PDA

View Full Version : Baldwin: "Only between a Man and a Woman Only"




Pages : [1] 2

Joseph Hart
10-09-2008, 07:28 PM
Suck it chuck. You are losing my vote.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:29 PM
I could have told you that much.
I don't diss on baldwin, but he won't get my vote.
Of course, I have Ron Paul to vote for on the ballot.

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:31 PM
I really dont get why Xtians hate gays so much. Oh ya I do.. A pope, 2700 years go, who use to fuck little boys could not get it up anymore and got mad so he started to take it out on others that could...

kojirodensetsu
10-09-2008, 07:33 PM
Imo, government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.

kathy88
10-09-2008, 07:33 PM
I really dont get why Xtians hate gays so much. Oh ya I do.. A pope, 2700 years go, who use to fuck little boys could not get it up anymore and got mad so he started to take it out on others that could...



ummm.... Christians don't do Popes.......

winston_blade
10-09-2008, 07:34 PM
I really dont get why Xtians hate gays so much. Oh ya I do.. A pope, 2700 years go, who use to fuck little boys could not get it up anymore and got mad so he started to take it out on others that could...

Are you always this classy?

luaPnoR
10-09-2008, 07:34 PM
Baldwin, fortunately, knows that this is a matter left up to the individual states. As president, he would not have a say in the matter, but were he a governor or state legislator, then he would vote against gay marriage. As Ron Paul might (I'm not sure on this).

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:34 PM
ummm.... Christians don't do Popes.......

sorry to disappoint you but most christian values come from Catholic christians including your edited bible with missing books.

Carole
10-09-2008, 07:35 PM
Dr. Paul believes in marriage between a man and a woman.

However, he believes it should be left to the state.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

"Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."

RonPaulVolunteer
10-09-2008, 07:35 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT. So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else, and has not been for millennia..

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:35 PM
Imo, government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.

this.
government doesn't regulate baptism or communion, why should it regulate marriage. Those are all religious sacraments.
All people should be free to enter into civil contracts with each other without prejudice.
Civil Unions for all.
Then churches decide who recieve what sacraments within their church.

RonPaulVolunteer
10-09-2008, 07:36 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT.

So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else it is not, and has not been for millennia.

tremendoustie
10-09-2008, 07:36 PM
I really dont get why Xtians hate gays so much. Oh ya I do.. A pope, 2700 years go, who use to fuck little boys could not get it up anymore and got mad so he started to take it out on others that could...

Dude, I don't hate gays, nor does anyone I know, and while I personally think marriage is between a man and a woman, I don't think the government has any business defining or regulating marriage, or infringing upon the freedom of others. This is a strike against baldwin for me.

Think before you stereotype, please -- I wouldn't say something like this about athiests, or some other religion.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:36 PM
sorry to disappoint you but most christian values come from Catholic christians including your edited bible with missing books.

man knows his history.

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:36 PM
Are you always this classy?

Sorry Ill edit it for you. A pope, 2700 years ago, that could not have a preteen suck on his dick and pound his preteen ass anymore, could not get an erection because there was no viagra. So he started to take it out on those who could.

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:36 PM
I really dont get why Xtians hate gays so much. Oh ya I do.. A pope, 2700 years go, who use to fuck little boys could not get it up anymore and got mad so he started to take it out on others that could...

Why is opposing gay marriage, gay hating? Marriage is, in Christian belief, a institution setup by God, him being the being that initially married Adam and Eve, and being gay is immoral, and therefore it is an abomination to call gays "married." The solution is to let private entities regulate marriage. We Christians can say that no gays can get married, and wouldn't recognize it in our businesses, etc., and others can choose differently.

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 07:37 PM
Homosexual people should be free to marry, but children deserve to have parents of both genders, and that's why I won't support gay marriage until some distinction is made in regards to child custody. The courts should prefer to grant custody to the heterosexual parent when there is a dispute over custody.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:37 PM
Why is opposing gay marriage, gay hating? Marriage is, in Christian belief, a institution setup by God, him being the being that initially married Adam and Eve, and being gay is immoral, and therefore it is an abomination to call gays "married." The solution is to let private entities regulate marriage. We Christians can say that no gays can get married, and wouldn't recognize it in our businesses, etc., and others can choose differently.

Why does the church support one man and one woman in marriage when most of the biblical figures had harems?

Michael Landon
10-09-2008, 07:37 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT. So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else.


Nicely stated.

- ML

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:39 PM
Why is opposing gay marriage, gay hating? Marriage is, in Christian belief, a institution setup by God, him being the being that initially married Adam and Eve, and being gay is immoral, and therefore it is an abomination to call gays "married." The solution is to let private entities regulate marriage. We Christians can say that no gays can get married, and wouldn't recognize it in our businesses, etc., and others can choose differently.

The egyptians married... and countless other cultures married. it is not just a xtian belief.

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:39 PM
Why does the church support one man and one woman in marriage when most of the biblical figures had harems?

The church supports "one man, one woman" unions because when the law was set down, that was banned. Before the law, however, it wasn't banned and God didn't say anything about it.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:40 PM
The church supports "one man, one woman" unions because when the law was set down, that was banned. Before the law, however, it wasn't banned and God didn't say anything about it.

WHy would they support a law that went against god's law?

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:40 PM
The egyptians married... and countless other cultures married. it is not just a xtian belief.

I understand that, but we have our own beliefs on the institution, and therefore we should regulate it ourselves. It is morally repugnant, and an insult to God, for me to be coerced into recognizing gay "marriage," which IMO isn't possible.

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:41 PM
The church supports "one man, one woman" unions because when the law was set down, that was banned. Before the law, however, it wasn't banned and God didn't say anything about it.

Marriage is not just a xtian belief. And the government has no right to say who or to how many one can be married. Get your god out of my house, my marriage and my heaven.

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:41 PM
WHy would they support a law that went against god's law?

The Law, as in the one in Leviticus.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:41 PM
baldwin is about to fail the "war on drugs" question. just to be nostradamus here.

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:42 PM
I understand that, but we have our own beliefs on the institution, and therefore we should regulate it ourselves. It is morally repugnant, and an insult to God, for me to be coerced into recognizing gay "marriage," which IMO isn't possible.

It is morally repugnant to me that you believe in a god. But I respect those who do. And dont care how you chose to worship your god.

This is about LIBERTY... not god.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:42 PM
The Law, as in the one in Leviticus.

as in the one Solomon followed.

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:42 PM
The Law, as in the one in Leviticus.

do you have a daughter I can buy?

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:43 PM
do you have a daughter I can buy?

Or a disobedient child i can stone?

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:43 PM
do you have a daughter I can buy?

I don't live under the law, I am a Christian.

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:44 PM
It is morally repugnant to me that you believe in a god. But I respect those who do. And dont care how you chose to worship your god.

This is about LIBERTY... not god.

And I have the liberty to tell a gay that he cannot possibly get married, why should you be able to coerce me to think otherwise.

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:44 PM
because you think there should be a law against it.

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
10-09-2008, 07:45 PM
marriage is a spiritual union.
Interpreting it as between man and woman is a personal choice, not God's.
If both men and woman have souls, there is no reason those souls cannot be in love... until God tells us otherwise.
Jesus didn't seem to care.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:45 PM
I don't live under the law, I am a Christian.

do you understand the first christians followed hebrew law, the torah, etc?
Jesus followed hebrew law. The gentiles were taught hebrew law, and still to this day, christians are circumcised.

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:45 PM
as in the one Solomon followed.

Solomon (and David) was punished for his transgressions. Man isn't perfect, and apparently women were Solomon and David's.

RonPaulVolunteer
10-09-2008, 07:46 PM
Look at you all attacking a person's faith. Despicable.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:46 PM
Solomon (and David) was punished for his transgressions. Man isn't perfect, and apparently women were Solomon and David's.

Apparently? Give me the verses were god punished them for their wives?
What about abraham boning his slave?

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:46 PM
do you understand the first christians followed hebrew law, the torah, etc?
Jesus followed hebrew law. The gentiles were taught hebrew law, and still to this day, christians are circumcised.

The New Testament releases me from the binds of the law, beyond what my conscious states. If that is to follow it to the letter, then I am to be judged by following the law to the letter, but that is not my personal conviction.

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 07:46 PM
Man and woman get married and have children.

Man discovers that he is actually gay. So he divorces wife and marries his golfing buddy.

The proponents of gay marriage want the gay golfers to be viewed by the family courts as 100% equal to the new family formed by hetero mom and her new husband.

That's bullshit.

If somebody wants to live as a homosexual, that's their right. But it doesn't make a gay household equivalent to a traditional household for childrearing, no matter how much gay activists want to kick and scream about it.

Nature requires that human sexual reproduction requires 1 female, and 1 male member of the species. That's not bigotry. That's just how it is.

I bet you religious people didn't expect to see an atheist objecting to gay marriage, did you?

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:47 PM
it all boils down to Liberty for me. The government has NO right to tell who can get married, end of story.

Does a church have the right NOT to marry people they see as "unclean" damn right. But that does not mean there should be a LAW.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:47 PM
Look at you all attacking a person's faith. Despicable.

I'm attacking Baldwin's policy. I don't care what people think or believe as long as they don't want to make it law that will be force on other people.

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:48 PM
Man and woman get married and have children.

Man discovers that he is actually gay. So he divorces wife and marries his golfing buddy.

The proponents of gay marriage want the gay golfers to be viewed by the family courts as 100% equal to the new family formed by hetero mom and her new husband.

That's bullshit.

If somebody wants to live as a homosexual, that's their right. But it doesn't make a gay household equivalent to a traditional household for childrearing, no matter how much gay activists want to kick and scream about it.

Nature requires that human sexual reproduction requires 1 female, and 1 male member of the species. That's not bigotry. That's just how it is.

Actually humans require more than one female. Just like every other "natural primate"

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:48 PM
because you think there should be a law against it.

I never said that, I said private institutions should handle it, and that I should be protected from recognizing them. If other private institutions want to recognize, that is what their conscious tells them, and I can only try to convince them otherwise, not force it on them.

ItsTime
10-09-2008, 07:49 PM
I never said that, I said private institutions should handle it, and that I should be protected from recognizing them. If other private institutions want to recognize, that is what their conscious tells them, and I can only try to convince them otherwise, not force it on them.

Then we agree and I am sorry for this debate :D enjoy your god. I hope it brings you happiness

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:50 PM
Apparently? Give me the verses were god punished them for their wives?
What about abraham boning his slave?

Abraham was punished, I forgot what the punishment was, and I don't have the time to look it up. The punishment for David was the fight among his siblings for his throne, and his extreme weakness in old age.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
10-09-2008, 07:50 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT.

So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else it is not, and has not been for millennia.
Marriage is a concept that has been applied in many different cultures, mainly non-christian. Christians don't have a monopoly on it any more than they do morality.

Granted, I don't believe there has ever been an ancient culture that practiced same-sex unions, but it's theoretically possible, and therefore valid.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:51 PM
The New Testament releases me from the binds of the law, beyond what my conscious states. If that is to follow it to the letter, then I am to be judged by following the law to the letter, but that is not my personal conviction.

Oh you mean these laws?

1 Timothy chapter 2:

7Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

nate895
10-09-2008, 07:51 PM
Actually humans require more than one female. Just like every other "natural primate"

I require only one. Damn, I think about her all the time.

RonPaulVolunteer
10-09-2008, 07:53 PM
I'm attacking Baldwin's policy. I don't care what people think or believe as long as they don't want to make it law that will be force on other people.

No you're not, you're attacking ME!

RonPaulMania
10-09-2008, 07:53 PM
I think there should be state laws against homosexuality, as the founders did (you guys don't realize that do you?), and it shouldn't be federal. If Baldwin is against homosexuality, but against federalizing it what's the issue really?

I know, I know... Christian hate ***** right? So why all the hatred thrown at Christianity using vile language. Honestly, if there was a federal law against homosexual marriage I wouldn't have an issue as the opposite is now true, namely I can't "discriminate" against who I hire, meaning if they don't like my decision they can scream discrimination. Homosexuality is legalized already by discrimination laws against Christians. Now that the opposite discussion is brought up why all the hatred against Christians?

StateofTrance
10-09-2008, 07:53 PM
Time and again I've said this, WRITE IN Dr. Paul. Don't vote these Barr, Baldwin etc. clowns.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 07:55 PM
No you're not, you're attacking ME!

I am? I thought I was listing facts people choose to ignore?
I never once directed anything personally towards you.
Perhaps the guilty would think so, but its not personal for me.

dannno
10-09-2008, 07:55 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT.

So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else it is not, and has not been for millennia.

Are you under the impression that the state would be forcing religious institutions to marry gay people?!

Otherwise you are either against free speech, or you think some people should have the right to make contracts which others cannot...or both.

dannno
10-09-2008, 07:56 PM
I think there should be state laws against homosexuality, as the founders did (you guys don't realize that do you?), and it shouldn't be federal.


Exsqueezeme??

Dary
10-09-2008, 07:58 PM
...

I can’t believe what I’m reading on the Ron Paul forums.

Just wow. Whatever happened to the first amendment?

Or as Harry Browne would say “So much for Federalism”.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:00 PM
I can’t believe what I’m reading on the Ron Paul forums.

Just wow. Whatever happened to the first amendment?

Or as Harry Browne would say “So much for Federalism”.

You can say and believe whatever you want, just don't make it a law to be forced (an act of aggression) on other people.
I'm not advocating a law to outlaw religion, i'm just asking for everyone to have liberty, regardless of what the "majority" may believe.
Republics protect the minority from majority tyranny.

Dary
10-09-2008, 08:02 PM
You can say and believe whatever you want, just don't make it a law to be forced (an act of aggression) on other people.
I'm not advocating a law to outlaw religion, i'm just asking for everyone to have liberty, regardless of what the "majority" may believe.
Republics protect the minority from majority tyranny.

I know.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:04 PM
I know.

I just want that to be said, so that people don't miscrue what i am saying.

JaylieWoW
10-09-2008, 08:04 PM
Imo, government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.

+1

On the other side... the dark side called divorce, the government has turned families inside out for some pretty sick profit.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:08 PM
+1

On the other side... the dark side called divorce, the government has turned families inside out for some pretty sick profit.

I know this will sound extreme, but in business, you never make an unending contract.
In a civil union, you can make it so that every so many years, both people will have to agree to renew/continue the contract.
So if one partner starts to break their end of the contract, the contract can be disolved without attorneys or courts.
It would also insure that both people continue giving, and remove the "ownership" mentality some people get with these type of agreements.

nate895
10-09-2008, 08:13 PM
I know this will sound extreme, but in business, you never make an unending contract.
In a civil union, you can make it so that every so many years, both people will have to agree to renew/continue the contract.
So if one partner starts to break their end of the contract, the contract can be disolved without attorneys or courts.
It would also insure that both people continue giving, and remove the "ownership" mentality some people get with these type of agreements.

However, this is religious, not a business contract. All institutions would have different policies, but my church, if I had one, would only offer divorce in cases of abuse and infidelity, and one day every seven years.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:15 PM
However, this is religious, not a business contract. All institutions would have different policies, but my church, if I had one, would only offer divorce in cases of abuse and infidelity, and one day every seven years.

churches have the sacrament of marriage. they decide. a religious contract with god.
government would enforce civil contracts for the purpose of insurance and inheritance. a civil contract with two people and the government as enforcer.

JaylieWoW
10-09-2008, 08:17 PM
I'm for anyone having whatever contract or religious ceremony they want according their personal beliefs. The thing that led me to Ron Paul was marrying a man who was divorced and paid child support. No, its not a beef about child support, its the damage the government causes the already broken families. I finally realized that there was a lot more screwed up than just the "family court" system.

Anyone remember "welfare reform"? Well, don't believe that bullshit for a minute. "Welfare reform" = "Witch Hunt Against Dads Reform" We didn't cut the money we were giving to women popping out babies like a pez dispenser, no, that would be cruel. Instead we sent the bill to the dad, and it didn't even have to be the real dad just so long as some no good dad was paying.

I'll shut up now, I could go on for days. Unless you've been in it, you can't possibly believe what its like and how completely powerless and helpless you feel to do anything at all. When there's kids involved it completely changes everything.

Wow, funny thing, I hadn't really forgotten how screwed up that whole cesspool was but the feelings are still there and come back on cue... some of the diatribes I used to let loose ... WOW. :)

MRoCkEd
10-09-2008, 08:18 PM
This about sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpsT3e8UsM

Aldanga
10-09-2008, 08:21 PM
The ignorance in this thread is fucking ridiculous.


Grow up, people.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
10-09-2008, 08:22 PM
I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin AND Bob Barr.

JaylieWoW
10-09-2008, 08:22 PM
this about sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxpst3e8usm

That was awesome!

hopeforamerica
10-09-2008, 08:23 PM
this.
government doesn't regulate baptism or communion, why should it regulate marriage. Those are all religious sacraments.
All people should be free to enter into civil contracts with each other without prejudice.
Civil Unions for all.
Then churches decide who recieve what sacraments within their church.

