To my knowledge this Nolan chart is an improvement from many others. The simplistic and typical political right vs left only spectrum is inadequate.
I agree. Better, but not perfect.
"Conservative Traditionalist" GOP leaning people don't agree with gay marriage - ever.
I agree with you. That's why "conservative traditionalist GOP-leaning people" are not Libertarians.
There are a smaller number of people that align with Libertarians that are realistically - anarchists. This particular political "vacuum" will not exist for long if it should come to fruition in the future. ( I don't believe it ever will. )
Not quite anarchists, but pretty darn close to it. I agree with you, that this position would devolve to chaos. But my initial post was not giving my own opinions on the positions, but merely outlining the various positions.
I don't think that this sinful activity is righteous. God will not bless countries that support it.
I don't think it's righteous, either.
Neither is allowing as many as 1/3 of our citizens to starve, which conservatives do through cutting funding to important social programs.
There is nothing in the Bible that says "God hates a nation who allows gays to marry."
There are a metric ton of verses in the Bible that say God hates the nation who allows the poor to starve.
If God is withholding his blessing of the US, it is for the second reason, not the first.
AND EITHER WAY..... The question here isn't whether God is blessing us or cursing us. The question is, who's job is it to ensure (a) whether gay people get married, and/or (b) whether poor people starve. Is it the government's job to do this? If you're a conservative (either politically or socially), you should say, "the government should stay out of personal decisions," and it's not the government's job to dictate anything, either marriage or charity. That's up to the individual. If you're a liberal, you think the government SHOULD oversee marriage and/or charity. If you want the government to be responsible for the actions of its people, then feeding the poor should be of a greater concern than who is sleeping with whom. (JMHO) Not saying that sexual immorality is okay, but if I had to choose between letting someone starve and letting someone be sexually impure, I think the first would be the greater sin.
Final two points: (a) Is it really our choice, either way? and (b) If it is, do we have to choose?
While observing an ultrasound image of a person, a fully human baby, it's exceedingly difficult to come to any other conclusion that an abortion is a violent act.
This is only after 12 weeks. Before that, it's exceedingly difficult to come to any other conclusion than it's not "a fully human baby," if you're going to be base about it.
As I've said before, I think abortion is a violent act, even before the embryo resembles "a fully human baby."
I also think war is a violent act, and I'd wager most would agree with me.
Self-defense is almost always a violent act.
Killing an animal for food is a violence act.
Sometimes violence is justified. It is not for me to decide when, in YOUR life, a violent act is justified, unless and until I'm called up to serve on a jury where you're being prosecuted for it.
And it sure as heck isn't for a body of government officials to decide, before any act has even occurred, to decide what specific acts are justified. I trust doctors and women to make the right choices. Yes, often they make the wrong choices. Just like often, people who own guns make the wrong choices about self-defense, but I don't seek to take away EVERYONE'S right to own a gun just because A FEW PEOPLE make the wrong choice about self-defense.
I believe that if we live in a country where we generally trust people to make the right choice (despite evidence to the contrary), we live with the consequences that sometimes they don't.
If you want to live in a nanny state, where the government takes away all of your choices for you, and makes sure you never have a chance to make the wrong choice, there are a few on this planet to choose from. The US is not one of those. Yet.
Though I'm not convinced it isn't moving in that direction.
The Green Party is clearly left of center, pro-labor, progressive, heavy taxation, and spending. - socialist-leaning in order to "save-the-planet"
That is precisely where I placed it. Slightly right and down a little of where the icon for it was in that chart, but yes, very much left of center, and (IMHO) a little below the center line socially.
Yes, but they don't have enough members to sponsor any candidates. So they don't count.