists in economic progressivism 3/4 of a century ago and activists in libertinism 1/2 a century ago. I don't think that you can circumvent the tendency of government to provide either economic progressivism and social libertinism concurrently, or economic and social conservatism concurrently. You cannot have one without the other for an extended period of time (with an activist government). However, you CAN have economic conservatism combined with a healthy respect for individuals to engage in the behaviors or their choice. But the abortion row, among others, that the Supreme Court decided to involve itself in has certainly induced a powerful and often unreasonably restrictive social conservatism.

Mike,

I have always thought that the school system and how it turned out is the social conservative revenge on themselves. The trouble is you tell a social conservative that the public school system was a religious movement (in part) and they go: whaaat?

Ignorance of history (and they pride themselves on a knowledge of history) means there is no feedback system.

And tell social conservatives (and remember I'm painting with a broad brush here) that socialism (progressives) got a big boost in America from socons and they say: no damn chance! We see echoes of that in Huckabee though.

BTW I am speaking of individual libertines. As far as I know there is no libertine movement in America. I think as far as Breitbart and I go there is no way we are interested in libertine indoctrination in schools and would be properly appalled by it.

It is not up to the schools to teach cultural values.

Re: Abortion. Different religions have different views on the subject. For Orthodox Jews it is permissible until the 40th day of gestation although frowned upon. And the reasons for an abortion might be rather liberally interpreted. Depending on the rabbi. The Jews have a long common law tradition.

And then you have those of the secular persuasion.

The Supreme Court has done a fair job (putting aside if the Feds have the power to rule on the question) in setting out a regime that allows for different points of view on abortion. But I think the most libertarian way to correct any errors you perceive in the decision is “don’t want an abortion? don’t have one”. i.e. why not just persuade women not to have them?

And there is also the worry: any government strong enough to prevent abortion is strong enough to make it mandatory. c.f. China.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents you from jumping off a cliff. Most folks don’t perceive jumping off cliffs without a parachute or a glider to be a good thing.

I have never understood why so many socons - so imposed on by the government - seek government answers to so many questions.

And the same goes for the modern day anti-prohibitionists who are mostly on the left.

It is like they get their noses rubbed in it and still can't see. Oh. Well.

At least the Republicans are starting to show some interest in libertarian thought. Baby steps.

1) I call moby on "seane-anne"

2)John B? - Government and the neighbors should have no say beyond very narrowly drawn lines. I am a big believer in moral suasion. If I see you verbally humiliating your spouse or your child, or a waiter/waitress, et al, in a public place, I'm not going to ignore it.

goll darn it, I wanted to strike out "and the neighbors", but Tag FAIL!

tag experiments:

xxxx < strike >

yyyy < s >

Neither works. Durn

I call moby on "seane-anne"

I call on "Seane-Anne" to apologize to Andrew Breitbart.

Wow! "Shoot Andrew Breitbart". That's SARCASM, people. But I guess sarcasm is the one thing not allowed by all you anti-socon "conservatives".

The point I was making, which you intellectual giants--sarcasm again!--completely missed, is this: if the Republican party throws social conservatism under the proverbial bus it will become virtually indistinguishable from the Democrat party and, therefore, not worth voting for. As I said, if you want abortion, gay marriage, legalized drug use, contraceptives distributed to elementary school kids without their parents knowledge or consent, etc., you already have a party for that. Go vote for that party and leave the Republican party alone.

When you attack social conservatism you are revealing your true colors. Liberals, not conservatives, hate social conservatism. They want it eradicated from every segment of society. What better way to eradicate it from politics than by getting a critical mass of Republicans to believe that their party must dump social conservatism or die? Hence, my fifth columnist remark.

If there are going to be two main political parties in America I would like to think they represent conscientious and genuinely different political principles so there will be a real choice for voters. But if the only choice we have is between liberalism and liberalism lite, then that's NO choice at all. Enjoy your nonchoice, you socon-hating "conservatives".