Yep!

ghengis86
10-09-2008, 08:28 PM
it seems like torchbearer and itstime have spent some significant time in christian study (church, school, personal study maybe?). you know christianity and its history so well that you can effectively juxtapose biblical characters, verses and theology with ease. just curious; where did you get all this knowledge?

Now, for my take on this issue:
I'm a hetero, married Christian. You're gay and want a to be married? Go for it. I don't care in the least. It doesn't affect me or my family or my liberty. My denomination won't marry you. Maybe yours will. Good for them. It still has no bearing on my belief and my relationship with God. As long as it doesn't infringe on my rights, do whatever you want, as long as I'm free to do the same.

It boils down to liberty folks. Does Chuck Baldwin the private citizen believe in gay's marrying? probably not. but the most important thing is if he'd try to legislate it. if he does, he's no friend of liberty.

Lastly, who the hell cares what its called?! For public records recognition, it should all be referred to as civil union(ed). *Unconstitutional* Income Tax forms "Civil Unioned, Filing Jointly". Then let each couple refer to their union however they want; married, hitched, attached, trapped, F-buddies with state recognized benefits. hell, if people want to be polygamists, set up another *Unconstitutional* tax bracket and have at it. insurance companies can set up equal benefits and premiums to reflect the added dependants (just like children).

The point is, don't make a law against it, or make a law to define it (which would infringe on others rights)

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 08:31 PM
And still, none of the supporters of gay marriage will even speak to the issue of contested child custody.

Do you think a child deserves to have parents of both genders? Or do you think that concern is unimportant? And if you think it's unimportant, do you yourself have parents of both genders?

StateofTrance
10-09-2008, 08:32 PM
I think there should be state laws against homosexuality, as the founders did (you guys don't realize that do you?), and it shouldn't be federal.

Whether it's State or Federal, govt. should have NO right to decide how you should lead your life. Period. It's not about me being pro-Choice or pro-Gay Rights, it's about me being pro-Less Government interfering in your PERSONAL LIVES as long as it doesn't directly effect/affect someone else's life or activities.

ghengis86
10-09-2008, 08:33 PM
churches have the sacrament of marriage. they decide. a religious contract with god.
government would enforce civil contracts for the purpose of insurance and inheritance. a civil contract with two people and the government as enforcer.

why stop at two? multi-party contacts can be written and enforced.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:35 PM
it seems like torchbearer and itstime have spent some significant time in christian study (church, school, personal study maybe?). you know christianity and its history so well that you can effectively juxtapose biblical characters, verses and theology with ease. just curious; where did you get all this knowledge?

Now, for my take on this issue:
I'm a hetero, married Christian. You're gay and want a to be married? Go for it. I don't care in the least. It doesn't affect me or my family or my liberty. My denomination won't marry you. Maybe yours will. Good for them. It still has no bearing on my belief and my relationship with God. As long as it doesn't infringe on my rights, do whatever you want, as long as I'm free to do the same.

It boils down to liberty folks. Does Chuck Baldwin the private citizen believe in gay's marrying? probably not. but the most important thing is if he'd try to legislate it. if he does, he's no friend of liberty.

Lastly, who the hell cares what its called?! For public records recognition, it should all be referred to as civil union(ed). *Unconstitutional* Income Tax forms "Civil Unioned, Filing Jointly". Then let each couple refer to their union however they want; married, hitched, attached, trapped, F-buddies with state recognized benefits. hell, if people want to be polygamists, set up another *Unconstitutional* tax bracket and have at it. insurance companies can set up equal benefits and premiums to reflect the added dependants (just like children).

The point is, don't make a law against it, or make a law to define it (which would infringe on others rights)

I've had 14 years of theological study. 2 on the collegiate level.
I attended catholic schools, and was being prepped for "priesthood" and such as a "vocation". I wasn't really interested, but I was interested in knowing and learning more about God.
Like a Jordan Maxwell, I believe this to be a very serious topic, and to go into it without the possibility that you can be wrong about everything, you won't learn anything.
I've had professors who spoke/read greek and hebrew, had dug on the Tels of Israel... etc.

I've heard all the excuses and arguments to try and justify the inconsistency of the bible. I was taught them at an early age.
But as a sociologist, I reread these works with new eyes. You can see the evolution of the idea of god change with time.
The early biblical peoples didn't have a concept of afterlife. That is a newer concept. As in, you got your rewards or punishments here on earth... etc.

I still believe in a divine presence in so much as there is so much greatness in the entirity of the universe. Astronomy blows my mind.
We are indeed made of star stuff... our very atoms once came from a star and its possible demise and rebirth.
All these things are possibly only 1% of all that we could possibly know.
I also believe that if we hold onto the old views of god, we block ourselves from a deeper understanding of who we are, and our place within this great cosmos.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:35 PM
why stop at two? multi-party contacts can be written and enforced.

Oh- i didn't mean to imply only two. Contracts can be among many people.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:37 PM
And still, none of the supporters of gay marriage will even speak to the issue of contested child custody.

Do you think a child deserves to have parents of both genders? Or do you think that concern is unimportant? And if you think it's unimportant, do you yourself have parents of both genders?

Do you believe homosexuals can't be good parents?
I'm a sociologist, and I can tell you there is validity to the nuclear family argument.
Traditional mother/father setups. But its the roles that are most important, and gender doesn't preclude those roles.
It is good for the child to have two parents. One, the role of caregiver and teacher, the other, provider.
Note- i'm not saying this is the only way to raise a child, but study suggest it is the optimum form.

angelatc
10-09-2008, 08:38 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT. So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else, and has not been for millennia..

But they're allowed to have their churches, too.

If it wasn't for entitlements, nobody would care.

nate895
10-09-2008, 08:38 PM
Would a Christian businessman who is opposed to gay marriage, be forced to recognize a civil union between two gays if they had the proper documents, or would he be free to deny benefits to the partner?

Vote Waterman 2028
10-09-2008, 08:39 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT. So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else, and has not been for millennia..

Thank you. I cant stand when people take it out of context. Im sure he is fine with gay couples being legally married, but an actual marriage is a religious past time, and it should not change if they dont want it to. I am not a christian but i can certainly understand that point of view. I think that gays should form there own church and then have there own weddings if they so choose, but not infringe on values that other religious people have. They both just need a little bit of respect to each other, and have a little humility.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:40 PM
Would a Christian businessman who is opposed to gay marriage, be forced to recognize a civil union between two gays if they had the proper documents, or would he be free to deny benefits to the partner?

I wouldn't think they would. The owner should decide who gets benefits. It is his property.

Magsec
10-09-2008, 08:40 PM
Losing a vote all because of what you think "marriage" ought to be when there are issues that are tenfold more important? Very mature.

Original_Intent
10-09-2008, 08:40 PM
Imo, government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.

Exactly.

Government should treat all equally and get out of the marriage licensing biz.

Marriage should be a religious thing only, not a civil one, and if gays find a church that will marry them, that's their business.

If they want to be able to leave their estate to their partner, that is their business.

StateofTrance
10-09-2008, 08:41 PM
Hey, bottom-line is -

God loves all.

If he doesn't, then he doesn't exist.

nate895
10-09-2008, 08:41 PM
I wouldn't think they would. The owner should decide who gets benefits. It is his property.

That's really the only effect of a marriage contract, except for previous sole-ownership properties, become property of the married couple upon marriage. That is really my only concern.

nate895
10-09-2008, 08:42 PM
Hey, bottom-line is -

God loves all.

If he doesn't, then he doesn't exist.

+1,

He just is really displeased with all of our sin.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."

Of course, life is too short to go around hating anything. If you don't like it, just don't think about it.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:43 PM
That's really the only effect of a marriage contract, except for previous sole-ownership properties, become property of the married couple upon marriage. That is really my only concern.

I'm an advocate of property rights.
No one should be forced to give anyone benefits by force.

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 08:44 PM
But its the roles that are most important, and gender doesn't preclude those roles.


So does that mean you do not see any value in children having parents of both genders?

And if that is your opinion, may I ask if you yourself had a childhood with both male and female parental figures?

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:47 PM
So does that mean you do not see any value in children having parents of both genders?

And if that is your opinion, may I ask if you yourself had a childhood with both male and female parental figures?

I am a sociogist and have study the family.
In a homosexual relationship, but genders are present, even if both sex are the same. One is usually the feminine and the other the masculine.
It matters not how I was raised. I am just one person of a bigger sample.
A sample size of one is not legit unless the total population is 10 or less.

ghengis86
10-09-2008, 08:49 PM
Losing a vote all because of what you think "marriage" ought to be when there are issues that are tenfold more important? Very mature.

no, i think this is a very important point. "marriage" is the manifest government intervention in this situation. he could have said, "Chuck is for taxing estates, suck it chuck!" taxes would be the manifestation of the governments intervention into personal liberty. Gay marriage is just another place government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong

Dorfsmith
10-09-2008, 08:53 PM
Hey guys, don't tear me apart here but after strongly considering writing Chuck Baldwin in in AZ I have decided to go ahead and vote for Bob Barr. I'm not happy about it but I really think it's the best choice I have.

This was not the only issue that made up my mind.

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 08:54 PM
I am a sociogist and have study the family.
In a homosexual relationship, but genders are present, even if both sex are the same. One is usually the feminine and the other the masculine.
It matters not how I was raised. I am just one person of a bigger sample.
A sample size of one is not legit unless the total population is 10 or less.

I think your own history is relevant in how it helps you form your opinion.

If you yourself had both male and female parents, then how can you judge the impact on a child of being denied both male and female parents?

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 08:55 PM
I think your own history is relevant in how it helps you form your opinion.

If you yourself had both male and female parents, then how can you judge the impact on a child of being denied both male and female parents?

Its called scientific studies of large groups of people without personal bias.
Not sure if you are familar with that idea.

OferNave
10-09-2008, 08:55 PM
Look at you all attacking a person's faith. Despicable.

Look at you all attacking a person's faith. Respectable.

Paulitical Correctness
10-09-2008, 09:00 PM
Why are you non-Christians always so hostile?

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 09:02 PM
Its called scientific studies of large groups of people without personal bias.
Not sure if you are familar with that idea.

But nobody can do such studies. People are not lab rats.

I personally did not have parents of both genders, and I think that experience had a negative impact on my life. I find it interesting that many people who claim such a concern to be unimportant, generally had "normal" childhoods themselves. And that says to me, that those people do not really understand the issue at all.

nate895
10-09-2008, 09:02 PM
Look at you all attacking a person's faith. Respectable.

Respectable. Welcome to the realm of the permanent minority.

nate895
10-09-2008, 09:04 PM
Its called scientific studies of large groups of people without personal bias.
Not sure if you are familar with that idea.

Even if it doesn't affect the child in a direct manner, they will be made fun of at school, which is negative, and you will never be able to stop that, it is simply biological to find that weird.

freelance
10-09-2008, 09:04 PM
OMG! Who cares? I don't care at this point if someone wants to marry a goat! We are going down the tubes, so this is just the very least of my worries.

FindLiberty
10-09-2008, 09:05 PM
I take the Libertarian view on the "one man, one woman" (OMOW) issue... It's one of zillions of freedoms we have from our creator, and it's very wrong to consider any government involvement (law) in this matter. I don't care what "you" do, just stay out of my face and I'll stay out of yours.

It's too bad this is not the case with CB and the CP. Maybe they are just stooping for votes from busybodies who don't know any better than to look to government for solutions and guidance.

IMO, it's insane to ask government to become involved (or promise that while campaigning) because it always turns out poorly in the coercive, ham fisted hands of government , and it's especially nasty in the frequent cases where government gives us the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to accomplish (or prevent). I don't need to get graphic here, but the lesson is, "It's not abuse of power that needs to be feared here, it's the power to abuse that should never be granted in the first place". e.g., OMOW

I think we have higher priorities: Sound money, Constitutionally limited government, end Wars, etc.

Yes, who indeed do I (we) support? I only really liked Ron Paul out of ALL of 'em.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 09:07 PM
But nobody can do such studies. People are not lab rats.

I personally did not have parents of both genders, and I think that experience had a negative impact on my life. I find it interesting that many people who claim such a concern to be unimportant, generally had "normal" childhoods themselves. And that says to me, that those people do not really understand the issue at all.

Yes they can do such studies.
Very simple. They find a bunch of gay couples who have been raising their own children from an early age.
They evaluate the children to see the level of deviance as compare to hetero couples.
If gay parents had an extremely high rate of deviance in the children, it could be concluded that gay parents turn out bad children.
Such studies have shown, time and time again, that the children don't come out "gay" at any higher rate that hetero parents... and that they don't have higher rates of deviance than hetero parents.

Sure, I'd love to force my personal views on people and be the benevolent dictator of social policy... but at least I know, I'm not that smart to make blanket decisions for large groups of people.
And I have studied this topic. It isn't my opinion. And if the studies had agreed with your line of thinking, I would be saying so.
I have no vested interest in this argument.

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 09:15 PM
Yes they can do such studies.
Very simple. They find a bunch of gay couples who have been raising their own children from an early age.
They evaluate the children to see the level of deviance as compare to hetero couples.


Ok, where are these studies?

Where is the study that has compared the rates at which children with homosexual parents go on to become successful parents themselves, with the rates at which children of hetero parents go on to form successful families?

And furthermore, our society routinely imposes views regarding the fitness of parents in family courts. Parents that smoke weed may be judged unfit. Maybe a parent that supported Ron Paul would be judged unfit in this mad world we live in today. "He's crazy! He believes in the gold standard!"

I think it's perfectly valid to consider the needs of a child to be raised in an environment where they can witness a "normal" reproductive family group in action. Two gay people may be loving and caring parents, but they do not, and can not, provide the child with both role models necessary for teaching a biologically "normal" reproductive strategy.

fj45lvr
10-09-2008, 09:17 PM
Paul has already said that MARRIAGE is in the dictionary.


I don't get it that the gay activists have to try to change "definitions". Two girls or two guys are never going to be a "marriage"....instead of trying to change definitions these people should just make their own.

I wish gov. would stay the hell out of it altogether including in the classrooms.

Oh, Israel
10-09-2008, 09:17 PM
God hates this nation. He hates sin. Homosexuality is a sin. He hates homosexuality. Jesus is God so therefore He hates homosexuality also. And no He doesn't just hate the sin, He hates the sinner, whether its homosexuality, or watching SpongeBob. Stop saying things that are not in scripture. If God is love, then because He loves, He must therefore hate. ex. I love children, therefore I hate abortion. Because God loves righteousness therefore He hates unrighteousness. People WAKE UP! Repent!

“Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near."

We are going nowhere unless we turn our hearts to the LORD.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
10-09-2008, 09:21 PM
Or do you think that concern is unimportant?It absolutely is unimportant.

IE: it's none of your business. Or the church's. Or Baldwin's.

It's the same logic that we apply to drug laws. If someone batters his wife in a drunken rage, it's a violent crime, not a drug crime. In the same sense, if child abuse/neglect were to occur in a homosexual home, it would be a crime of child abuse, period.

This is just as flabbergasting as when Christians cry about homosexuality being an affront to the sanctity of marriage, meanwhile heterosexual couples experience a 50% divorce rate. How can you imply that a pair of homosexual parents is an inherently bad thing? I see a hell of a lot of children being abused by straight parents. Meanwhile, I'm sure there are plenty of loving, compassionate gay couples who would be happy to take them in. Denying them that is nothing short of evil.

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 09:23 PM
It absolutely is unimportant.



And did you have parents of both genders?

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 09:25 PM
Ok, where are these studies?

Where is the study that has compared the rates at which children with homosexual parents go on to become successful parents themselves, with the rates at which children of hetero parents go on to form successful families?

Well, you have a lot of reading to do... I suggest getting an online class so you can at least get credit for all the reading.

Some beginner type books:
http://www.amazon.com/Sociology-Marriage-Family-Gender-Property/dp/0534579604

some online sources may require membership:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/7/4/5/p107451_index.html

http://www.slideshare.net/edithosb/family-sociology-study-techniques

talks about bias in research done by groups with agendas, you need to understand what are good sources and what sources have agendas:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/798844

more local sources like UNO:
http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/315

check out the books on this syllabus:
http://web.centre.edu/ant/SYLLABI/WESTON/S05FamilyIntro.html

some sources i haven't read, and may be biased:
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=gay+families&show=dd&cid=16773432985780309973#ps-sellers

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=gay+families&show=dd&cid=10176469756278635110#ps-sellers

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=gay+families&show=dd&cid=8066629010194954862#ps-sellers

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=gay+families&show=dd&cid=11734922316634402504#ps-sellers

I think I still have my old textbooks, but they are in storage at my parents' house.
The information is out there.

The best thing to do... visit your local university. Go to their college of social studies, and speak with the sociology professors.

MGreen
10-09-2008, 09:35 PM
I really dont get why Xtians hate gays so much. Oh ya I do.. A pope, 2700 years go, who use to fuck little boys could not get it up anymore and got mad so he started to take it out on others that could...

I didn't see anyone point out that, according to ItsTime, the papacy existed 700 years before Christ.

Just thought that was worth mentioning, especially since someone later replied that ItsTime 'knows his history.'

