Lesbian and Libertarian here. You have a problem with that?

I don't understand liberals and conservatives either. Conservatives wouldn't like you because you're a lesbian, and liberals would stop liking you once they found out you weren't liberal.

I'm a (straight) libertarian and I don't have a problem with you at all.

Neoconservatives want to withdraw the governments ability to offer welfare benifits to people etc etc. because the feel that it has displaced the traditional bonds of the nuclear family and the community and eroded traditional values. Generally they dont theorise state involvement like neoliberals do this is because they cannot define the role of the state as protecting traditional social authority since to them thats the very thing which displaced these values. But in general while they often assert there right to free associate agains gay protests etc they dont recognise these rights for LGBT people. The simple thing for them to do is to declare that gays are not sound of mind and sick and some do. Therefore the nightwatchman state can intervene

I would probably what most people would call a liberal or left wing. I think that libertarians are great at talking about freedom but the objective delivery of freedom in liberal states doesn't exist. States like America and Britain have high levels of inequality, generational inequality, which means that people don't get the same freedom/opportunity to work were they want. 'Freedom' of the neoliberal variety has just made the rich richer and for a while everyone better off. But even now this sacred doctrine of economics has been voilated as those poor who were made better off did so on speculative and false terms which made everyone worse off really. Some libertarians have searched the government books for regulation that caused this but a lot of risky credit to people at the bottom rung in unequal society happened outside the influence of acts and regulations.

Also I think that gay liberation can never be fully achieved in the free market. The market needs to secure long term accumulation through childcare. This will always be done by women unless the state intervenes in childcare and incentivises larger households. The point being that gender roles will be reproduced and so will rigid attitudes towards sexuality as a result and masculine and feminine roles being rigidly assigned. Its no accident that sexuality came under such strict control in Victorian times, the lack of a welfare state meant that men and women had to be closely indoctrinated into their roles to reproduce the nuclear family.

So as a 'liberal' I think that neoliberalism reduces our past present and future freedoms as much as neoconservatism does. Life without government is not life with intervention its just a lack of control over it.

Blind devotion to keeping the citizens divided

No problem with that on my end. You may be projecting.

We don't want to give away civil liberties any more than you would want to destroy them. Vote with your feet, don't make blanket assumptions.

EDIT: What do you want to do? And how do liberals interfere with that?

EDIT: Dutch - Wild animals are homosexual. Are they immoral? Snap out of it.

You know liberals are the ones on your side, right?

>>>>Look at conservatives, the "traditional value" side. They conserve, they don't change.

Liberals are the ones who are trying to get you the right to marry, how is that "forcing" you to do anything?

No offense honey, but you have the sides mixed up.

You asked two questions, actually.

1. No, but why do you care what I think?

2. Can't begin to explain it. It baffles me, as well.

Yes, I do have a problem with that, and so does nature. Homosexuality is pretty unnatural - - and gross. Good luck with that.

Nope.