Seane-Anna, what libertarians see in social conservatives is the flip side of liberalism.
Liberals want to impose their will on the economy, while so-cons want to impose their will on the culture.
No one here is forcing YOU to have an abortion, to marry a woman, smoke a joint, or prevent you from home-schooling your children.
But people like you are in many ways no different than the liberals you profess to hate: you want to run other peoples lives.
No one can have an abortion because of YOUR religious beliefs. No one can smoke pot because YOU won't permit it. No one can love a person of the same gender, because THE BIBLE says it's a sin.
In many ways, you would be more at home in a theocratic Muslim country, than in America.
If the Republican party accommodates your views to the exclusion of true freedom lovers, it will deserve its irrelevance.

Oh, I see it now. The I WANT TO SHOOT GEORGE BUSH CLUB is grounded in sarcasm.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2268793007

Hilarious!

Sorry for being such an intellectual midget! (We liberals just don't get principled conservatism.)

"The I WANT TO SHOOT GEORGE BUSH CLUB is grounded in sarcasm." Probably.

Social conservatives want to impose their will on the culture? If they do, so do liberals. That's what legalizing gay marriage, for instance, is all about. No, I won't be forced to marry a woman, but if I had a child and sent her to public school she'd be taught that homosexuality is a good thing, in contradiction to my values and those of millions of other people. Don't think so? Well, it's already happening, and often behind the backs of parents. Also, if I owned a business I'd be forced to give spousal benefits to same sex couples regardless of my beliefs. Where's the freedom in that?

I know all of you here will try to come up with some discrimination argument for why it'd be right for the state to force me to support same sex marriage in my business, but if freedom really means I'm free to live how I want then that means I'm free NOT to support lifestyles I don't agree with. And I'm free NOT to have my child indoctrinated into anti-religious values in public school.

It seems to me that to be consistent you "freedom lovers" will have to both support gay marriage AND oppose the advocacy of homosexuality in public school and the enforced support of homosexuality in business. I won't hold my breath for that.

And just where does libertinism end? If gay marriage is legalized I won't be forced to marry a woman, therefore I should support gay marriage. Well, if incest is legalized I won't be forced to have sex with my relatives. If pedophilia is legalized I won't be forced to have sex with a child (Actually, the normalization if not legalization of adult-child sex is closer than we think, as revealed by the Kevin Jennings controversy. Aren't you anti-socons proud of yourselves?). If polygamy is legalized I won't be forced to become a plural wife. So, since I won't be forced to engage in any of these acts simply because of their legalization, they should then be legal. I mean, why not? Isn't this what your idea of freedom, rooted in seething Christophobia, really all about? Isn't it?

Seane-Anna,

In Illinois I had the opportunity to vote for Theocrat Keyes or Communist Obama. I chose Communist Obama. As did a lot of voters. Look at the Stats for 2004 in the Bush/Kerry vs Obama/Keyes races.

As to child molesting - that is about doing harm to another. Pot smoking is about doing harm to yourself.

Malum per se vs malum prohibitum.

And you know pot has only been illegal in America since 1937 and opiates and cocaine only since 1914. So you have to consider that at least on that point the evilness of the behavior was only recognized recently in American history. Some history might be in order:

Drug War History

Do you want half a loaf - limited government and fiscal responsibility - or nothing?

Look at what the California Republican Party's Culture War has done to that State. You want to do that to America? Or would you settle for limited government and fiscal responsibility?

SA,

Have a look at the number of libertarians in America:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/27/gallups-conservatives-and-libertarians/

It is running in the low 20s. Wouldn't getting more of that vote for Republicans be good for the country and the Republican Party?

And just so you don't get the wrong idea: I'm a Palin supporter. Because she understands that how you live your life is not totally congruent with how you CAN govern.

Seane-Anna,

Re: Kevin Jennings. I opposed his appointment. Right here on this blog. You can look it up. And Eric was not entirely pleased with my position. So he counter posted.

So libertarians are not exactly monolithic on the issue.

But if you want to drive people like me to the Ds - well OK. Obviously you don't need us.

Mike Huckabee for President. Because he should be able to get at least as many votes percentage wise as Keyes. That was about 27%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2004

So let me see how that works out:

About 23% libertarians in the electorate and 27% social conservatives (I know confounding factors - maybe some of the 27% were yellow dog Republicans - but bear with me)

It seems to me that 23% plus 27% equals 50% (and yeah there is probably overlap). That is a pretty good base to start with if you want to win elections.

So my question is: do you want a 27% party or a 50% party?

And SA,

Why shouldn't I be Christophobic? I'm Jewish. I don't want your religion shoved down my throat.

I know all of you here will try to come up with some discrimination argument for why it'd be right for the state to force me to support same sex marriage in my business

There is no point in debating people who put words in my mouth.

Especially when it is quite clear they have not read my numerous posts on these issues.

BTW, I am a libertarian, not a conservative, so it is also a waste of time (as well as a major error) to accuse me of not being "conservative" enough.

The fact that liberals and conservatives want everyone to be in one camp or the other does not make it so.

"The I WANT TO SHOOT GEORGE BUSH CLUB is grounded in sarcasm." Probably.

I'd love to hear an explanation of how calling for someone to be shot constitutes sarcasm.

Seane-Anna,

I think you are right that there are a bunch of Christophobes in the electorate. So how do you design a political platform and policy that can win them over and will get us out of the swamp we are in?

1. Limited Government
2. Fiscal Responsibility

As to the social stuff? Lead by example. Palin does a good job of that and I applaud her for it. Now I'm not well versed in Christianity, but wasn't Jesus basically in favor (by his behavior) of a separation of religion and state? In fact I would say he was the worlds first libertarian at least in so far as the intersection of religion and the State.

Seane-Anna, since you want to ascribe ideas like advocacy of incest, polygamy, and pedophilia to libertarians who oppose those very things, you probably think Satanism is behind it all. Try google-ing Cotton Mather. You should feel right at home in 17th century America. (or 7th century Iran)

Seane-Anna,

The government (federal or state) ALLOWING same-sex marriage is not forcing liberalism on you, any more than the government ALLOWING divorce forces liberalism on you. I'm against divorce (having grown up in a divorced household), but I don't think the (secular) government should be a moral arbiter for my particular point of view.

I think some of the more unreasonable of social conservatives often conflate non-disapproval of homosexuality with approval of homosexuality. They're not the same. The reality is gay people exist, you're going to encounter them from time to time whether you want to or not, and they aren't going away even if you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears. I think that much (but certainly not all) of the "approval" that SoCons moan and groan about is simply moral neutrality (Please, PLEASE note that I agree many schools do, in fact, go way overboard with this, and end up being advocates rather than neutral parties).

Since John S. brought up divorce (thanks!) here is my social conservative take on comprehensive marriage reform - and it must be a package.

1. No more no fault divorce.
2. Bring back alienation of affection lawsuits. If somebody seduces your spouse you can sue them for lots of real hard cash with garnished paychecks like maybe child support payments till the kids reach eighteen. We can't have enough Hollywood divorces where somebody get s soaked for millions due to losing an alienation of affection lawsuit. It should be a staple of People magazine. Divorce rates would plummet.
3. Once you have kids the divorce laws pretty much revert to the 18th century - adultery or insanity and that's about your only reason to get divorced.
4. Gays and lesbians can marry. See above.
5. Religious people cannot be forced to do business with gays or lesbians, especially with regard to marriage related businesses. Similarly, gays and lesbians cannot be forced to do businees with religious people. (We should bring back freedom of association entirely as soon as possible. Not sure it's really possible yet.)

People need to keep their commitments and support their own children by keeping their marriages intact. Easy divorce is ruininous for our children and society. Gay marriage? Well, it won't help society, and will probably even hurt society, but as long as it is accompanied by complete religious freedom, it will promote justice and equality under the law. That's good for society.

Oh, and I favor seperation of school and state, but then I'm the sort of home schooling Christian conservative who does realize that public schools have always been a religious instituion. In fact public schools are the established state religion, at least in these parts. As an aside, Sunday school for the children of Christians is also wrong. Parents should teach their own children.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Even though I spent many years active in the Church, preaching and having a music ministry, once I got old enough to realize I didn't have all the answers, I didn't want any church elders having influence in law. Law should only be about not directly harming others, and nothing else.

The problem with imposing values is that when someone says "God told me this is the right thing to do" you can't argue with it. They've invoked the ultimate authority and don't think they have to even listen to opposing viewpoints. Calvin, who is STILl considered an authority, had people murdered for disagreeing with him. Almost every Christian church old enough has blood on its hands.

I've been active in quite enough churches to see first hand the jealousy and conflicting values. My music was more modern, and some Christians said "I feel the Spirit" and others said "I feel Satan in this why did you do this". They weren't both right, but both think they know God enough to use the Law to force people to live according to their own set of values.

Paul even told the early church in Corinthians to stop arguing over less important matters.

Jesus spent his whole time WITH the "sinners", not lecturing them or judging them.

We've already seen what the world looks like when the Church runs it, no one wants to go back to that.

First, M. Simon, I did not put words in your mouth. I wrote, "...ALL of you here...". In case you didn't learn this in school, "all" is plural, as in more than one. I was referring to the commenters on this post, not only to you. Got it?

And I think that no one here seems able or willing to address my points. I'll say them yet again and hope I get some real answers. I'm not pushing anyone into the Democrat party. Most of you here are ALREADY there, you just seem to have some sort of phobia about admitting it. You certainly have the same hatred of social conservatism and contempt for religion that characterizes the Dems/libs. You're not that different. As I said before a choice between liberalism and liberalism lite is no choice at all.

And no one has said where libertinism ends. All I got was assertions that libertarians oppose incest, polygamy, and pedophilia. But what is libertarians' standard for drawing the line there? And what makes that standard applicable to everyone else? See where I'm going with this?

If you believe no one has the right to tell other people how to live, then how can you tell other people they can't practice incest, polygamy, or pedophilia just because YOU wouldn't? Isn't that the line you solibs always give us socons on issues like gay marriage, abortion, or drug use?

And don't give me the consent or abuse arguments, either. Polygamy can be entered into by consenting adults. Incest can occur between peers, not just between an overbearing adult and submissive child. I once saw a brother-sister couple on a talk show many years ago. Gross? Hell yeah, but they were consenting adults, like you solibs like.

Pedophilia is the easiest thing to oppose because normal people know it's abusive, but some people aren't normal. The NAMBLA folks aren't; they think pedophilia's just another form of love. With social liberalism in the ascendancy, I can envision that opinion gaining ground. Farfetched? Well, 40 years ago no one could've imagined that defining marriage the way it's always be defined would be denounced as bigotry. Yet today a tiny, well organized, well funded and noisy minority has brought us to that point. If the gays can do it, why not the pedophiles? The solibs, with their obsession with sexual freedom, will be hard pressed to stand in their way. or am I wrong?

"We've already seen what the world looks like when the Church runs it..." The guillotine. The gulag. The killing fields. The laogai. Murder on a MASSIVE scale. All to bring about the ideal, Godless society. We know what the world looks like when the haters of religion run it; no one wants to go back to that.

Seane-Anna - one final response:
Throughout your posts you keep coming back to gay marriage. Social conservatives seem to have a real problem with it. To you it is more important than what is now going on in Washington, which is the takeover of 1/6 of our economy, the nationalizing through regulation of the automobile industry, the banks, insurance, & through cap & trade the energy sector.
In short, the wholesale advance of fascism.
Given the real emergency we're in, why is gay marriage so all important to you?
Why not have a live & let live attitude?

If you think that gays want to get married to mock the institution, you are wrong.
If you think it's all a conspiracy to break down traditional marriage, not one gay marriage could equal the destruction of marriage through divorce that straight people have been at for decades.

Don't you find it ironic that in a post about libertine behavior, those who want to quit shacking up, as Dr. Laura would say, and get married, are the ones vilified by you? Just what would you have gay people do?
Oh, I know, just shut up, go back in the closet, and quit acting like they're just as good as anyone else. Because they're not, right?

You are posting in the abstract, but with a tinge of flippancy. For me, it is very personal. I am one of the 36,000 gay people who got married last year in California. We didn't know whether it would be legal given the likely passage of Prop 8. But we went ahead anyway. You see, my partner and I had been in a monogamous relationship for 30 years. We'd dodged the bullet of AIDS. We were business owners & tax payers. I had served honorably in the Air Force. We thought it would provide protection for each of us. As it turned out, it did.
My spouse was diagnosed with cancer shortly after the marriage ceremony. Throughout his treatment with radiation, his many hospital stays, and finally his death earlier this month, I was able to be at his side as only a legal spouse could. We were treated as a married couple by the doctors. And when he lay dying in the ER, I was the one who had the responsibility of saying the final word to the team trying to bring him back to life.

This is what marriage is about, Seane-Anna. It is not some abstract mockery. And to equate it with evils like pedophilia is more than offensive.

"Why not have a live and let live attitude?" Frank, that's exactly the kind of attitude that's going to give rise to the normalizing of things like pedophilia or incest or polygamy. I've said this on another blog and I'll say it here: gays--and their straight solib allies--have no credibility denouncing "legislated respect" for other aberrant sexual proclivities while loudly and sanctimoniously demanding it for themselves.

Live and let live? Show me where advocates of gay marriage apply that standard to ALL unconventional lifestyles and maybe I'll take you seriously.

Gays don't want to mock the institution of marriage? I find that quite hard to believe, Frank. The solib crowd that now fervently works for gay marriage is the same solib crowd that, for the last generation, has worked just as fervently to undermine real marriage. This crowd has lobbied for no fault divorce, worked to destigmatize divorce, worked to destigmatize pre-marital sex, and worked to destigmatize illegitimacy, all in an effort to weaken marriage. Now I'm supposed to believe that this same crowd of people wants gay marriage because they respect marriage so much? Yeah, right. And 2 plus 2 equals 5.

Frank, I'm not obsessed with gay marriage. I've also mentioned abortion and drug use in my comments. But I do feel that gay marriage best illustrates my point that you solibs can't draw a line without violating the guiding principle of social liberalism, i.e. no one has the right to tell anyone else how to live. Also, Frank, I talk about gay marriage here because this post is about libertinism and because this post knocked social conservatism. If this post had been about the stimulus package or the unemployment rate then all my comments would've been about the economy. I mentioned gay marriage, as well as abortion, drug use, etc., to stay on topic.

Good night.

One more thing, Frank. I vilify gays who want to marry? The same way you would probably vilify a straight man who, instead of being dishonest and having an affair, wants to legally marry two women.

And what would I have gay people do? The same thing that I suspect you and other solibs would have polygamists do: just accept that your sexual/domestic lifestyle isn't approved of by society, and practice it at your own risk.

Ok, that was two things. Sorry.

Seane-Anna has you solibs over a historical barrel. And I have the solution, above. Admit that all your past depredations against the institution of marriage, such as no fault divorce, destigmatizing divorce, destigmatizing pre-marital sex, and destigmatizing illegitimacy were all abject failures. Institute conprehensive marriage reform as above, and you can have same sex marriage.

It's a compromise. It's horse trading. It's democracy in action. It gives socons things they want. It gives solibs things they want.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

There will never be a compromise with people like Seane-Anna. They are what Eric Hoffer called true believers - empty shells with an ideology. It's a waste of time debating them.
I'm sorry that I did.

A variety of slippery slope arguments have been raised, and this was not my post, but I might as well repeat myself, tedious though I find it.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm outspokenly against state involvement with marriage, and I have never held the position that there is a right to a marriage license for same sex couples.

As to polyamory, again, I see no right to a license, and I don't think there should be state involvement. However, if people want to live together with multiple partners, that is sexual freedom, and no one has any moral right to stop them as long as they consent.

I see the question of whether there is harm to others as the paramount consideration.

Children cannot consent any more than animals, so I don't think pedophilia slippery slope arguments are any more relevant to this debate than bestiality arguments. Or (as have been made before) slavery analogies.

I've discussed bestiality here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/10/post_133.html

pedophilia here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/09/post_458.html

incest here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/05/my_endlessly_in_1.html

cannibalism here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/callow_immature.html

"consensual slavery" here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/09/post_458.html

Of course, in the United States, these things are left up to the individual states to decide, so I suppose that if the incest lobby, the cannibal lobby, and the pedophilia lobby could each manage to persuade a majority, they might prevail. (I seriously doubt that will happen, though.)

BTW, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I am still unable to understand how calling for someone to be shot constitutes sarcasm.

It's a waste of time debating them.

Frank, don't give up. See below.

It's a waste of time debating everyone on the Internet. I've read hundreds if not thousands of comment threads. I've almost never seen a case where one commenter changed another commenter's mind. (I cannot recall a single case.)

Or is it? As a lurker I have changed my mind on a subject in a case where I haven't formed a firm opinion yet.

Frank, your comments were wonderfully gentle. That sort of comment is persuasive. Seane-Anna's comments were, well, not gentle at all. That sort of comment preaches to the choir and persuades few.

Your comments are probably influencing a lurker right now. So are Seane-Anna's, but not the way she wants. Since I tend to agree with her too bad for my side.

BTW, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I am still unable to understand how calling for someone to be shot constitutes sarcasm.

It doesn't work well in writing, but I've heard it done in speaking. A good technique is to say it with a kind of jocular mock outrage with a smile and a twinkle in your eye.

You have read Kim du Toit. Remember when he wrote, "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required." It's similar.

Generally speaking I avoid such humor in either spoken or written form though, since it is too easy to mess up.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Eric,

This is a case where I think the libertarian idea fails. Back in the old days when marriage was not a matter for the state it was a matter for the tribe. The tribal elders enforced the social norms designed to make sure women and children were cared for in a violent world.

Many of those tribal elders were pretty coercive about it.

Now we have family law instead. I think it's an improvement. So let's say we ditch the marriage bit like you say. So we have two people who agree to marry without government influence. They have kids. They die without a will. Oops! Need that family law. Or they decide to split up and can't agree on custody. Oh no! There's that family law again. I can see a way for the state to ignore marriage. I can also see alot of feral beggared children running wild in the streets - which is what you get in the cities where tribal elders do most of the family law. I think it's another impractical libertarian idea.

And then there is the way we moderns make the marriage contract an agreement with no worth. At least the contracts my employer enters into have enforceable penalty clauses!

If it weren't for children we wouldn't need the state to interfere in marriage. But if you want to take the radical step of disinvolving the state I want some pretty detailed and sound arguments.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Tom that is a thoughtful argument, although I think it's important to remember that the argument against marriage licenses is not merely a libertarian one, but also very much a religious one:

http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm

For many years, this country survived quite well without them.

Eric,

Sure, but the actual marriage license is really not a big part of the whole socon picture on marriage. I want marriage to be difficult to dissolve and much more so when there are children. (That's government.) I want spouses to be able to sue the other spouse. (That's government.) I want society to stimatize having children out of wedlock more than it stigmatizes smoking. I want the default choices in that situation to be giving the baby up for adoption or marrying the father, not aborting or having your mom help raise the baby. (OK, that's not government.)

It needs to be hard to break that contract. (That's government.)

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Little rewrite:

I want spouses to be able to sue the other man or woman in a case of adultery.

Geez.

Tom DeGisi:
Thank you for the kind words. I never have believed that you can sway another person in a blog argument. What I tried to do was give at least an insight into my position.
The owner of this site is quite adamant in his opposition to gay marriage. He gives some valid reasons, and from the libertarian perspective. He also has personal reasons. Those revolve around family law and palimony.
Whatever.

I never thought I would get married. I enjoyed the outlaw life. Even though we had been partners for 30 years, it was not something that we ever thought was for us.
We were not of the opposite sex, and so "marriage" just didn't fit.
But after it was ruled constitutional in California, and the Mormons and Catholics got together funding a bigoted opposition, we got our backs up. The ruling had absolutely nothing to do with religion. It was about a secular, state sanctioned institution. Only because of the religious opposition to a secular law that now granted equal protection, did we come to see the bigotry involved. All the reasons they gave for protecting traditional marriage were bogus. I was raised in the Catholic Church. I know firsthand the hypocrisy and double standards. Divorces are immoral, unless you pay enough money and then they're called annulments. Pedophilia is a sin, unless a priest is involved, and then The Church buys off the victim.
But oh heaven forbid the state should allow equal protection for a loving couple who has shown fidelity for 30 years. It's a sin and an abomination. We'll spend thousands, no millions, to protect the sanctity of our holy sacrament, marriage.
And the Mormons? Please, the progenitors of polygamy defending the sanctity of one man, one woman marriage! Beyond hypocrisy, to farce.

While I have posted on this site for several years, I have never thought it was "my" site.
It is owned by Eric Scheie, and his rules and opinions are paramount.
But in this case, he is dead wrong. He comes across as a gay man who wants to court favor with the religious right in some weird belief that a coalition of social conservatives and libertarians/libertines will somehow save the country.
It will NEVER happen. Just look at the posts of Seane-Anna above. You might as well try to forge an alliance with the Taliban.
Only to the extent that a religious right-winger caves to normalcy, like Sarah Palin the pot smoker, can you begin to belive it would work. But IF she is who you think, and want her to be, she is not representative of evangelical Christians. And she is only one woman. I'm afraid Seane-Anna is the model.

Frank,

I'm afraid that for the most part (I'm not sure about gay marriage - one way or the other) you are correct.

But let me say this:

I'm against liberal social engineers, I'm also against conservative social engineers.

Using the power of government for social engineering has proven a disaster. It doesn't matter if it is done by Marxists or by Conservatives.

I keep pointing out the enforced attendance in public schools originally designed by Protestants as indoctrination centers. Now turned against them by the Marxists.

I point out the disaster the Drug War is. I point out the disaster of alcohol prohibition. etc. etc. etc.

And you know. Conservatives like Seane-Anna just put their fingers in their ears and say I can't hear you.

I must say that Tom is a little better on that score. He is willing - if prodded - to engage in respectful discussion. And for that I applaud him.

Any tool given to government to enforce more than the minimal social norms - murder, theft, robbery, fraud will eventually be turned against the initiators.

So let me say this simply - you cannot gain utopia by force. Those who disagree will resist. And then you get civil war - sometimes hot. More often cold.

It only takes 5% (maybe less) who do not agree to make a BIG mess. The drug war is a prime example of that. There are things the government can't do. Just can't. Oh we will get the illusion of action. Headlines. But actual day to day effectiveness? Not a chance.

When will people get that "I'm putting a gun to your head for your own good" does not work? Why? Because eventually the current holders of the gun will have it taken away and then the gun will be turned on them because the precedent has been set.

And you know the Conservatives have an "I WON" in their heads just as much as the liberals do.

I never ceased to be amazed at the outrage that bursts forth from the tolerance crowd when ever anyone dares to question their point of view. The Christian magazine "Think" said it best in its November 2008 issue: [Social liberals] often think they are taking the moral high ground by not judging or excluding anyone...Their claim does not match their practice. While they practice inclusiveness with the immoral person, they slander and exclude anyone who disagrees with their inclusiveness." Perez Hilton and Carrie Prejean. Game, set, match.

Solibs DO "slander and exclude" all those who dare oppose their moral relativism, while also pretending that said relativism has some sort of innate stopping mechanism that will prevent it from giving license to those things that even solibs claim to abhor. Of course, moral relativism doesn't work that way, something few commenters here seem to understand.

But I suspect that most solibs don't really believe in moral relativism; they only believe in it to the extent that it's useful in destroying America's Judeo-Christian culture. It's like that quote I once read somewhere: Tolerance is simply the transition stage from one orthodoxy to another. You solibs don't really want "tolerance"; you want a new orthodoxy. You want to legislate your Christophobia just as you accuse us socons of wanting to legislate our "Christophilia". Hence, the culture war.

Someone here mentioned compromise and accused me of never agreeing to that, and he's right. Why should I, or any socon, compromise when the solibs have no intention of doing so? It's like the Israelis and the Palestinians. It's always the Israelis who are told to compromise, to give up something tangible (land and the security that goes with it) for something intangible (a promise of good behavior from the Palestinians). All this compromise does, of course, is give the Palestinians more time to plot Israel's destruction. So it is with the culture war.

Solib calls for compromise or civility in political debate are purely strategic, not principled. It's to by them more time to plot the socons' destruction as a cultural force. It has NOTHING to do with solibs moderating their goals or tempering their contempt for socons. The culture war is just that, a WAR, and the solibs are in it to win it, by any means necessary. And the socons aren't backing down.

Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy night.

Seane-Anna,

I differentiate between things that are the government's business and those that are not.

I'm not at all adverse to Christians/Conservatives. I support Palin. I support Hoffman. Why? Because they are small government Republicans. I have zero objection to their personal beliefs - as long as they keep them out of government.

The public school movement was supported by Protestants as a way of indoctrinating Catholics and Jews. How is that working out for you? Failure. At what cost? Can we say $500 bn a year as a rough estimate?

The drug war is/was supported by the same religious groups that supported alcohol prohibition. Failure. A $50bn a year failure.

I'm against liberal social engineers, I'm also against conservative social engineers.

And SA,

Could you please tell me what you consider Christophobic legislation? You never know. I might be against it.

Simon:
I agree with everything you said.
But why is it that WE are the ones who are forced to compromise by voting for these people? I am really sick of it.

Frank,

I have some hope things are changing.

Why McCain Picked Palin

Also posted at Classical Values.

M. Simon says, "I'm not at all adverse to Christians/Conservatives". Yeah, right.

M. Simon, you don't object to Palin and Hoffman's personal beliefs so long as they keep them out of government? Do you feel the same way about solib politicians who support gay marriage out of a PERSONAL belief that homosexuality isn't immoral? Do you feel that way about solib politicians have favor drug legalization out of a PERSONAL belief that drug use is ok? I suspect that you object to personal beliefs influencing government ONLY when it results in legislation you don't like.

Christophobic legislation? All efforts to legalize gay marriage. As referenced above, the cause to legalize gay marriage is driven by the PERSONAL belief that homosexuality is good, a view that directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian value system. Thus, the movement to legalize same sex marriage is, in reality, a movement to legislate an anti-Biblical worldview. Christophobic legislation.

Now, M., I know you will say that legalizing gay marriage doesn't force any Christian or Jew to approve of homosexuality, but that's true only if religious people are free to NOT support homosexuality. That would mean, for instance, allowing a Christian businessman to refuse to extend spousal benefits to his gay employees. Or allowing a Christian photographer the right to refuse to photograph a gay wedding. You up for that, M? Didn't think so.

Well SA,

I believe government has no business in the marriage business.

It got in the marriage business at the behest of Southern Social Conservatives who wanted to prevent interracial marriage.

You see how that moral socialism stuff keeps backfiring?

Let me know when you have had enough.

Your problem SA is that you think all these problems sprung up overnight (well in the last 20 or 30 years anyway).

Nope. They have been (many of them) 100 years in the making. Now if only those people 100 years ago had stuck to strictly limited government you wouldn't be feeling so offended.

So care to join me in getting government out of the places it doesn't belong? Care to work with me to keep it strictly limited?

"Your problem,SA, is that you think these problems sprung up over night." Huh? I never said or implied such a thing.

"[Government] got in the marriage business at the behest of Southern Social Conservatives who wanted to prevent interracial marriage." Mistake. In Western civilization government got involved in marriage, in one way or another, during the Reformation, maybe even sooner. But thanks for playing the race card. I wondered how long it would take you to do it. Typical solib tactic; when all else fails insinuate all socons are racists. Boring, lazy, nasty, and predictable. M, I was actually expecting more from you.

Well SA,

I have actually studied American history on the subject and in America it was racially motivated.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

No bubble burst, M. I referenced Western civilization because American history didn't spring up in a vacuum. The European settlers who founded America brought the laws and customs of their homelands with them. As I said, European governments had been regulating marriage in various ways since the Reformation and probably before. Those regulations were brought to America by the settlers. Laws against interracial marriage started to spring up after African slaves began arriving in colonial America in the 17th century, but those laws were NOT the beginning of government involvment in marriage in America. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, M.

M, why don't you drop the race card and just address the point I made in my comment. Namely, if you believe personal beliefs should stay out of government, then what do you think of those people who favor gay marriage because of their PERSONAL belief that homosexuality isn't immoral? Or those people who favor drug legalization because of their PERSONAL belief that drug use is ok? Aren't they just trying to legislate their own values, and aren't you solibs supposed to be against that sort of thing?

And what about exemptions for religious people and institutions? Do you think that freedom requires that people have the right NOT to support lifestyles or behaviors to which they object? On gay marriage, such non-support could mean freedom for a Christian businessman to withhold spousal benefits to gay employees. Or the freedom of a Christian photographer not to photograph a gay wedding. Stop playing the race card and tell me what you thing.