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 09:42 PM
The best thing to do... visit your local university. Go to their college of social studies, and speak with the sociology professors.

I looked through your links, but I'm not going to go buy those books. I was hoping you could point me towards some online published study that addressed my concerns. Apparently, you have as much trouble finding such a study as I do.

I've looked for studies on this matter before, and did not find any that addressed my question in a manner I would consider unbiased. All I found pretty much was either gay activists talking about how great their kids are, or children of such couples talking about how great their gay parents were.

Based on my own life experience, I remain skeptical. But if I ever see some evidence that I consider rigorously scientific then I may be willing to change my opinion.

CountryMe
10-09-2008, 09:43 PM
Wow, we do have some debatable topics.

Here is my two cents worth since so many others have put theirs :)

I use to be really strong in the way I thought a party should reprsent MY morals and others like mine but now I have come to realize this:

We have so many very important issues going on in this country such as Martial Law such as our freedoms of speech, even peaceful demonstrations, going down the tube not to mention parents that are losing their children simply because they refuse to drug their children with psychiatric drugs that are not even approved to safely use in children and there are creditable, well respected, and knowledgeable doctors on the side of parents on that issue, then there is our economy that is also going down the drain, people losing their homes, people that can't afford health care that have some serious life threatening illnesses, so now I don't care much anymore about the party representing my views such as whether they are gay or not, whether they believe in having prayer in school, things like that, so with very few exceptions I am ok now regardless of how those in congress believe or do. I am totally against a married person having a affair, but that's their business, so again as long as they care about our freedoms and doing the right thing for this economy then I am ok but as I said with very few exceptions!

And here is the exceptions:

If what others do can affect my freedoms or anyone else's freedoms then that is the exception! I do NOT want others freedoms to take away my freedoms!

If I had a business and I provided health care where I paid for those benefits for those working for me, I would not want to be forced to pay family benefits to couples of same sex marriage and that is exactly what I would have to do if it was ever legalized either on a federal level or state level.

If I was a preacher I would not want to be forced to preform a marriage that was totally against my convictions but yet my freedoms on that would be gone if same sex marriage had become legal.

It would be discrimination if same sex marriage was legalized and someone refused to marry them or give them health care, things such as that.

Another example if I rented apartments or homes, I would have to rent to them, too!

Those would be MY freedoms taken away! Now, I understand those that think it's their freedoms to be able to marry whoever they want regardless if male or female but that is one thing that has been since the beginning of marriage licenses so it's not like that is one of those freedoms that have been taken away from you because that has never been to start with.

To those that say they won't vote for Baldwin just for that reason, keep in mind there is never going to be a president, or congressman, or congresswomen that is going to be able to pass laws to represent your every view! There is always going to be something that we disagree with them on so we just have to get as close as we can.

My sister said I show her more love than anyone she knows to be so opposite of her so as long as others don't directly mistreat you, don't name call, or do anything else to personally attack you, somehow on this issue we have to learn how to get along as much as possible! And respectfully agree to disagree.

EastWindRain
10-09-2008, 09:43 PM
America is a Christian Nation. It was founded on Christian principles. The Jewish Zionists have tried to destroy the Christian history of America, but many Americans are willing to protect their Christian heritage. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. The Zionists have promoted it so it can be mainstream. Chuck is a Christian, and Christians don't believe Men should be allowed to marry other men. Last time I looked Sodomy was still against the law in several states. Only in recent Zionist years has homosexuality been presented as an "Alternative Lifestyle". Homosexuals and lesbians should go live in a NON CHRISTIAN country of their own, where they can be as gay as they want, with out offending others.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 09:44 PM
I looked through your links, but I'm not going to go buy those books. I was hoping you could point me towards some online published study that addressed my concerns. Apparently, you have as much trouble finding such a study as I do.

I've looked for studies on this matter before, and did not find any that addressed my question in a manner I would consider unbiased. All I found pretty much was either gay activists talking about how great their kids are, or children of such couples talking about how great their gay parents were.

Based on my own life experience, I remain skeptical. But if I ever see some evidence that I consider rigorously scientific then I may be willing to change my opinion.

Credible research won't be available for free.
It cost money to do this type of research.
If you are too lazy to talk to a professional or seek their text, I can't help you.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
10-09-2008, 09:44 PM
And did you have parents of both genders?Yes, and they were/are total failures at parenting.

I fail to see how that's relevant, though. You don't need to know how to cook to decide when food tastes like shit.

SeanEdwards
10-09-2008, 09:44 PM
America is a Christian Nation. It was founded on Christian principles. The Jewish Zionists have tried to destroy the Christian history of America, but many Americans are willing to protect their Christian heritage. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. The Zionists have promoted it so it can be mainstream. Chuck is a Christian, and Christians don't believe Men should be allowed to marry other men. Last time I looked Sodomy was still against the law in several states. Only in recent Zionist years has homosexuality been presented as an "Alternative Lifestyle". Homosexuals and lesbians should go live in a country of their own, where they can be as gay as they want, with out offending others.

Stupidity on stilts.

torchbearer
10-09-2008, 09:45 PM
Yes, and they were/are total failures at parenting.

I fail to see how that's relevant, though. You don't need to know how to cook to decide when food tastes like shit.

This.
My parents hated each other and were the worse model of parenting.
I have sworn to never be like them.. and in that.. i have become a better person.

ghengis86
10-09-2008, 09:52 PM
This.
My parents hated each other and were the worse model of parenting.
I have sworn to never be like them.. and in that.. i have become a better person.

same here. hetero or ****, parents can find a way to fuck things up for their kids. also, they both can provide stable households. seems like a moot point

ghengis86
10-09-2008, 09:55 PM
God hates this nation. He hates sin. Homosexuality is a sin. He hates homosexuality. Jesus is God so therefore He hates homosexuality also. And no He doesn't just hate the sin, He hates the sinner, whether its homosexuality, or watching SpongeBob. Stop saying things that are not in scripture. If God is love, then because He loves, He must therefore hate. ex. I love children, therefore I hate abortion. Because God loves righteousness therefore He hates unrighteousness. People WAKE UP! Repent!

“Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near."

We are going nowhere unless we turn our hearts to the LORD.

Jesus was a libertarian.

(FYI, I love mustard on my hotdog, but I also like ketchup sometimes.)

mstrmac1
10-09-2008, 09:56 PM
you guys are bantering about shit that does not matter... jeez!

fr33domfightr
10-09-2008, 10:11 PM
This thread takes a long time to read. Could someone break down the various arguments "FOR" or "AGAINST" Gay marriage that have been discussed here? Please list them as 1, 2, 3, if possible.

This is important for those in California as we have a Constitutional Amendment on the November ballot that will define "marriage," Proposition 8.

My gut tells me the State shouldn't be involved in things performed in the Church. My understanding is many States "had" laws on the books regarding marriage as a way to discriminate against mixed races marrying.

I'm curious when marriage laws actually started appearing as Statutes. Does anyone know? Is the issue of a name change performed independently from issuing a marriage license? I believe the Supreme Court in California seemed to make a distinction between "Civil Unions" and "Marriage" as not being equal. Is this just because the unions don't use the same word???

I think we need to separate our emotions from this to have a good discussion about this topic.


FF

Oh, Israel
10-09-2008, 10:23 PM
(FYI, I love mustard on my hotdog, but I also like ketchup sometimes.)

To love mustard you do not have to hate ketchup.

To love mustard(assuming someone can love mustard) you would have to hate the absence of mustard.

Since God loves holiness he hates the absence of holiness.

jonhowe
10-09-2008, 10:31 PM
America is a Christian Nation.


Shit... does this mean I'm not American anymore?
Does my vote no longer count because I'm Atheist?


Ignorance is bliss, my friend.

RonPaulVolunteer
10-09-2008, 10:35 PM
Hey, bottom-line is -

God loves all.

If he doesn't, then he doesn't exist.

You just made an absolute statement about God, which, unless you ARE God, you can not make.

We have a lot of real intellectuals on these boards I see... Lots of emotion, very little brains.

Brassmouth
10-09-2008, 10:35 PM
God hates this nation. He hates sin. Homosexuality is a sin. He hates homosexuality. Jesus is God so therefore He hates homosexuality also. And no He doesn't just hate the sin, He hates the sinner, whether its homosexuality, or watching SpongeBob. Stop saying things that are not in scripture. If God is love, then because He loves, He must therefore hate. ex. I love children, therefore I hate abortion. Because God loves righteousness therefore He hates unrighteousness. People WAKE UP! Repent!

“Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near."

We are going nowhere unless we turn our hearts to the LORD.

Get the fuck outta here with this bullshit! You're a fucking bigot! :mad:

Your god is dead, and no one gives a shit about it.

Start living your own life and let other people live theirs.

RonPaulVolunteer
10-09-2008, 10:37 PM
Look at you all attacking a person's faith. Respectable.

Wow, congratulations on being the very first person to ever end up on my ignore list. Now I have to go find out how to put you there even. I knew it would come in handy one day.

mport1
10-09-2008, 10:42 PM
Imo, government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.

Yep. Gay or straight.

nate895
10-09-2008, 10:48 PM
You just made an absolute statement about God, which, unless you ARE God, you can not make.

We have a lot of real intellectuals on these boards I see... Lots of emotion, very little brains.

It does say in the Bible that the Lord loves all of his children.

mstrmac1
10-09-2008, 10:51 PM
Is this John McCain/Palin Forums? I will leave... I must have ... oh never mind!

jsu718
10-09-2008, 10:55 PM
Jesus was a libertarian.

(FYI, I love mustard on my hotdog, but I also like ketchup sometimes.)

Actually, Jesus seems a whole lot more like a communist than a libertarian. Otherwise the early Christians as described in historical texts and in the Bible itself got things completely wrong.

And I am of the group that thinks government, whether it be federal, state, or local, has no business getting themselves involved in marriage at all. Marriage has never been intended to be a government institution. It is a complete mistake for Christians and Non-Christians alike to try and make it so.

RonPaulVolunteer
10-09-2008, 11:41 PM
Actually, Jesus seems a whole lot more like a communist than a libertarian. Otherwise the early Christians as described in historical texts and in the Bible itself got things completely wrong.

And I am of the group that thinks government, whether it be federal, state, or local, has no business getting themselves involved in marriage at all. Marriage has never been intended to be a government institution. It is a complete mistake for Christians and Non-Christians alike to try and make it so.

Sorry, the Jesus was a commie argument has no merit.

It could be said that what Jesus promotes is socialism, but the problem is that it is ALWAYS voluntary. Any forced socialism is strictly forbidden, because it's theft, plain and simple. So you can play semantic word games and claim Jesus was a socialist, but he wasn't, he was God, telling us how we can best love each other.

There's a difference, a BIG difference between humility with altruism and Communism.

V4Vendetta
10-10-2008, 02:46 AM
Suck it chuck. You are losing my vote.

lol, But he said that he wouldn't sign a Constitutional Amendment to make it that way, and he also said that he thought it should be left up to the states.

He said the Federal Government doesn't have the constitutional authority to act in such a way.

mitty
10-10-2008, 03:30 AM
Suck it chuck. You are losing my vote.

lol. and this is new to you? this is a basic thing with him. infact he shares this view with bob barr. this is nothing new. you ought to research more about a candidate before you agree to vote for them. the point is that he said as president he won't make any decisions regarding marriage. that is completely constitutional.

Knightskye
10-10-2008, 03:30 AM
Imo, government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.

NICO - "Not in Chuck's Opinion"

kathy88
10-10-2008, 03:33 AM
sorry to disappoint you but most christian values come from Catholic christians including your edited bible with missing books.


Indeed. But in this present day "Christians" consider Catholics heretics for the Mary thing.

literatim
10-10-2008, 04:25 AM
sorry to disappoint you but most christian values come from Catholic christians including your edited bible with missing books.

The ignorance is astounding. The Protestants decided what books were to be included in their version themselves. That is why the Book of Maccabees, which is in the Catholic bible, is not in a Protestant's.

werdd
10-10-2008, 04:27 AM
marriage is a personal contract between two people, the goverment has no right recognize marriage either way.

LibertyEagle
10-10-2008, 05:03 AM
God hates this nation. He hates sin. Homosexuality is a sin. He hates homosexuality. Jesus is God so therefore He hates homosexuality also. And no He doesn't just hate the sin, He hates the sinner, whether its homosexuality, or watching SpongeBob. Stop saying things that are not in scripture. If God is love, then because He loves, He must therefore hate. ex. I love children, therefore I hate abortion. Because God loves righteousness therefore He hates unrighteousness. People WAKE UP! Repent!

“Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near."

We are going nowhere unless we turn our hearts to the LORD.

<< Matthew 7 >>
American King James Version
1 Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? 4 Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye.

LibertyEagle
10-10-2008, 05:06 AM
I really dont get why Xtians hate gays so much.

"Xtians"?

Do you mean Christians?

JosephTheLibertarian
10-10-2008, 05:06 AM
<< Matthew 7 >>
American King James Version
1 Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? 4 Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye.

Ever think about actually following your sciptures? just wondering

LibertyEagle
10-10-2008, 05:09 AM
Ever think about actually following your sciptures? just wondering

I don't profess to be perfect. Never have. :)

JosephTheLibertarian
10-10-2008, 05:12 AM
I don't profess to be perfect. Never have. :)

I would think that strict adherence forces you to be somewhat of a perfectionist.

but ok :p

LibertyEagle
10-10-2008, 05:15 AM
I would think that strict adherence force you to be a perfectionist.

Nope.

RickyJ
10-10-2008, 05:20 AM
Suck it chuck. You are losing my vote.

Are you gay?

What exactly do you want him to suck?

I agree 100% with Chuck Baldwin on this issue. Marriage should indeed be between only a man and a woman. Most Americans think the same way. If you don't think so then tell my why the two elite candidates are both against **** marriage? Your position is a losing position and it is morally wrong according to the Bible.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-10-2008, 05:21 AM
Ah, you see. Those anti-barr guys were really just anti-LP, CP subservients. I knew it. Damn theocrats, they're coniving liars.

ItsTime
10-10-2008, 05:27 AM
The ignorance is astounding. The Protestants decided what books were to be included in their version themselves. That is why the Book of Maccabees, which is in the Catholic bible, is not in a Protestant's.

There were books thrown out of the bible way before protestants. Know your history.

RickyJ
10-10-2008, 05:27 AM
I really dont get why Xtians hate gays so much. Oh ya I do..

Christians don't hate gays. Despite popular opinion no one is born gay. Left to nature no one would be *****. It has to be taught at an early age or it will never happen. Most gays were molested by adults at an early age and that is how they got screwed up in the head to desire members of the same sex. It is not natural and it is not genetic.

RickyJ
10-10-2008, 05:30 AM
There were books thrown out of the bible way before protestants. Know your history.

So now you are suggesting there is some mythical book out there that says the homosexual life style is not a sin that was thrown out of the Bible? If there is then that would contradict Genesis and Romans 1.

ItsTime
10-10-2008, 05:32 AM
So now you are suggesting there is some mythical book out there that says the homosexual life style is not a sin that was thrown out of the Bible? If there is then that would contradict Genesis and Romans 1.

I did not say there was anything about homosexuals in them. And again, gay marriage has NOTHING to do with RELIGION it has everything to do with lack of LIBERTY!

literatim
10-10-2008, 06:58 AM
There were books thrown out of the bible way before protestants. Know your history.

There was never a "Bible" until various separate books were compiled and one was created. So please, learn history before you instruct others to do so.

As for which books were excluded, simply because the Catholics excluded them, doesn't mean the grounds for which they were excluded were wrong.

orafi
10-10-2008, 07:03 AM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT.

So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else it is not, and has not been for millennia.

No, it's not "biblical". The Bible didn't invent marriage, guy.

Bossobass
10-10-2008, 08:58 AM
Apparently? Give me the verses were god punished them for their wives?

Romans 6:7 "For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin".
Romans 6:23 "For the wages sin pays is death".
Acts 2:29 "...concerning the family head David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day".
Acts 2:34 "Actually David did not ascend to the heavens..."


As for which books were excluded, simply because the Catholics excluded them, doesn't mean the grounds for which they were excluded were wrong.

The Catholic Bible (The first Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims [1610, revised 1750], most commonly referred to as the Douay version) contains the so-called apocraful books, 7 to 19 of them, depending on which version of the version.

So, as the Catholics claim, it is the so-called Protestant version (every other translation of the Bible) that has allegedly excluded books.


No, it's not "biblical". The Bible didn't invent marriage, guy.

Genesis 2:21-24 "Hence God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place.
And God proceeded to build the rib he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man.
Then the man said: "This is at last bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman because from man this one was taken."
And that is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh".

This was written approximately 3,500 years ago, but is an account of the actual occurrence from over 6,000 years ago, written under inspiration.

If you're of the opinion that marriage isn't a Biblical first, it would help if you cited the evidence upon which you base your opinion.
____________________________________________

Regardless of one's particular adherence to any particular of the thousands of Christian sects of Christendom, none should take on the mantle of Judge in condemning or exalting anyone else. It simply isn't allowed.

I think this whole argument against Baldwin is hysterical, in a nervous breakdown sort of way. We're losing our Country, our Rights under its Constitution and we may very soon be facing soup lines under Martial Law and we choose to publicly jabber on about the definition of marriage, or whatever this thread is really about.

Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin.
Chuck Baldwin has announce he will name Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury.
Congress has just given the Secretary of the Treasury immense power over our economy.

What the fuck is the question?????

Bosso

RonPaulMania
10-10-2008, 09:50 AM
Whether it's State or Federal, govt. should have NO right to decide how you should lead your life. Period. It's not about me being pro-Choice or pro-Gay Rights, it's about me being pro-Less Government interfering in your PERSONAL LIVES as long as it doesn't directly effect/affect someone else's life or activities.

Then you are oblivious to government and life. Our lives affects others whether or not it's personal or not. If something is manifestly against the natural law it should be illegal. Call it theocracy, but it's part of a fair and just government.

Do you realize every state had anti-homosexuality laws until recently? Do you think the state has benefited by not having them? Well the contrary is true as well, now they are repealed they are making hate speech, and even imposing who we hire and fire against how I or someone else wants to run their life.

You see law can't live in a vacuum. It has to go one way or another. If homosexuality is not against the law, it will be illegal for me to live my life and my business. If you could have that natural vacuum that exists for pure liberty without references natural law than you win. But I've never seen it ever in any generation in any gov't.

RonPaulMania
10-10-2008, 09:55 AM
Ah, you see. Those anti-barr guys were really just anti-LP, CP subservients. I knew it. Damn theocrats, they're coniving liars.

You have an anger problem with people who disagree with you. Do you think you might have to be constructive instead of impulsive and scary. You might not want to realize this, but most "theocrats" were the founders of this country by your definition.

Most of the people who do good things to help society are not secularists but Christians. It's a known fact that most people who do charitable work are Christian and that these people according to God's laws.

Show me a world where secularists are in charge that makes it a good place to live and then scream liar at yourself to realize you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. Read my signature and read that article by Ron Paul I posted and realize you are arguing against Ron Paul and the war against religion.

tonesforjonesbones
10-10-2008, 10:15 AM
Immoral society. tones

angelatc
10-10-2008, 10:22 AM
Immoral society. tones

Aren't they all?

jonhowe
10-10-2008, 10:23 AM
I never thought I'd see this much HATE on the Ron Paul forums.
Sad.


People being Gay, and Gays being married, does not affect you AT ALL.

What is the big deal??

Nirvikalpa
10-10-2008, 10:45 AM
You have an anger problem with people who disagree with you. Do you think you might have to be constructive instead of impulsive and scary. You might not want to realize this, but most "theocrats" were the founders of this country by your definition.

Most of the people who do good things to help society are not secularists but Christians. It's a known fact that most people who do charitable work are Christian and that these people according to God's laws.

Show me a world where secularists are in charge that makes it a good place to live and then scream liar at yourself to realize you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. Read my signature and read that article by Ron Paul I posted and realize you are arguing against Ron Paul and the war against religion.

That is very true. When disasters occur, Christian organizations are always one of the first-responders, as they were with Katrina.

Kade
10-10-2008, 10:47 AM
sorry to disappoint you but most christian values come from Catholic christians including your edited bible with missing books.

Incoherent, but bumped for epic truth.

heavenlyboy34
10-10-2008, 12:05 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT. So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else, and has not been for millennia..

This is pretty much my argument. The marriage thing would not be an issue if it had remained a religious issue-unregulated and unrecognized by government. Gays can have all the "unions" they want, but marriage is religious in nature, and no government can change that.

heavenlyboy34
10-10-2008, 12:09 PM
You have an anger problem with people who disagree with you. Do you think you might have to be constructive instead of impulsive and scary. You might not want to realize this, but most "theocrats" were the founders of this country by your definition.

Most of the people who do good things to help society are not secularists but Christians. It's a known fact that most people who do charitable work are Christian and that these people according to God's laws.

Show me a world where secularists are in charge that makes it a good place to live and then scream liar at yourself to realize you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. Read my signature and read that article by Ron Paul I posted and realize you are arguing against Ron Paul and the war against religion.

RP did not argue for placing religious laws above all else. Above government laws, yes. (he mentioned "just war theory of christianity" in the debates) His philosophy is laissez faire in nature. :) Gotta love it.

H Roark
10-10-2008, 02:50 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT. So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else, and has not been for millennia..

+1

BTW OP, way to elaborate on your first post. It was very insightful. :rolleyes: If you're so high minded about liberty, you shouldn't be seeking the federal government's approval on this private and personal contract between two individuals, which also happens to be a religious sacrament. Baldwin is totally correct in simply expressing the definition of marriage. Even Ron Paul when asked about this issue at a debate basically said that we don't need to legislate marriage and that all you need to do is "look it up" [the definition of marriage]. Personally, I am also of the contention that government has no business in recognizing ANY type of marriage (which inherently is heterosexual). Of course there is a difference between marriage and civil unions however.

Hmmm, whatever happened to separation of church and state? Why is it that you would allow government to co-opt an exclusively religious institution? I mean you atheists should be up in arms over this, right!? Oh I forgot, its okay for government to limit liberty as long as it is used as a tool against Christian doctrine.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-10-2008, 04:52 PM
That is very true. When disasters occur, Christian organizations are always one of the first-responders, as they were with Katrina.

That doesn't justify their false beliefs, now does it? What about the christians that helped Bush get elected? How about the christians that cheer when the state murders people? Two way street, dear.

heavenlyboy34
10-10-2008, 05:04 PM
I saw this recently, which I found interesting. Score 1 for Baldwin in my book.

ARE WE WITNESSING THE RISE OF THE FOURTH REICH?
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

February 7, 2006

NewsWithViews.com

Without a doubt, comparisons to Hitler have been overdone. It seems that when a writer disagrees with the policies of a sitting president, be he Republican or Democrat, there exists a ubiquitous temptation to compare him with the ignoble German leader. Some will no doubt charge this author with having succumbed to this temptation. Perhaps I have.

However, as a student of both the Bible and history, I believe we in America are living in times that are eerily reminiscent of the days leading up to the rise of the Third Reich. If after reviewing this thesis, the reader wants to dismiss its conclusions as insipid and irrelevant, he or she is certainly free to do so.

On the other hand, it would do the reader good to heed the words of George Santayana who said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If America is truly flirting with any semblance of the fallacious and fallen Reich (which I believe it is), it is incumbent upon each and every true American (especially Christians) to renounce, reject, and repudiate such flirtations as early and as vociferously as possible!

There are many facets and aspects of the Third Reich which could and should be analyzed. For the purpose of this column, however, I want to focus on the attitude and actions of the ministers and churches of Germany at the time of Hitler's rise.

My focus upon the German church is predicated upon the fact that as a Christian pastor (I have been the pastor of an Independent Baptist Church for more than 30 years), it is my studied opinion that any western nation will rise or fall according to the attitudes and actions of its Christian leaders and churches. Scripture says, "Judgment must begin at the house of God." Therefore, while any nation might survive corrupt politicians, greedy merchants, and sinful citizens, it cannot survive cowardly, compromising churches! As the churches go, so goes the country!

In the case of Nazi Germany, it was the German churches first and foremost that failed their country. It was the churches that provided Hitler with moral and spiritual cover. It was the ministers and churches that allowed Hitler to seduce the nation. Some ministers were no doubt deceived themselves. Many others, like Adam, partook of the forbidden fruit with their eyes wide open. Either way, without the help and assistance of Germany's churches, the Nazi Party could never have become such a horrible leviathan. Therefore, let's examine the attitudes and actions of Germany's ministers and churches and compare them to America's ministers and churches today to see if there is any similarity.

As we delve into this material, I want to strongly recommend that the reader purchase and devour a book to which I will repeatedly refer. The book is entitled, "Hitler's Cross." It is written by Erwin Lutzer and published by Moody Press. The book is absolutely phenomenal! If you do not read any other book this year (beside the Bible), read "Hitler's Cross."

Now, let's examine the evidence.

It is a fact that when Adolph Hitler began his ascent to power, many, if not most, of Germany's Christians believed he was an answer to their prayers. Lutzer says many Christians replaced pictures of Christ in their homes with pictures of Hitler. They truly believed Hitler was "God's man" for Germany. They believed that to resist Hitler was to resist God. And why not?

After all, Hitler revived Germany's collapsed economy. He eradicated the shame of Germany's defeat in WWI by reclaiming the Rhineland. He gave generous vacations to the German people. He created numerous trade schools that trained and equipped Germany's workers. Thus, almost overnight, Germany's vast unskilled labor force was replaced with highly skilled workers. In fact, under Hitler, Germany had virtually no unemployment. Furthermore, Hitler brought crime under control. He built freeways and highways that were the envy of Europe. He literally brought the German people out of poverty and despair and made them a great and proud people once again. As a result, the German people, including German Christians, loved him!

Unfortunately, as Hitler was building Germany's economy and strengthening its military, he was also taking away the rights and liberties of the German people. Remember, Germany was a republic before Hitler came along. The principles of individual freedom and constitutional government were at one time precious to Germans. However, most German people were willing to gladly trade their liberty and freedoms for Hitler's promise of security and strength. It was a bad trade then. It is a bad trade now!

Lutzer documents the fact that at the time of Hitler's rise, there were some 14,000 evangelical churches in Germany. To win the support of these churches, Hitler literally wrapped himself and the Nazi Party in the Cross of Jesus Christ. Even today, one can view photos from Nazi parades showing the Cross of Christ highlighted in the heart of the Nazi Swastika.

In short order, Germany's pastors and churches were convinced that the Nazi Party was God's party and Hitler was God's man. By the time Hitler consolidated power and became Germany's Fuhrer, the Nazi Swastika was displayed proudly on the walls and halls of Germany's churches, both Catholic and Protestant.

Germany's pastors often preached sermons supporting Hitler and the Nazi Party. They told their congregants that to support any other party or any other potential leader was to "fight against God." Very soon, congregants who refused to swear loyalty to Hitler were denied last rites and Holy Communion by Catholic priests, while Protestant pastors excommunicated such members. Romans chapter 13 was often quoted from Germany's pulpits as scriptural justification for demanding loyalty to Hitler.

Even the famous Canadian pastor, Oswald J. Smith (Pastor of the People's Church in Toronto), was taken with Hitler. In 1936 Smith wrote, "What, you ask is the real attitude of the German people toward Hitler? There is but one answer. They love him. Yes, from the highest to the lowest, children and parents, old and young alike, they love their new leader. They trust him to a man.

"What about your elections? I asked. 'We don't want another party. We are satisfied with Hitler.' And that feeling exists everywhere. Every true Christian is for Hitler. I know, for it was from the Christians I got most of my information, and right or wrong, they endorse Adolph Hitler." (Source: "Hitler's Cross" by Erwin Lutzer, pp. 109, 110)

One German pastor, Julius Leutherser gushed, "Christ has come to us through Hitler. [T]hrough his honesty, his faith and his idealism, the Redeemer found us." (Source "Hitler's Cross" by Lutzer, p. 101)

Lutzer writes on page 102 of his book, "[I]n Hitler's day being a good Christian involved being a good German nationalist. God and country were practically one and the same."

Germany's Christians forgot that Christ's kingdom "is not of this world." Their desire to restore Germany's greatness and their patriotism somehow dwarfed their commitment to Christ and their fidelity to republican principles. Accordingly, their trust in God was supplanted with trust in Hitler, and their allegiance to principles of freedom was replaced with allegiance to the Nazi Party.

Of course, Hitler knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he needed the support of Germany's churches and pastors and he played the role of Christian leader magnificently. Privately, however, he despised Germany's clergymen. He said, "The parsons will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes." How right he was!

Out of 14,000 German ministers, all but 800 gave Hitler their unequivocal and unflinching loyalty. Among the 800 was the great Christian patriot Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was later assassinated by Hitler's henchmen. Virtually all of the 800 courageous pastors who refused to support Hitler were sent to concentration camps.

What would have happened had 10,000 ministers in Germany resisted Hitler? What would have happened if 10,000 ministers would have refused to compromise their loyalty to Jesus Christ, their commitment to republican principles, and their devotion to sacred duty? What would have happened if 10,000 Christian ministers had not allowed the National Socialist Party to supplant their loyalty to God's Word?

It seems clear to me that the attitudes and actions of Nazi Germany's ministers and churches are being repeated in the United States today. To a large degree, Evangelicals have wrapped the Cross of Christ in the banner of the Republican Party. They quote Romans chapter 13 to justify their unflinching, yes, even blind support for President Bush. They are willing to surrender their freedoms and liberties so that President Bush might protect them. Pictures of the president almost universally line the halls and walls of our churches, Christian schools, and pastors' offices. They castigate and denigrate in the most caustic terms anyone who dares to challenge or even question President Bush. They are willing to let the president lead them into multiple wars, even wars of aggression, based solely on Bush's word. They refuse to hold the president accountable to the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It seems to me that President Bush has taken on the aura of an American Fuhrer in the minds of many Evangelicals.

Just how far are Evangelicals willing to allow Bush to go? They already support unbridled spying on American citizens. They have gladly surrendered their Fourth Amendment rights. Would they be willing to support the imprisonment of fellow Christians who don't support Bush if the Department of Homeland Security ordered it? I believe many would. And if so, how is that different from the attitudes of Christians in Nazi Germany?

Again, readers may dismiss my observations as inane if they want to. However, please notice that the focus of this column was not so much on Hitler but on the attitudes and actions of Germany's ministers and churches.

If the reader can honestly and objectively look at the history of Germany's ministers and churches and see no similarity to the attitudes and actions of America's ministers and churches today, so be it. To me, however, the similarities are striking!

© 2006 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

Theocrat
10-10-2008, 05:10 PM
Suck it chuck. You are losing my vote.

Are you implying that you're not going to vote for Dr. Baldwin only because his religious convictions lead him to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Please don't assume that just because someone has a personal conviction about a moral issue that means they are automatically going to legislate it when in office. Besides, I don't even think marriage is at the top of Dr. Baldwin's agenda to steer our nation back towards its original intent. He seems more concerned right now with ending our corrupt banking/financial system as well as stopping the deterioration of our nation's sovereignty via the "New World Order."

Is Dr. Baldwin not entitled to his own religious beliefs that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Is that grounds to not support someone? If so, then I guess you never supported Congressman Paul because he, too, believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

johnrocks
10-10-2008, 05:17 PM
Libertarians seem to be too rigid or at least some do, I live in Louisiana and will be voting for Ron Paul if indeed he is on our ballot but if he weren't I would not allow this issue to keep me from voting for Baldwin.

LibertyEagle
10-10-2008, 05:36 PM
That doesn't justify their false beliefs, now does it? What about the christians that helped Bush get elected? How about the christians that cheer when the state murders people? Two way street, dear.

LOL. Since when does someone need to justify their religious beliefs to YOU, Joseph? :p

Why is it that people who profess to want religious freedom, have such a hard time allowing others to have theirs too?

torchbearer
10-10-2008, 05:44 PM
Libertarians seem to be too rigid or at least some do, I live in Louisiana and will be voting for Ron Paul if indeed he is on our ballot but if he weren't I would not allow this issue to keep me from voting for Baldwin.

He is on the ballot.
http://www.deadlybuda.com/ltpp.html
http://www.lataxpayers.com

if you can get ahold of the alexandria town talk, there should be an article about the ballot tomorrow. if not tomorrow, sometime very soon.
I was interviewed for the article and the reporter told me the story should be out any day now.

LibertyEagle
10-10-2008, 06:00 PM
look at you all attacking a person's faith. Despicable.

+1

RonPaulMania
10-10-2008, 06:40 PM
That doesn't justify their false beliefs, now does it? What about the christians that helped Bush get elected? How about the christians that cheer when the state murders people? Two way street, dear.

Let me get this straight...

They have false beliefs because you disagree, so you believe it's in your best interest to throw in a sound-byte of philosophy into what some of the greatest philosophers believed and cherished?

Just because most "christians" helped Bush, it was based on the murdering of innocent children in abortion. No Christians cheer when the state murders anyone. Maybe you are accidentally assigning formality with materiality in an act.

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
10-10-2008, 06:42 PM
faith does not supersede intelligence.
Jesus came and taught his sheep to think for themselves and not just blindly obey their barbaric laws.
I don't see how an expression of love would separate one from God.
This whole thing sounds like spiritual justification for a personal belief.

RonPaulMania
10-10-2008, 06:51 PM
faith does not supersede intelligence.
Jesus came and taught his sheep to think for themselves and not just blindly obey their barbaric laws.
I don't see how an expression of love would separate one from God.
This whole thing sounds like spiritual justification for a personal belief.

That's because you cannot think and are more intellectually enslaved to repeated lies. Faith cannot contradict intelligence, but it can be above natural reason. It is not natural to turn the other cheek when attacked, but through God revealing truth it can be known.

What you are saying is that God cannot reveal truths higher than natural reason. That's akin to a flower telling a human being that the flower knows everything and we know nothing. Both cases is sophomoric.

Can God reveal truth? Yes. Can it be above our natural state of reason? Yes, but it cannot contradict reason. If don't know what a contradiction is by logical terms let me know and I'll explain it to you, but your post is silly.

anaconda
10-10-2008, 07:26 PM
Imo, government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.
Reply With Quote

Exactly. And if there's no income tax than there's no "filing jointly," etc.

How about the courts enforcing common law marriage? Should a wife who gives up everything to care for her family and then gets dumped after 25 years be entitled to a court settlement?

Libertarian_Rebel
10-11-2008, 01:39 PM
OK after reading all 17 pages of this thread I just have to throw in my .02 about this IMPORTANT issue....

First of all I AM GAY. I have a partner of 14 years and have a relationship like a son-dad. While I'm NOT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT! Me and my partner live like any heterosexual couple does. WE fight and argue like any other normal heterosexual couple does. IF you saw me on the street YOU would never know I was gay as I act, walk and talk straight as an arrow. I can't stand queens and feminine acting men myself. It is their right to act as they wish but I will tell you MOST you would never know they like the company of a man or sleep with them

NOW I am CHRISTIAN and I DO BELIEVE IN GOD/JESUS but I'm about shock the bible thumpers right now. Growing up as a kid I convinced myself I was straight and WANTED to have girlfriends like an adolescent would want, but girls required you to talk on the phone for HOURS per day. NONE of the pretty popular girls would have anything to do with me ever. I had one GF who was a butt ugly dog but we tried it for like 2 weeks before I KNEW this was not meant for me. There was something about it as like THEY KNEW something about me and would avoid me. It was discouraging and depressing, and I could never figure out WHY or
WHAT was wrong with me!

One day in the 10th grade I met this kid who at the time lived close to a very popular surfing spot known as Sebastian Inlet, literally across the street so one day I decided to go stay over at his house. We want to score weed but could not, so we ended up getting drunk together. Later in the evening he suggested something I will never forget to this day and I quote "Lets pretend each other is a girl and suck each other" I was drunk but wasn't that drunk and was hesitant to want to do this BUT we turned the lights off and we DID IT for a short time before he got sick and thew up from drinking too much. We soon went to sleep and the NEXT day I was feeling oh so guilty about what we had done and a lot of kids I knew were homophobes as well.

Another time me and my so-called best friend when I was living with my grandmother had this drop dead gorgeous housekeeper and he kept telling me he wanted to do her. Well one day he decided to ask her, point blank "lets screw" and us being minors she did not feel too comfortable about doing that but she gave in to him and I watched him do it without a any problem at all then comes my turn and WELL I don't want to get into details but lets just say there was no rise to the occasion while its right in front of my face He would do her a few more times when she came over to clean but every time it would not work for me. NOW I'm really feeling disappointed and confused and starting to wonder WTH is wrong with me!?

Later years down the road I had borrowed a buddies board to go out to surf and I broke his board, he was PO'd and said I had to pay for a new one and I had to find a job. I did at a Little Caesars pizza store and met this UGLY co-worker there. I told him of my problem and he said he had an idea for me to get this money I needed. He told me of person he knows of that would pay good money for a porno and I NEEDED this money FAST so I said 'fine I'll do it" So he set up his camcorder and wanted me to suck him, this time it was a lot more than I could stand and got disgusted with the whole thing, so later I ask about the money and he told me it wasn't good and the guy did not want to pay for the footage.

I was livid and mad, decided to call some friends up and claim this guy fondeld me sleeping with him for giving me a place to stay. A friend decided to ask his parents to let hm take me in (for other reasons I was kicked out by my family at this time) a few days later we were talking and somehow I let it out about what really happened, he then turned on me and told our friends what I did and THEY all went nuts. Told his parents to kick me out and that I could sleep for one night in the back of the rodeo they had. Well they all decided to hang in the front yard and taunt me and threaten to KICK MY ASS, I had enough and decided to just LEAVE. I could go on more but in short I became a drifter for some time and then the friend who had his parents threw me out, his mother decided to take me to a youth shelter called Covenant House close to the defunct Ft.Lauderdale strip since I had no where to go.

It will full of run-aways and delinquent's. I met this boy who was from Ohio there and we became friends (not real friends but I wanted to have protection) Soon we both get tired of the jail like setting this place is like and told me "I know someone we can go stay with and leave this place" and I was like sure lets do it. So he makes a call and we go out and wait on the side of A1A and then comes someone who pulls up and we get in. Its 2 older guys, one about 35 and another about 60 are we go to a condo on the mainland. The one kid goes with the 60 year old and the other I go with who now is my partner. Here we go again and didn't know what was going on til the guy took off his clothes and it hit me, but figuring everything that has taken place since the kid in 10th grade this must mean the way it is supposed to be. I did it again and still wasn't too comfortable as it now became a struggle for indentity of who or what I really was. This was not easy at all and I began to see the Gay side of society, Gay bars Gay hustling and all this was hidden from plain sight.

Later the kid who thought we were kinda of friend like decided he wanted to hustle me since I am what they call "cute boyish" and I'll stop in mid stream to point out I AM AWARE OF AIDS and not stupid, so I learned quickly about being safe about doing sex the proper way so you don't get ideas ("he's probably riddled with STD's at this point") No, but now I see the so-called friend has an agenda for me and I'm not about to be someone's whore so me and guy he introduced me to sorta start to bond as the other kid is just coming off as a street kid and me the exact opposite being from a family of wealth and he does not trust the other. So we became close and he decided to be a father figure to me (still can't let go of it to this day of me being 32 now back when I was 18) and asks me "Do I want to come with him to Washington DC" and considering I have no family to live with (that's another whole story, but lets just say all my friends did NOT meet the standards of my family and I became the outcast because I associated myself with what is considered trashy poor low class families)

Anyway I decided I have had enough of Fla and this wild ride and needed to just get out. Nothing but bad memories. I want to add I was a pot smoker, so when leaving the guy did NOT want any pot traveling back up to DC and a few times we went head to head over that issue, so needless to say and in short I found 2 others guys on AOL (just started at the time as the net was just starting to explode) and went with one for a week, did not work and went back to the same guy and did it a 2nd time a few months later for about another week and ended up back at the same guy after the 2nd guy tricked me into riding the train from Mineola NY on Long Island to Orlando and decided he wanted to abandon me.

Well in short I had a night of hell on the streets of Orlando w no money. Had to beg my uncle for 60 bucks to eat and it was decided on a 3 way phone call with the guy who is my partner and him that I would go back. Uncle decided to tell me HE KNEW I WAS GAY ALL ALONG. So I go back and not eager to look for that greener grass and decided to just cope and adjust. He's tight with money at this time was not agreeable to high cost of my smoking. So we decided and this is not to brag but in short without details I have a talent at......you figure it out! I would try escorting to pay for my smoking and I became one of the first internet escorts. I never thought I could actually do this kind of work or was cut out for it..boy was I wrong! I had numbers of repeats coming back to see me and quickly started snowball into career like work and I found out over the course of time WHO the typical clients are. Get ready cause it could be ANYONE you know and you would never suspect it. It could be, your brother, your father your grandfather, your husband, your teacher, your boss, your boyfriend, your son, should I keep going? (yea girls you would NEVER KNOW and same goes for the MOTHERS/WIVES as well) Point is I would NOT HAVE A BUSINESS WITHOUT MARRIED MEN as its NOT mostly GAY MEN. I see mostly closet types and Bi.

To end this very long story IF you have not figure out by NOW the EVENTS of my life were NOT IN MY CONTROL OR CHOICE. I REPEAT NOT MY CHOICE! IT IS WHO I AM MADE TO BE..get it!! So you religious zelalots when you say that being gay is a "lifestyle" choice I say BULL F__KING SH__ to that!!!! I was not MEANT to be STRAIGHT have a WIFE AND KIDS. It is NOT how god intended me to be otherwise ALL THE EVENTS WOULD NOT HAVE KEPT HAPPENING TO ME..GET IT?! There is a pattern here weather or not you care to believe this or accept it. NOW I know Ron has given his seal of approval of Chuck and I LIKE the fact that Chuck wants to fight the NWO/FEDERAL RESERVE crooks BUT I CAN NOT AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN IF HE WAS TO MAKE IT POLICY TO BAN BEING GAY OR IS AGAINST MEN BEING GAY. IF it is ONLY about the marriage issue, which I said I DO NOT believe in then that is fine. There should be a civil union allowed between same sex couples.

So I am going to need to CLARIFICATION where Mr.Baldwin really stands. IF this is all about being gods law and all that FORGET IT!! Ron Paul should NOT have just split the voting block up..like it or not BARR was the best man to get exposure. I've seen him on all the MSM channels more than any other Libertarian and had a decent shot of picking up a good percentage of the vote. It was wrong for Barr to not show up but then again I see Barr's point its DEFEATS the purpose of fighting for the liberty cause. So for me it is Bob Barr IF Baldwin is against being gay! If he is not against it and just does not want the marriage, then fine I don't have an issue with that. So there I've said all I can about this coming from the perspective of someone who thought they were straight but REALLY WAS GAY ALL ALONG!!!! I am sorry this had to be a very very long story but I think its important for these thumpers to realize what the real truth of the matter is moral or immoral!!!!!! And yes to the one poster who said WE ARE ALL GAY,STRAIGHT,TRANS. OR WHATEVER YOU ARE ALL OF US ARE GODS CHILDREN NO MATTER WHAT!!!!

constituent
10-11-2008, 05:05 PM
*yawn*


who farted?

TurtleBurger
10-11-2008, 11:02 PM
I am pretty amazed that the Libertarian Party makes this issue so central to their platform. The gay lobby is no friend to libertarianism.
Homosexuals can already get married in this country. They can find a Methodist pastor, say their vows, and they're done. What they want is not the right to say vows to each other (which is already a first amendment right), but they want the government to force third parties (employers, insurance providers, etc) to recognize their status, which is hardly a libertarian aim. In Canada, it's illegal for religious organizations to refuse their facilities for homosexual events; in fact its a "hate crime" even to say a discouraging word about homosexuality. In other words, the homosexual movement is not satisfied with securing their own rights; they want to infringe on everyone else's. No doubt, the American homosexual activists want the same here as they have accomplished in Canada. The Libertarian Party should be opposing the homosexual agenda more vigorously than anyone else, because its very essence is an attack on our freedom of association and even our free speech.

torchbearer
10-11-2008, 11:04 PM
I am pretty amazed that the Libertarian Party makes this issue so central to their platform. The gay lobby is no friend to libertarianism.
Homosexuals can already get married in this country. They can find a Methodist pastor, say their vows, and they're done. What they want is not the right to say vows to each other (which is already a first amendment right), but they want the government to force third parties (employers, insurance providers, etc) to recognize their status, which is hardly a libertarian aim. In Canada, it's illegal for religious organizations to refuse their facilities for homosexual events; in fact its a "hate crime" even to say a discouraging word about homosexuality. In other words, the homosexual movement is not satisfied with securing their own rights; they want to infringe on everyone else's. No doubt, the American homosexual activists want the same here as they have accomplished in Canada. The Libertarian Party should be opposing the homosexual agenda more vigorously than anyone else, because its very essence is an attack on our freedom of association and even our free speech.

It doesn't matter if a "group" is for the LP. their individual rights are still rights just the same.

hypnagogue
10-11-2008, 11:35 PM
Religion. The most needlessly divisive thing ever? I think so.

TurtleBurger
10-11-2008, 11:37 PM
It doesn't matter if a "group" is for the LP. their individual rights are still rights just the same.

Not if the "individual right" they seek is the right to use the government as a club to force me to accept their lifestyle. Your right to swing your fist ends when your fist reaches my nose.

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 12:07 AM
Religion. The most needlessly divisive thing ever? I think so.

QFT.

Well said.

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 12:10 AM
Not if the "individual right" they seek is the right to use the government as a club to force me to accept their lifestyle. Your right to swing your fist ends when your fist reaches my nose.

You're saying the LP shouldn't support gay rights because the majority of gays aren't libertarians? Are you that much of an idiot?

Any principled person would support the rights of a minority, whether that minority agrees with them or not.

revolutionary8
10-12-2008, 12:42 AM
SICK
People are SICKERTYSICK.
please ignore the idiot above...

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 12:47 AM
SICK
People are SICKERTYSICK.
please ignore the idiot above...

Wtf?

If you're going to argue, do it. Otherwise, get off the forums.

Libertarian_Rebel
10-12-2008, 01:05 AM
I am pretty amazed that the Libertarian Party makes this issue so central to their platform. The gay lobby is no friend to libertarianism.
Homosexuals can already get married in this country. They can find a Methodist pastor, say their vows, and they're done. What they want is not the right to say vows to each other (which is already a first amendment right), but they want the government to force third parties (employers, insurance providers, etc) to recognize their status, which is hardly a libertarian aim. In Canada, it's illegal for religious organizations to refuse their facilities for homosexual events; in fact its a "hate crime" even to say a discouraging word about homosexuality. In other words, the homosexual movement is not satisfied with securing their own rights; they want to infringe on everyone else's. No doubt, the American homosexual activists want the same here as they have accomplished in Canada. The Libertarian Party should be opposing the homosexual agenda more vigorously than anyone else, because its very essence is an attack on our freedom of association and even our free speech.

Are you pig headed or something? Are we humans or do you consider gays to be an abomination and we don't deserve any benefits? Who said ALL gay men/women infringe on everyone else? The bedroom is the bedroom and is a place of PRIVACY and MOST wouldn't even let you know what they really are, except the occasional flaunting queen and bull dike. You sound like some kind of islamic extremist with this kind of talk and its that kind of talk that makes a gay person just hide who they really are from everyone else. Your pathetic!

Peace&Freedom
10-12-2008, 08:10 AM
Are you pig headed or something? Are we humans or do you consider gays to be an abomination and we don't deserve any benefits? Who said ALL gay men/women infringe on everyone else? The bedroom is the bedroom and is a place of PRIVACY and MOST wouldn't even let you know what they really are, except the occasional flaunting queen and bull dike. You sound like some kind of islamic extremist with this kind of talk and its that kind of talk that makes a gay person just hide who they really are from everyone else. Your pathetic!

It appears you are the one who is pigheaded and pathetic, in that you made no attempt to address any of the substance of the post you quoted. That poster didn't say all gays infringe on others, but pointed out the actual legal effects current Canadian laws have on infringing on all religious groups there. That is the real impact of secularist uniformity, an extremism that is far worse than Islam.

V4Vendetta
10-12-2008, 08:18 AM
Ah, you see. Those anti-barr guys were really just anti-LP, CP subservients. I knew it. Damn theocrats, they're coniving liars.

Please explain.
I guess you could call Ron Paul himself a sellout, using your logic.
I like Libertarians, I found out about Ron Paul about 4 years ago.
I didn't even know he ran as a libertarian in '88 till he started running again lastyear.
I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he the one guy I trust, and has the closest policy to Ron Paul's'.

Bob Barr, Former CIA, Republican, who voted for the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act.
He also refuses to mention he is a Libertarian whenever interviewed.

The only sell out I see, is the Libertarian Party for nominating such a NeoCon over Mary!

And the fact that he didn't show up for the Press Conference at the NPC with Paul, Nader, McKinney, & Baldwin. That that also played a part in my decision.

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin.

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 08:37 AM
You're saying the LP shouldn't support gay rights because the majority of gays aren't libertarians? Are you that much of an idiot?

Any principled person would support the rights of a minority, whether that minority agrees with them or not.

No, I'm saying that the LP shouldn't support "gay rights" because the "rights" that gays seek are actually infringements on the rights of others. "Gay rights" are in the same category as "right to a welfare check" and "right to free healthcare".

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 08:45 AM
No, I'm saying that the LP shouldn't support "gay rights" because the "rights" that gays seek are actually infringements on the rights of others. "Gay rights" are in the same category as "right to a welfare check" and "right to free healthcare".

How is a gay couple getting married an infringement on my rights?

Watch now, your bigotry is showing...

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 08:48 AM
I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he the one guy I trust, and has the closest policy to Ron Paul's'.

Yeah, think again buddy. I don't remember Dr. Paul ever quoting the bible and saying the nation should adopt christian "values" as law.

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 09:00 AM
How is a gay couple getting married an infringement on my rights?

Watch now, your bigotry is showing...

Like I pointed out before, there is no law preventing homosexuals from holding a wedding ceremony. The question is whether they should be given government marriage licenses. Why do you suppose that gays want government marriage licenses? One reason is so they can file joint tax returns which I will grant is a legitimate concern, but it would be far easier to change the joint filing rules than to redefine marriage. What other reasons do you see?

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 09:05 AM
Yeah, think again buddy. I don't remember Dr. Paul ever quoting the bible and saying the nation should adopt christian "values" as law.

Merry Christmas to all, and please share my wishes for peace on earth and goodwill toward men in 2007.
-- Ron Paul, Christmas 2006

The "Peace on earth and goodwill toward men" part is a direct quote from the Bible.

Libertarian_Rebel
10-12-2008, 11:11 AM
Yeah, think again buddy. I don't remember Dr. Paul ever quoting the bible and saying the nation should adopt christian "values" as law.

Yeah this is exactly the point. He has only stated we need to live by the CONSTITUTION. We have freedom of religion but for all to live by the bible is entirely different. I believe in god and have faith but I will not live by the bible or have it be law for that matter

So can someone clarify what Baldwins stance really is so I know what to do. If Baldwin is against who I am then he's not getting my vote. If it is only about marriage then I don't have a problem with it, but I can tell you now I know some activist who would ridicule me for not standing by gay marriage

Turtleburger, your really are starting to sound like a bigot..on the ignore list you go! I don't care to hear any more of this bible thumping

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 11:59 AM
Yeah this is exactly the point. He has only stated we need to live by the CONSTITUTION. We have freedom of religion but for all to live by the bible is entirely different. I believe in god and have faith but I will not live by the bible or have it be law for that matter

So can someone clarify what Baldwins stance really is so I know what to do. If Baldwin is against who I am then he's not getting my vote. If it is only about marriage then I don't have a problem with it, but I can tell you now I know some activist who would ridicule me for not standing by gay marriage

Turtleburger, your really are starting to sound like a bigot..on the ignore list you go! I don't care to hear any more of this bible thumping

Awesome! I've never been on an ignore list before. I feel like I'm finally part of the RPF family!

hillbilly123069
10-12-2008, 03:09 PM
I could have told you that much.
I don't diss on baldwin, but he won't get my vote.
Of course, I have Ron Paul to vote for on the ballot.
Your vote will not be counted if Dr Paul does not have the proper paperwork turned in for the individual states.

torchbearer
10-12-2008, 03:10 PM
Your vote will not be counted if Dr Paul does not have the proper paperwork turned in for the individual states.

http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/NEWS01/810120333&GID=Vca96WgRD3ATfLEhMTi8foemBWU8AxmMO3p4qqD8XoE%3D
That is me they are talking about in this article- Brent Sanders.
We got him on the ballot.

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 03:59 PM
Why do you suppose that gays want government marriage licenses?

Oh, I dunno. I'll ballpark it. Maybe because they want to be treated like everyone else!?!?


Merry Christmas to all, and please share my wishes for peace on earth and goodwill toward men in 2007.
-- Ron Paul, Christmas 2006

The "Peace on earth and goodwill toward men" part is a direct quote from the Bible.

How cute. This proves you can't even come up with one credible instance. Your argument fails. RP may be a religious man, but he's no bible thumper. He realizes how dangerous religion becomes when it is introduced into law. Baldwin isn't intelligent enough to see this.


I don't care to hear any more of this bible thumping

QFT! Ever since Dr. Paul dropped out of the primaries this forum has been a haven for Bible-thumpers. Religion is doing what it does best, distracting and polarizing the people.

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 04:28 PM
Oh, I dunno. I'll ballpark it. Maybe because they want to be treated like everyone else!?!?

Treated like everyone else by whom? I was looking for concrete specifics.


How cute. This proves you can't even come up with one credible instance. Your argument fails. RP may be a religious man, but he's no bible thumper. He realizes how dangerous religion becomes when it is introduced into law. Baldwin isn't intelligent enough to see this.

What's not credible about the example I gave? He didn't put that line in there flippantly. Also, in the debates, Ron Paul defended his foreign policy stance by calling Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace, another direct reference to the Bible. Just because he doesn't always quote chapter and verse doesn't mean his views are not deeply rooted in Christian Scripture and Tradition.

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 06:17 PM
Treated like everyone else by whom? I was looking for concrete specifics.

This is idiotic. Obviously they wish to be treated fairly and justly by everyone, and seek to be afforded the same rights and privileges a heterosexual person is granted.


What's not credible about the example I gave? He didn't put that line in there flippantly. Also, in the debates, Ron Paul defended his foreign policy stance by calling Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace, another direct reference to the Bible. Just because he doesn't always quote chapter and verse doesn't mean his views are not deeply rooted in Christian Scripture and Tradition.

Evidence? I've never heard Dr. Paul say that, let alone on national TV.

And wishing peace on earth and good will towards men is not religious in any way. People wanted peace on earth and good will towards men long before the bible was written. I am an atheist and, by the sound of it, I want peace on earth and good will towards men much more than you do. So trying to equate that quote to strictly biblical or religious origins is absurd. Try again.

DRV45N05
10-12-2008, 06:23 PM
Dr. Paul believes in marriage between a man and a woman.

However, he believes it should be left to the state.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

"Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."

This is a disingenuous interpretation of his statement. He uses language like this to appeal to evangelicals with a federalist stance.

Dr. Paul supports domestic contractual rights for gays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M

Ron Paul is not a homophobe.

DRV45N05
10-12-2008, 06:25 PM
Here's what you don't understand. Marriage is NOT a civil union, it's a BIBLICAL union, and the BIBLE specifies what that union is, NOT YOU, and certainly not a GOVERNMENT. So take your disrespect for someone's religion and place it gently, with lots of lube, where the sun doesn't shine. And stop thinking you have any damn right to tell a religious person, what their religious institution is or is not. Marriage, is a man and a woman and NOTHING else. If a man and a man want a legal union of some sort, let them have it, but don't go trying to destroy one of the foundations of a person's faith by attacking it and telling them it has to be something else, and has not been for millennia..

Marriage isn't just a Biblical union. Marriage is a union recognized by the Koran, the Torah, by Hindu and Buddhist tradition, etc.. Each religion has the right to define marriage however it wishes, and no religion has a monopoly on marriage.

Gays have full rights to domestic partnership contracts that should be enforced by the law in equal terms with heterosexual marriage contracts.

DRV45N05
10-12-2008, 06:33 PM
I am pretty amazed that the Libertarian Party makes this issue so central to their platform. The gay lobby is no friend to libertarianism.
Homosexuals can already get married in this country. They can find a Methodist pastor, say their vows, and they're done. What they want is not the right to say vows to each other (which is already a first amendment right), but they want the government to force third parties (employers, insurance providers, etc) to recognize their status, which is hardly a libertarian aim. In Canada, it's illegal for religious organizations to refuse their facilities for homosexual events; in fact its a "hate crime" even to say a discouraging word about homosexuality. In other words, the homosexual movement is not satisfied with securing their own rights; they want to infringe on everyone else's. No doubt, the American homosexual activists want the same here as they have accomplished in Canada. The Libertarian Party should be opposing the homosexual agenda more vigorously than anyone else, because its very essence is an attack on our freedom of association and even our free speech.

This is disingenuous. What the "homosexual lobby" wants on the issue of marriages/civil unions is to have their contracts enforced in equal terms with straight couples by the state.

Is ENDA too far? Yes, but don't misrepresent the opposing side of your argument.

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 07:21 PM
This is idiotic. Obviously they wish to be treated fairly and justly by everyone, and seek to be afforded the same rights and privileges a heterosexual person is granted.

Does that "everyone" include me?




Evidence? I've never heard Dr. Paul say that, let alone on national TV.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul357.html
Read the whole article, it's good.



And wishing peace on earth and good will towards men is not religious in any way. People wanted peace on earth and good will towards men long before the bible was written. I am an atheist and, by the sound of it, I want peace on earth and good will towards men much more than you do. So trying to equate that quote to strictly biblical or religious origins is absurd. Try again.
That phrase is lifted word for word from the Bible. I dare you to find any pre-Biblical use of that exact phrase.

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 07:30 PM
This is disingenuous. What the "homosexual lobby" wants on the issue of marriages/civil unions is to have their contracts enforced in equal terms with straight couples by the state.

Is ENDA too far? Yes, but don't misrepresent the opposing side of your argument.

You don't need homosexual marriage to enforce a contract between two people. Contracts can already be privately drawn up and as long as they are legally signed by all concerned parties they can be enforced by the State. The purpose of granting marriage licenses to homosexuals is not to ensure their contractual agreement is enforced. The purpose is to grant government recognition to the status of the relationship, and by extension, the recognition of all the people represented by that government. It is then theoretically illegal for any person under that government to withhold recognition of the marriage, since the government has already signed off on the marriage in our names. This is why the term "marriage license" is used instead of "marriage contract". A "license" implies state consent and recognition of the action being licensed.

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 08:14 PM
Does that "everyone" include me?

Yes, I daresay they'd hope you'd accept them. However you certainly have no obligation to do so. In any case, you have no right to stop them from entering into voluntary contracts. End of story.




http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul357.html
Read the whole article, it's good.

So... were you lying when you said he said that in the debates? Tsk tsk. I don't think your invisible man likes lying very much. Regardless, as expected, Dr. Paul was making no reference to political or economic policy, he was simply remarking upon the current events in the war and wishing his friends a merry xmas. Hardly relevant. :rolleyes:


That phrase is lifted word for word from the Bible. I dare you to find any pre-Biblical use of that exact phrase.

You completely missed my point. The notion of people wanting peace on earth and good will towards men did not originate with the bible. And if you think the original authors of the bible used those exact words, you're horribly mistaken. The bible has been translated so many times I can't see how anyone gives it any credibility.

You don't have to be religious to want peace on earth, or promote good will towards men. That was my point. It is not difficult to grasp.

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 08:35 PM
Yes, I daresay they'd hope you'd accept them. However you certainly have no obligation to do so. In any case, you have no right to stop them from entering into voluntary contracts. End of story.

That's an arrangement I'm completely satisfied with.





So... were you lying when you said he said that in the debates? Tsk tsk. I don't think your invisible man likes lying very much. Regardless, as expected, Dr. Paul was making no reference to political or economic policy, he was simply remarking upon the current events in the war and wishing his friends a merry xmas. Hardly relevant. :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure I never mentioned a debate.




You completely missed my point. The notion of people wanting peace on earth and good will towards men did not originate with the bible. And if you think the original authors of the bible used those exact words, you're horribly mistaken. The bible has been translated so many times I can't see how anyone gives it any credibility.

You don't have to be religious to want peace on earth, or promote good will towards men. That was my point. It is not difficult to grasp.
That's because your point changed. Your original point was that Ron Paul never quoted the Bible. This is a clear undisputable counterexample to your claim.

tribute_13
10-12-2008, 09:25 PM
ummm.... Christians don't do Popes.......

:eek: OMFG!!! I was totally under the impression that Christianity was divided between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics having Popes... Corn is a vegetable but a vegetable in not necessarily corn... :cool:

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 09:28 PM
That's an arrangement I'm completely satisfied with.

Not according to your previous posts, where you obviously take issue with the voluntary contracts of homosexuals when they included the word "marriage."




I'm pretty sure I never mentioned a debate.


Also, in the debates, Ron Paul defended his foreign policy stance by calling Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace

^

I'm pretty sure you did.


That's because your point changed. Your original point was that Ron Paul never quoted the Bible. This is a clear undisputable counterexample to your claim.

My point didn't change at all. My point from the beginning was that the phrase "Peace on earth and goodwill toward men" does not carry any religious meaning at all. It is a completely secular statement. Just because the words appeared in the bible does not mean the words are sacred.

And my original point was that Ron Paul does not quote the bible in his political or economic teachings/speeches. He also does not advocate laws based on religion. You are trying to twist my words by resurrecting an irrelevant article where he wishes his readers merry xmas. A sorry display, indeed.

TurtleBurger
10-12-2008, 09:46 PM
Not according to your previous posts, where you obviously take issue with the voluntary contracts of homosexuals when they included the word "marriage."

Wow, this must be a really difficult concept. I did not take an issue with contracts, I took issue with licenses. There's a very clear difference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/license





^
I'm pretty sure you did.

Nice catch, although that was for an unrelated quote.



My point didn't change at all. My point from the beginning was that the phrase "Peace on earth and goodwill toward men" does not carry any religious meaning at all. It is a completely secular statement. Just because the words appeared in the bible does not mean the words are sacred.

And my original point was that Ron Paul does not quote the bible in his political or economic teachings/speeches. He also does not advocate laws based on religion. You are trying to twist my words by resurrecting an irrelevant article where he wishes his readers merry xmas. A sorry display, indeed.

If that was too irrelevant, here's a better picture of Ron Paul's view of religion and state:


The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Brassmouth
10-12-2008, 10:16 PM
Wow, this must be a really difficult concept. I did not take an issue with contracts, I took issue with licenses. There's a very clear difference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/license

Regardless of how you word it, gay marriage in no way infringes on your rights. Your beliefs are based utterly on superstition and destructive religious dogma.


Nice catch, although that was for an unrelated quote.

Actually it was for the exact quote you were referencing. That began the whole RP quote fiasco you started. Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts. I take it you're having trouble remembering your own conversation.



If that was too irrelevant, here's a better picture of Ron Paul's view of religion and state:

Again, irrelevant. Dr. Paul is not stating that religious beliefs should influence law. He is merely stating his thoughts on intent of the Founders with respect to the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence. I'd say "try again," but I'm frankly getting tired of repeating myself to someone who is obviously so close-minded he is incapable of grasping a simple concept. I suggest we let this thread die. It's clear that Baldwin is indisputably a religious zealot, only concerned with pushing his disturbing views on others. This thread was only the latest in a long line of threads that established this fact.

mitty
10-13-2008, 08:45 AM
Again, irrelevant. Dr. Paul is not stating that religious beliefs should influence law. He is merely stating his thoughts on intent of the Founders with respect to the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence. I'd say "try again," but I'm frankly getting tired of repeating myself to someone who is obviously so close-minded he is incapable of grasping a simple concept. I suggest we let this thread die. It's clear that Baldwin is indisputably a religious zealot, only concerned with pushing his disturbing views on others. This thread was only the latest in a long line of threads that established this fact.

yawn. obviously dr. paul supports baldwin forcing people to convert to christianity or sentencing them to death. yet you still support ron paul. how....hypocritical?

Theocrat
10-13-2008, 10:48 AM
yawn. obviously dr. paul supports baldwin forcing people to convert to christianity or sentencing them to death. yet you still support ron paul. how....hypocritical?

Where in Dr. Baldwin's platform did he ever state that he would force people to convert to Christianity? I wonder if you've ever watched this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZB8SlPnTE) where Dr. Baldwin explains his beliefs about religious freedom. If you haven't, please do so, and cease the slanderous remarks.

Dary
10-13-2008, 11:11 AM
Why would anyone oppose marriage licenses for gay people?

What is wrong with redefining the states definition of marriage?

Why shouldn't all people be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges under the law? If that means redefining the states definition to include the ability for gay people to get marriage licenses, then fine.

As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone.

If the state recognizes and consents to hetro marriages, it should it consent to gay marriages too.

What? Gay people are forced to recognize hetro marriages, but hetros aren't forced to recognize gay marriages? That doesn't seem fair to me.

I'd rather see the government get out of it all together, but until it does, then I support any gay person fighting for equal protection and I'd vote for it. If there were an initiative to do away with the whole thing, then I'd support that too.

torchbearer
10-13-2008, 11:58 AM
Why would anyone oppose marriage licenses for gay people?

What is wrong with redefining the states definition of marriage?

Why shouldn't all people be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges under the law? If that means redefining the states definition to include the ability for gay people to get marriage licenses, then fine.

As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone.

If the state recognizes and consents to hetro marriages, it should it consent to gay marriages too.

What? Gay people are forced to recognize hetro marriages, but hetros aren't forced to recognize gay marriages? That doesn't seem fair to me.

I'd rather see the government get out of it all together, but until it does, then I support any gay person fighting for equal protection and I'd vote for it. If there were an initiative to do away with the whole thing, then I'd support that too.

+1

RonPaulMania
10-13-2008, 01:45 PM
Why would anyone oppose marriage licenses for gay people?

Because it's against natural law, and hence the abdication of reason.


What is wrong with redefining the states definition of marriage?

Read above.


Why shouldn't all people be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges under the law? If that means redefining the states definition to include the ability for gay people to get marriage licenses, then fine.

Ditto.


As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone.

If the state recognizes and consents to hetro marriages, it should it consent to gay marriages too.

So state's rights which forbid public homosexuality based on natural law and (gulp) Christian ethics, which deeply permeated the law, should all be thrown out? Let me tell you something, when you abdicate reason excessive abdication is soon to follow. As an example, look at what happens when you claim an enemy and then fight it without just principles.


What? Gay people are forced to recognize hetro marriages, but hetros aren't forced to recognize gay marriages? That doesn't seem fair to me.

Reason is fair. Being unreasonable is not fair. Imposing sentiment is not reasonable. Feelings are irrelevant.

Let me tell you something I've seen world-wide now, whenever Christian justice, or natural law is brought up it brings out the hatred and vile language not seen by those professing natural law. Labels are used rather than rational discourse is the course of argument, and then turned on us as wackos when they haven't used the semblance of logic. People scream "We're being attacked" and claim we come out of nowhere, when in fact you can see secularism being propagated more commonly and violently in these chat boards.

Before this goes any further, can anyone here who has opposing views explain if this country wasn't built on Christian law explain why homosexuality was illegal in every state (it was a state issue), with the last state of Texas recently repealing it's law 4 or 5 years ago? Part of the loss of liberty is the loss of reason and the denial of natural law.

Dary
10-13-2008, 03:22 PM
Because it's against natural law, and hence the abdication of reason.
If it weren't for humans, then marriage itself would be against natural law. Marriage is a man made institution (just like divorce).

There may be examples in nature where life long relationships are maintained till death, but there are all kinds of other relationships too. Lion prides, bee cultures, elephant societies. Yes and even homosexual relationships within the animal kingdom and regardless of the reasons for it (low rank, shortages, disease, whatever) it happens.

In the plant world, animal world (and yes even in the human world) there are many examples of hermaphrodite species.

Even ducks don't apply for marriage licenses.

So I don't buy the whole natural law argument. I suspect that the intention is to equate natural law with Christian law (and I don't buy that either).

Besides, if two people love each other and they want to obtain a marriage license for the purposes of getting married, then, that seems pretty natural and reasonable to me.

I was always taught that love was universal.

As far as rationality goes, are you saying that people who act unreasonable should have their rights and privileges denied? Because if you are then I suspect we would all be in deep trouble. Is there one of us perfect?


So state's rights which forbid public homosexuality based on natural law and (gulp) Christian ethics, which deeply permeated the law, should all be thrown out?

I'm saying what I said. "As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone."


Let me tell you something I've seen world-wide now, whenever Christian justice, or natural law is brought up it brings out the hatred and vile language not seen by those professing natural law. Labels are used rather than rational discourse is the course of argument, and then turned on us as wackos when they haven't used the semblance of logic. People scream "We're being attacked" and claim we come out of nowhere, when in fact you can see secularism being propagated more commonly and violently in these chat boards.

Well I don't know how any of that has to do with my post, the one that you are responding to, but yeah, I can see how that might happen. If someone were denying my rights and privileges, I'd be pretty pissed off too.


...can anyone here who has opposing views explain if this country wasn't built on Christian law explain why homosexuality was illegal in every state...

Can you explain how a group of authoritarian neo-cons took over the Republican Party, ran in into the ground and destroyed the country in the process? Same thing.

kombayn
10-13-2008, 03:41 PM
Because it's against natural law, and hence the abdication of reason.



Read above.



Ditto.



So state's rights which forbid public homosexuality based on natural law and (gulp) Christian ethics, which deeply permeated the law, should all be thrown out? Let me tell you something, when you abdicate reason excessive abdication is soon to follow. As an example, look at what happens when you claim an enemy and then fight it without just principles.



Reason is fair. Being unreasonable is not fair. Imposing sentiment is not reasonable. Feelings are irrelevant.

Let me tell you something I've seen world-wide now, whenever Christian justice, or natural law is brought up it brings out the hatred and vile language not seen by those professing natural law. Labels are used rather than rational discourse is the course of argument, and then turned on us as wackos when they haven't used the semblance of logic. People scream "We're being attacked" and claim we come out of nowhere, when in fact you can see secularism being propagated more commonly and violently in these chat boards.

Before this goes any further, can anyone here who has opposing views explain if this country wasn't built on Christian law explain why homosexuality was illegal in every state (it was a state issue), with the last state of Texas recently repealing it's law 4 or 5 years ago? Part of the loss of liberty is the loss of reason and the denial of natural law.

Oh please, just admit it. You don't like homosexuals and you don't want them to marry because for whatever reason, you think it's a Christians right to inherit the word marriage.

I would just like to say, welcome to the 21st century, we're in a time where our societies culture is changing. We're about to have a black President, blacks, whites, latinos, asians, gays, etc. are living together peacefully.

I fully support the rights of gay people getting married. Our Declaration of Independence stated that everyone was created equally, so in my eyes that means gays have equal rights as straights and they should be allowed to marry. Otherwise, you're discriminating and that's that.

Then again I live in a socially diverse area where things like this are more commonly accepted. In the end, Gay Marriage will eventually be a worldwide accepted ideal. It's just like when the blacks fought for their civil rights and wanted to end segregation. It'll happen, there is nothing you can do to stop it either.

RonPaulMania
10-13-2008, 03:52 PM
If it weren't for humans, then marriage itself would be against natural law. Marriage is a man made institution (just like divorce).

Marriage is both a man and a God made institution. The reasons for marriage are based on natural law. Heterosexual activity is part of the natural law, homosexuality is against the natural law. Public homosexuality is not only against natural law, but has huge health risks not inherent with heterosexuality. This is a known fact.


Yes and even homosexual relationships within the animal kingdom and regardless of the reasons for it (low rank, shortages, disease, whatever) it happens.

That's part of the homosexual lie. There are no animals that actively commit the act of homosexuality as a specific act intrinsic to their nature. This has been debunked, but just like many common beliefs which are urban legend it continues within certain circles.


In the plant world, animal world (and yes even in the human world) there are many examples of hermaphrodite species.

The natural law isn't an application of animals to man, but man to reason.


Even ducks don't apply for marriage licenses.
I don't know how that applies. No duck commits homosexual acts.


So I don't buy the whole natural law argument. I suspect that the intention is to equate natural law with Christian law (and I don't buy that either).
The natural law applies nature to reason. Man isn't an animal. Animals don't have reason. The natural law was believed in before Christianity. Read Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, written 300 years before Christ.


Besides, if two people love each other and they want to obtain a marriage license for the purposes of getting married, then, that seems pretty natural and reasonable to me.

Again, your sentiments are irrelevant. My feelings about eating dynamite is irrelevant. The first principle of natural law is to identify the act and it's purpose, and then apply ethics to those purposes. The eyes are made for seeing, and the mind for learning truth. If I was opposed to learning 2+2=blue you would agree, and that's part of natural law. It applies to all acts judged by their proper act. Teleology has been studied and taught before Christian morals.



I was always taught that love was universal.

Misplaced love can be detrimental and a hindrance to what love is, namely the desire to seek the objective good for yourself and others. If it doesn't apply to objective good than it does not apply. If my love for someone is restrictive like stalking it wouldn't be good, if my love was against reason it would destroy one's search for objective goodness.


As far as rationality goes, are you saying that people who act unreasonable should have their rights and privileges denied? Because if you are then I suspect we would all be in deep trouble. Is there one of us perfect?

It depends on the effect. If the effect is limited to acts that would not hurt society as a whole than no. Personal sins such as lying should not be punished, when they become public and conspicuous libel a person can have recourse to capital reimbursement and even criminal actions. The word "fire" if said privately has no recourse, but yelled in a building is a crime. The act of homosexuality is so abhorrent against nature it should be public prosecuted, and privately tolerated.


I'm saying what I said. "As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone."

What you are saying is that everyone, without recourse to reason, should be given a marriage license. Should fathers be able to marry daughters then? You haven't thought this through.


Well I don't know how any of that has to do with my post, the one that you are responding to, but yeah, I can see how that might happen. If someone were denying my rights and privileges, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

I wasn't responding to your post, and therefore held it to the end. I was responding to the people screaming that we are attacking them, but we aren't using the "F" word, or using disgusting language. If you think they have that right maybe I should do it back for effect. Of course the same such people would scream even more and push for a ban against my liberties, but I expect that from secular totalitarians who prize the religion of secularity higher than anything else and defend it staunchly and will shout down any other expression than their own. You see we are birds of the same feather, except I take reason for my ground, and most of your side take secular talking points without much thought and throw labels around as a good response.


Can you explain how a group of authoritarian neo-cons took over the Republican Party, ran in into the ground and destroyed the country in the process? Same thing.

I'll tell you what, if don't purposely evade a question that makes you uncomfortable because it contradicts your purpose and answer it I'll be happy to answer your inquiry. You cannot expect me to answer a question with a question as an answer. Your evading the topic, but it's obvious.

Dary
10-13-2008, 04:57 PM
Marriage is both a man and a God made institution.

Whatever. You win. Who could fight against that logic? God says so, so it must be true.

You speak of reason then use God to back up your argument. God requires faith. Reason be damned.


There are no animals that actively commit the act of homosexuality as a specific act intrinsic to their nature.

How do you know? The fact that they do it in itself makes it natural.


I don't know how that applies. No duck commits homosexual acts.

It was apparently a vain attempt at humor in order to keep the conversation somewhat lighthearted. Since it was lost, they don't apply for marriage licenses either. That's how it applies.


Again, your sentiments are irrelevant.

You said reason was fair.

I said that "What? Gay people are forced to recognize hetro marriages, but hetros aren't forced to recognize gay marriages? That doesn't seem fair to me."

I was speaking of fairness. Reason. Why are you trying to pigeonhole my agruements as being solely based on feelings?


Misplaced love can be detrimental and a hindrance to what love is,

Who are you to determine which love is detrimental? God? Wasn't it god who said do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Would you have gay people deny your privileges and rights?


It depends on the effect. If the effect is limited to acts that would not hurt society as a whole than no.

And here I thought that we were living in a free country, one in which individual rights we held above all else. Granting a marriage license has no direct threat against you or anyone else.


Should fathers be able to marry daughters then?

Are they consenting adults?


...most of your side take secular talking points...

...evade a question that makes you uncomfortable...

I'm not evading anything or uncomfortable. I'm not on anyone's side and I don't have a purpose. I'm just a guy on a message board who saw something that I disagree with so I thought I would post about it.

Let me put it another way. In the same way that a group of authoritarian neo-cons took over the Republican Party and destroyed the country, so it was that a group of authoritarian neo-cons took control and passed laws against a people they considered immoral.

TurtleBurger
10-13-2008, 08:34 PM
I'm saying what I said. "As long as the state is going to require marriage licenses, then it should grant them to everyone."


You're right. The state shouldn't grant marriage licenses to anyone.

RonPaulMania
10-13-2008, 09:36 PM
Oh please, just admit it. You don't like homosexuals and you don't want them to marry because for whatever reason, you think it's a Christians right to inherit the word marriage.

Like a typical secularist you don't use reason and make assumptions. If my mother was an alcoholic should I hate her too? If a person commits an act it doesn't mean I hate them, but the act is still reprehensible.


I would just like to say, welcome to the 21st century, we're in a time where our societies culture is changing. We're about to have a black President, blacks, whites, latinos, asians, gays, etc. are living together peacefully.

What does race and homosexuality have to do with anything? As a white male I spent 2 years of my life working with poor hispanics and blacks in Belize and Guatemala. Do you want to compare records?


I fully support the rights of gay people getting married. Our Declaration of Independence stated that everyone was created equally, so in my eyes that means gays have equal rights as straights and they should be allowed to marry. Otherwise, you're discriminating and that's that.

Does that mean that a father can marry his daughter too?


Then again I live in a socially diverse area where things like this are more commonly accepted. In the end, Gay Marriage will eventually be a worldwide accepted ideal. It's just like when the blacks fought for their civil rights and wanted to end segregation. It'll happen, there is nothing you can do to stop it either.

Actually there is, and that's move. I'm not there yet. What's strange is this Christianity you pretend is a curse among the people is the same thing that kept most countries free. Well you can have your secular world, slavery comes free of charge. If you think Christianity doesn't allow divergence of opinion, wait until the world you think is coming gives you a shot at free speech.

RonPaulMania
10-13-2008, 10:14 PM
God says so, so it must be true.

You speak of reason then use God to back up your argument. God requires faith. Reason be damned.

So reason and God are exclusive? You know you haven't thought about a whole lot about life if you really believe that, because for one I've never said that, and two you are making a false dichotomy. What if I said I like reason and my imagination, would reason be damned as well? The word "and" connotes 2 separate realities.

I never said God said so, that's why I appealed to natural reason. Although, parenthetically speaking, if God does say so it is true. Philosophy does not contradict theology.


How do you know?

Because I've studied issues thoroughly and have studied both sides of issues. There is no natural homosexuality in the entire animal kingdom with actual acts performed. There are simulations for dominance, but it is not relationship based. I'm not calling you an ignoramus, just that you should be familiar with both sides of an argument to realize in this field of study there is no argument as there are no facts to support the "animal" proofs of homosexuality which have been debunked as much as the "Missing Link" of the 50's they found.



I was speaking of fairness. Reason. Why are you trying to pigeonhole my agruements as being solely based on feelings?

You have referred to what you think, which is really how you have an intuition about. These are based on sentiment, not objectivity. You see it doesn't matter what something seems like or what we think about something, but what something is. Our minds are made to grasp reality, not reality for the mind. The statement "I think" is an act of trying to make a conclusion, not to state them. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, which is understandable.


Who are you to determine which love is detrimental? God? Wasn't it god who said do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Would you have gay people deny your privileges and rights?

Telling the truth is what I would want others doing onto to me. My subjective feelings about what I want done is not the same thing as true charity. Charity belongs with truth. God said to worship in spirit and truth, that what we hear in the ear we shout from the rooftop, that we are to respect no person but truth. If a homosexual denied my rights I would still in all charity tell him that he has denied the laws of God, and has denied natural law (reason).

I have tried to appeal to teleological truths from natural law and not the Bible. Teleology is the study of cause and effect from natural law. It's used to understand how things work. The eye is made for seeing, etc.. It's not hard, and you don't need Scripture.

You certainly aren't going to tell me what is or isn't Scripture and pretend it's my fault for quoting the Bible when I haven't done it once. You know what you are doing? You are trying to find a hole that isn't there as a contradistinction and ram it down my throat as an argument I've never made. This is commonly called a straw-man argument, in logic they would call this an illogical supposition based on a poorly constructed compound premise. I prefer the term strawman.


And here I thought that we were living in a free country, one in which individual rights we held above all else. Granting a marriage license has no direct threat against you or anyone else.

But it does. Freedom implies morality. Think of one freedom which doesn't imply the moral code. No is free to steal, murder, scream fire, or hurt other people randomly either through slander or physically. When someone dies by another's hand we judge the morality of the act as either manslaughter, murder, or self-defense. Morality is the basis for all law.


Are they consenting adults?
In this question yes. Can a father lawfully marry his daughter in your version of freedom if they were consenting adults?


Let me put it another way. In the same way that a group of authoritarian neo-cons took over the Republican Party and destroyed the country, so it was that a group of authoritarian neo-cons took control and passed laws against a people they considered immoral.
I don't get the connection you are making, and if you want to elucidate me I'm completely open to hearing your argument, but I think you are saying that neo-cons destroyed the country based on the same view of law as myself. I would answer that people are prone to abuse no matter what name or blame you give them. Clinton did the same things as Bush from illegal war, going after Saddam, and all the spy routine on the American public.

I don't think it's a neo-con Rep or a liberal Dem thing, it's a power thing based on money. They pander to their constituencies to get the vote, and abuse power through their party to special interests. Do you really think Obama and the Dems are going to "change" anything?

You still haven't answered my question about the founding fathers view of homosexuality as a state law effectively prohibiting public displays in every state in this country until the last 40 years.

torchbearer
10-13-2008, 10:30 PM
And people wonder why the religious bigots get their asses raped on this forum all the time.
Its equal treatment under the law unless you are a ****** right?

I can't believe the shit I read on these forums sometimes.

Theocrat
10-14-2008, 12:29 AM
Suck it chuck. You are losing my vote.

Congressman Paul once said (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337),


Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity...

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Did Dr. Paul lose your vote, even though he stated this? If not, then why should your vote be lost for Dr. Baldwin just because of his views on marriage?

Dary
10-14-2008, 10:17 AM
So reason and God are exclusive?

Yes. When it comes to matters of god, reason is moot.


You know you haven't thought about a whole lot about life if you really believe that.

Right. Because if I had, then I would obviously come to the same conclusions as you right?


What if I said I like reason and my imagination, would reason be damned as well?

I'm not damning reason. But I am damning arguments where the claim is made that reason is the basis of the argument, but then god is used as a trump card.


You have referred to what you think...

Of course I have and so have you. But somehow only my arguments are based on sentiment whereas yours are solely based on objectivity despite your reliance on god, thinly veiled and disguised as natural law, to back them up.


God said to worship in spirit and truth, that what we hear in the ear we shout from the rooftop, that we are to respect no person but truth. If a homosexual denied my rights I would still in all charity tell him that he has denied the laws of God, and has denied natural law (reason).

See. There you go again. Claim reason but play the god card. I can't win. God trumps all.


You certainly aren't going to tell me what is or isn't Scripture and pretend it's my fault for quoting the Bible when I haven't done it once.

I most certainly am. You just did it. You said... "God said to worship in spirit and truth, that what we hear in the ear we shout from the rooftop, that we are to respect no person but truth."


Morality is the basis for all law.

You would "think" so. But there is no requirement on my part to be moral in order for me to object to being robbed or killed. Of course moralists will always claim it to be so, but I see no reason why we can't agree on certain "truths" without bringing morality into it.


You are trying to find a hole that isn't there as a contradistinction and ram it down my throat as an argument I've never made.

I'm not trying to ram anything down your throat. I was simply responding to a post where an objection was made to granting gay couples marriage licenses and voiced my disagreement with that whole notion.


Do you really think Obama and the Dems are going to "change" anything?

No. Why you would even ask that question? Is there anything in my posts where I have indicated that I would "think" such a thing?

But it really wouldn't matter anyway what I thought would it? Seeing as how my thoughts are nothing more than intuition, void of any objectivity and reason.


Can a father lawfully marry his daughter in your version of freedom if they were consenting adults?

I really don't care what two consenting adults agree to, as long as they are no direct threat to me and frankly, it's none of my business anyway.


I have tried to appeal to teleological truths from natural law and not the Bible.

Yes but you have also likened natural law to god's law.


Telling the truth is what I would want others doing onto to me.

Ok then. Based on your previous comments in defense of god's law I take it that you are a believer in god and in particular the Christian god, otherwise you wouldn't liken god's law to natural law and then use them in order to make the argument that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get marriage licenses. I also don't see how you could defend and believe in god's laws without believing in god. So here is some of your truth for you.

If you believe in god and believe that the bible is the word of god, then despite your good intentions you have refused to take him at his word when he said that by grace are ye saved through faith. That faith is the substance of things not seen (faith is not reason), and that only if you believe (and have faith) in your heart that god raised his son from the dead will you be saved.

Using reasoning in order to make a case for gods laws (ergo salvation) will guarantee you nothing and if you continue with that line of thinking, then you haven't understood anything he has said and according to the bible, you are doomed.

Proof of god's existence (and therefore god's laws) cannot be found anywhere in nature and no amount of reasoning and rationality will ever bring them into being. He made sure of it. The reason being is that he expects more from his children and that if proof were readily available then there would be no point in requiring faith therefore salvation becomes moot.

So, is there any room for faith in your strict adherence to reason? If so, then all of your claims of objectivity are null. For you cannot be fully objective if you have faith in god, and you cannot defend his laws nor have salvation without it. You cannot reason away faith. Or is it that you only believe in some of god's laws (in particular salvation vs. all others)?

As it is, all of your arguments collapse upon themselves.

To think all of this stemmed from whether or not gay couples should be allowed marriage licenses.

Dary
10-14-2008, 10:35 AM
I can't believe the shit I read on these forums sometimes.

Incredible ain't it? :rolleyes:

RonPaulMania
10-14-2008, 11:46 AM
Yes. When it comes to matters of god, reason is moot.

That' either a statement from ignorance or malice. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Right. Because if I had, then I would obviously come to the same conclusions as you right?

Yes, actually. You haven't studied minor or major logic and want to impose your illogical assertions on me as if you know what you are talking about without any connection.


I'm not damning reason. But I am damning arguments where the claim is made that reason is the basis of the argument, but then god is used as a trump card.

But you have never once proven reasonably or logically you are correct on matters of natural law.


Of course I have and so have you. But somehow only my arguments are based on sentiment whereas yours are solely based on objectivity despite your reliance on god, thinly veiled and disguised as natural law, to back them up.

This proves you are clueless. I have not quoted Scripture once nor have I ever used the God card because I know people do this on this message board. Do you want me to so you know what it looks like? I pointed to the Greeks belief in philosophy of natural law, 300 years before Christ. You just don't like facts because against a fact there is no argument. I'll tell you what, show me how Greeks were Christians before Christianity and how their natural law was a thinly veiled version of God's law. Here you are asserting I'm too Godly, below you assert I'm all about reason. You can't even argue cohesively.


See. There you go again. Claim reason but play the god card. I can't win. God trumps all.

Actually you were trying to quote Scripture, not I. So "there you go again". Can you stay on topic and realize when you quote Scripture I have to defend it? I haven't used Scripture once as MY argument. Again, below you have me juxtaposed to faith, so your arguments are running shallower by the second.


I most certainly am. You just did it. You said... "God said to worship in spirit and truth, that what we hear in the ear we shout from the rooftop, that we are to respect no person but truth."

I haven't made my case on Scripture, you used it. I'm only defending your warped understanding of it, but I haven't made my case on it. Let me simplify it:
-I made a case on natural law
-You replied quoting Scripture out of wack
-I replied to your assertion of Scripture, but that wasn't my case since people will claim I'm using God and hiding behind God.
Does that make sense?


You would "think" so. But there is no requirement on my part to be moral in order for me to object to being robbed or killed. Of course moralists will always claim it to be so, but I see no reason why we can't agree on certain "truths" without bringing morality into it.

So intentionality isn't part of law? Where did you come up with this? Let's say you throw out all morality in law, it would be absolute chaos with no principles of law whatsoever.


Yes but you have also likened natural law to god's law.

Because they are not incompatible, nor contradictory. Likening to God's law and natural law doesn't make natural law less relevant, or God's law that much incompatible with reason. All subsequent argument below you made relate to this. My belief of God or someone's unbelief of God has nothing to do with natural law, as it pre-existed Christianity.


If you believe in god and believe that the bible is the word of god, then despite your good intentions you have refused to take him at his word when he said that by grace are ye saved through faith. That faith is the substance of things not seen (faith is not reason), and that only if you believe (and have faith) in your heart that god raised his son from the dead will you be saved.

What have I said that contradicts that? I've been repeating that faith is not natural law and used the Greeks as proof.


Using reasoning in order to make a case for gods laws (ergo salvation) will guarantee you nothing and if you continue with that line of thinking, then you haven't understood anything he has said and according to the bible, you are doomed.

You don't know the difference between moral theology and ethics then do you? I haven't once brought in moral theology to make MY case, solely ethics.


Proof of god's existence (and therefore god's laws) cannot be found anywhere in nature and no amount of reasoning and rationality will ever bring them into being. He made sure of it.

At this point I'm ending the conversation. You don't know what you are talking about. The difference between arguing mathematics and philosophy is that math is easy to understand for the dummy when you say 2+2=4. Philosophy is based on clear thought, precision, and humility to learn. It's likened to a person who knowing nothing about Mangolian history asserts the Khans were cool guys in movies with big swords. Your knowledge of theology is so poorly based I almost wonder why you are arguing.

1st Proof of God's existence can be known without faith. Read Aristotle's five proofs which are elucidated by St. Thomas
2nd It is said so in Scripture "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Romans 1:20
3rd I've never asserted what you claim here but contradict previously: "So, is there any room for faith in your strict adherence to reason?" as I have previously said they are not incompatible.
4th Your conclusion that because one has faith (unseen) that what is known by reason cannot be known is so poorly thought out I don't see the use anymore. If science proves that gravity pulls things faster and closer as they approach their terminus, and then a theologians says the same about the soul approaching God, can one then dismiss the scientist because they are analogous forms of expression?
5th You haven't proved that faith makes someone subjective when natural law, as if Greek philosophers never discovered that

Now here is a quote from Scripture where St. Paul is quoting natural law, from the same paragraph where he says those things of nature can be known, where the invisible can be known through the visible (through abstraction of thought). But chew on this and then tell me how I've contradicted myself and all the cards come crumbling down:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

Objectivity doesn't change with belief in God. Only someone completely ignorant of philosophy would know that. Was Aristotle non-objective then? You can have the last word, your arguments are shallow and anti-intellectual and I don't have time.

RonPaulMania
10-14-2008, 11:47 AM
And people wonder why the religious bigots get their asses raped on this forum all the time.
Its equal treatment under the law unless you are a ****** right?

I can't believe the shit I read on these forums sometimes.

Shows your tolerance huh? Stupid jackasses like you are a reason why this movement goes no where. Pretend it's me if you makes you feel better.

Also, you have raped anyone, except your own dignity.

berrybunches
10-14-2008, 01:09 PM
Before this goes any further, can anyone here who has opposing views explain if this country wasn't built on Christian law explain why homosexuality was illegal in every state (it was a state issue), with the last state of Texas recently repealing it's law 4 or 5 years ago? Part of the loss of liberty is the loss of reason and the denial of natural law.

That's easy, it was outlawed becuase of bigotry and the tyranny of the majority. Same reason women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still legal.

So this country was founded by Christian individuals (not the founders), so what? Doesn't mean the minority has to suffer the majorities wrath. That type of thinking is against the philosophy of liberty.

ClockwiseSpark
10-14-2008, 01:46 PM
Shows your tolerance huh? Stupid jackasses like you are a reason why this movement goes no where. Pretend it's me if you makes you feel better.

Also, you have raped anyone, except your own dignity.

Fear not unbeliever. The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you in spite of your ignorance. Open yourself to the truth and be touched by his noodly appendage.


http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/Last-Supper.jpg

heavenlyboy34
10-14-2008, 01:53 PM
That's easy, it was outlawed becuase of bigotry and the tyranny of the majority. Same reason women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still legal.

So this country was founded by Christian individuals (not the founders), so what? Doesn't mean the minority has to suffer the majorities wrath. That type of thinking is against the philosophy of liberty.

+1

Dary
10-14-2008, 01:55 PM
That' either a statement from ignorance or malice. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


I was wondering when the insults would start.


You haven't studied minor or major logic and want to impose your illogical assertions on me.

I'm not trying to impose anything on you. I'm simply responding to messages on a message board and expressing my opinion.


This proves you are clueless.

Thanks for that.


...you assert I'm all about reason.

Actually you were the one asserting that you are all about reason.


You can't even argue cohesively.

Thanks for that too.


Actually you were trying to quote Scripture, not I.

That's true. But I didn't do it to prove my point. I did it to disprove yours.


-I made a case on natural law

Yes but you also likened it to god's law. I wouldn't have said anything concerning scripture if you hadn't brought god into the conversation.


...it would be absolute chaos with no principles of law whatsoever.

Why? Do you disagree with my statement that it requires no morality on my part to object to being robbed or killed? Must I only have morality before I have the right to object to such actions?


You don't know what you are talking about.

Thanks again.

I ask the reader to remember a previous quote from RonPaulMania.


Let me tell you something I've seen world-wide now, whenever Christian justice, or natural law is brought up it brings out the hatred and vile language not seen by those professing natural law. Labels are used rather than rational discourse is the course of argument, and then turned on us as wackos when they haven't used the semblance of logic.

I have never once insulted RonPaulMania. I have never inferred that he/she was ignorant or mean. I haven't questioned his/her education or claimed he is trying to impose anything on me. I have never stated that he doesn't know what he is talking about. I have never said that he is clueless. I have never said that he couldn't argue coherently. I have never said that his sentiments are irrelevant. I have never claimed that he hasn't put much thought into his arguments. I have never said that his arguments are poorly thought out, shallow or anti-intellectual.

I have not misstated any of the conclusions that he has made as he does here with me.


Your conclusion that because one has faith (unseen) that what is known by reason cannot be known.

Yet he has done all of these things to me and more. And that's fine. I'm not complaining. I'm glad he did it. As for my part, I've addressed his points as I see them.

Also, take a look at what RonPaulMania says to torchbear.


... Stupid jackass...

So I ask you dear reader, is it any wonder why those who engage him in debate might resort to "using the "F" word, or using disgusting, vile language?

He has done exactly what he says that others do to him.


----------------
And yet it moves.

Dary
10-14-2008, 02:13 PM
That's easy, it was outlawed becuase of bigotry and the tyranny of the majority. Same reason women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still legal.

So this country was founded by Christian individuals (not the founders), so what? Doesn't mean the minority has to suffer the majorities wrath. That type of thinking is against the philosophy of liberty.

+2

Nice.

RonPaulMania
10-14-2008, 07:31 PM
That's easy, it was outlawed becuase of bigotry and the tyranny of the majority. Same reason women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still legal.

So this country was founded by Christian individuals (not the founders), so what? Doesn't mean the minority has to suffer the majorities wrath. That type of thinking is against the philosophy of liberty.

+15 million trillion quadrillion... awesome awesome stuff... really deep insights I've never pounded (oops that's for *****), I mean pondered...

I mean why not use a label, expand it to other forms of beliefs that are political talking points, and not address the issue as a state right and use federal rights as your logic. I mean really cool logic dude.

Maybe +16 million trillion quadrillion since it was so deep I'm going to dream about it like forever or something.

kombayn
10-14-2008, 07:45 PM
Like a typical secularist you don't use reason and make assumptions. If my mother was an alcoholic should I hate her too? If a person commits an act it doesn't mean I hate them, but the act is still reprehensible.

I do use reason. Gay people have equal rights like straight people and they should be allowed to marry. Where does gay marriage hurt anyone except your Christian views?




What does race and homosexuality have to do with anything? As a white male I spent 2 years of my life working with poor hispanics and blacks in Belize and Guatemala. Do you want to compare records?

Homosexuality has everything to do with this topic. EVERYTHING! This topic is about gay marriage. I'm using Race and when segregation was still rampant as an example of the times changing.




Does that mean that a father can marry his daughter too?

What the hell are you talking about? That's two completely different things, if two men or two women want to be married, then they should be allowed too. Honestly, if a Father and a Daughter consented to getting married, go ahead. I would think that's extremely weird but if that made them happy, so be it. If you want to go that extreme in the subject.




Actually there is, and that's move. I'm not there yet. What's strange is this Christianity you pretend is a curse among the people is the same thing that kept most countries free. Well you can have your secular world, slavery comes free of charge. If you think Christianity doesn't allow divergence of opinion, wait until the world you think is coming gives you a shot at free speech.

I don't curse Christianity as the scourge of the world. I think it helps a lot of people lead a better life, but I find people like YOU, who use your faith to help scourge the world of homosexuality and their right to marry, completely disrespectful and ignorant.

So the only question I have for you is this... What does two men or two women getting married, harm you or your life in any way? Why do you want to discourage them from their own personal happiness, why do you feel the need to prevent equal rights for all. I would love to read a logical explanation, because I know why you don't want gay people to marry, because you hate gays and you think it'll "mess" with your child's head. You're a bigoted idiot, 'nuff said.

P.S. I voted No on Prop 8 in the State of California, which will uphold the law to allow Gay couples to marry. :cool: Dick.

ItsTime
10-14-2008, 07:50 PM
It is about LIBERTY not GOD.... think about it

torchbearer
10-14-2008, 07:51 PM
It is about LIBERTY not GOD.... think about it

I was thinking God wanted us to have liberty.

ItsTime
10-14-2008, 07:51 PM
I was thinking God wanted us to have liberty.

So did i ;)

kombayn
10-14-2008, 07:51 PM
It is about LIBERTY not GOD.... think about it

+1, at least a lot of people don't give a shit about a meaningless topic like this. Gay people want this as a part of their rights and lives, it's really important to them. Lets give them what they want in the sake of liberty, not morality.

ClockwiseSpark
10-14-2008, 08:08 PM
I was thinking God wanted us to have liberty.

Not gay people.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
10-14-2008, 08:09 PM
The egyptians married... and countless other cultures married. it is not just a xtian belief.

Yeppers.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
10-14-2008, 08:11 PM
Oh, and vote for Chales Jay instead of Chuck Baldwin if your in one of the states you can vote for him or write him in.

CJ08.com for a REAL freedom candidate.

Theocrat
10-14-2008, 08:22 PM
+1, at least a lot of people don't give a shit about a meaningless topic like this. Gay people want this as a part of their rights and lives, it's really important to them. Lets give them what they want in the sake of liberty, not morality.

You're missing the fundamental issue of where rights orignate. God, our Maker, gives us our rights, and nowhere does He say that homosexuals have a right to be married. As a matter of fact, God speaks against homosexuality when He states, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) God repeats His prohibition of any homosexual union in Romans 1:22-27, stating,


Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves, who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

So, you see, God does not intend for homosexuals to be united in marriage, for that goes against nature. Marriage, according to God, is between a man and a woman exclusively (Genesis 2:18, 22-24; Matthew 19:4; et. al.). Any other union between two human beings that is not after God's model is a perversion of God's institution of marriage, and therefore, it should not even be considered as such. Gays do have a right to live, but they do not have a right to marry each other, according to God Who gives us our rights in the first place.

On one final note, I'll just say simply that you cannot have liberty without morality. Liberty is predicated on the existence of sound moral principles, and without it, there will never be liberty, as Samuel Adams once said, "[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

qaxn
10-14-2008, 09:20 PM
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Gays do have a right to live
hahaha what.

TurtleBurger
10-14-2008, 10:00 PM
+1, at least a lot of people don't give a shit about a meaningless topic like this. Gay people want this as a part of their rights and lives, it's really important to them. Lets give them what they want in the sake of liberty, not morality.

Liberty doesn't mean giving people whatever they want. Welfare is not liberty. Anti-discrimination laws applied to the private sector are not liberty. Gay marriage is not liberty.

torchbearer
10-14-2008, 10:24 PM
Liberty doesn't mean giving people whatever they want. Welfare is not liberty. Anti-discrimination laws applied to the private sector are not liberty. Gay marriage is not liberty.

A voluntary relationship is everyones right.

TurtleBurger
10-14-2008, 10:37 PM
A voluntary relationship is everyones right.

A government-issued document is not everyone's right.

torchbearer
10-15-2008, 07:00 AM
A government-issued document is not everyone's right.

Entering into voluntary contracts is everyone's right.

TurtleBurger
10-15-2008, 08:01 AM
Entering into voluntary contracts is everyone's right.

Fine. So write your voluntary contract on your own piece of paper and leave the government out of it.

What if gay marriage licenses included a phrase stating "This marriage does not, and will never, imply any obligation on any person or organization other than the two spouses entering the marriage"? Would that still be acceptable to you?

torchbearer
10-15-2008, 08:03 AM
Fine. So write your voluntary contract on your own piece of paper and leave the government out of it.

What if gay marriage licenses included a phrase stating "This marriage does not, and will never, imply any obligation on any person or organization other than the two spouses entering the marriage"? