On 11/1/07, Brian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Considering that neither Mr. Holtz nor Mr. Gregory are (to my knowledge) > LGBTQ persons, and also considering that neither are members of Outright > Libertarians, I fail to see how either individual can claim literally any > expertise on the area of LGBTQ issues. >
Wait a second. Are you saying someone has to be queer to understand that queers have a natural right to liberty? Why is this? This sounds slightly bigoted to me. Would you never endorse someone, then, unless that person were queer? Or, in discussing other issues, does a libertarian have to be a gunowner to understand gun rights? A drug user to understand the war on drugs? An Iraqi to oppose the US war in Iraq? A corporate executive to understand corporate taxation? Come on. FYI, I am a Foucaultian on sexuality. I think the whole thing is a construct. People do what they do, and if it's peaceful, it should be tolerated. The whole attempt to break down somethign as complex as sexuality into a few neat categories is deeply flawed. I didn't know my own lifestyle, life choices or sexual history would be germane in this discussion, but suffice it to say, I see nothing wrong per se with any voluntary sexual acts. I've marched in pride parades and any true state violations of sexual liberty would be taken by me and many of my friends to be quite personal. Mr. Holtz, in particular, has been particularly tone deaf on the issue of > same-sex marriage equality, and only recently switched over to the > Libertarian side of the issue in the platform debate after concerted > lobbying from Outright's membership -- and a clear signal from the Outright > membership in California that there would be near unanimous opposition to > efforts floated on the LPSF list to remove our party's support for marriage > equality from the platform, at convention if necessary. > The libertarian position on marriage is to privatize it. There is no possible other solution that is totally compatible with libertarianism. For the state to license some people but not others in _any_ regard is inherently problematic. It's hilarious indeed for Mr. Holtz to now be claiming some sort of > expertise on LGBTQ issues, when he was so thoroughly wrong on his prior > convictions about LGBTQ issues (and thus enjoys such limited esteem in the > community at large). > > The LP's queer membership doesn't need a bunch of uneducated folks > "explaining" our issues to us, nor does it need persistent attacks on our > platform. I can assure you that from the delegates on the ground all the > way up to the Libertarian National Committee, we are fully prepared to > defend both our party platform AND honest dialogue on Republican and > Democratic candidates from such attacks. > > Cheers gents, > > Brian > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2007 12:28:12 AM > Subject: Ron Paul a "homophobic bigot"? > > Anthony Gregory wrote to Brian Miller on lpradicals (from which I was > expelled after my No First Force > Pledge<http://marketliberal.org/No1stForce.html>challenge was censored there): > > BM) the Republicans (including Ron Paul) are such homophobic bigots that > [...] (BM > > AG) Ron Paul is not a homophobic bigot. What on earth are you talking > about? (AG > > Anthony, here is some context for you. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2107 is my unrebutted > response to Miller's untenable attacks on Paul in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca-liberty/message/5181, where you can see > the previous messages in that thread. More context is at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13332, to which > Miller's only response was to complain that Ron Paul, a candidate for the > GOP nomination, did not answer a survey from the Outright Libertarians. > Quelle homophobia! > > I was soon expelled from lpsf-discuss, where one is not allowed to > document Outright leaders issuing serial misrepresentations about somebody > like Ron Paul. Nevertheless, Miller's claims are a smoking cinder, but good > luck trying to get a reference to my rebuttals past the censors at > LPradicals. My postings are filled with Paul quotes that contradict > Miller's claims, but you probably won't be allowed to post such evidence > there even if you keep my name out of it. :-) (For example, see all the > unanswered Paul quotes I transcribed for Miller from the Values Voter > debate: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13297.) > > In Miller's universe, the only reason to be a radical constitutionalist > and skeptic of central federal authority is if, despite all of one's public > statements to the contrary, one secretly favors oppression of gays by states > and localities. I told Miller: > > You don't have to like Paul's position that the federal government should > not be -- and textually isn't -- entrusted to do for gay rights what it's > done for our rights concerning substance use and political expression and > self-defense and "hate crimes". I don't either. But you don't get to > pretend that's not his position -- at least not without seeming illiterate. > The fact remains that you cannot produce a single quote from Paul saying > that he "believes that government -- not individuals -- should be the final > arbiters of your sex life and the sexual activities of consenting adults." You > can run from that quote as far as you want, but I've got a brand-new laptop > and its copy/paste keys are a long way from wearing out. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- "There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." — Benjamin Tucker
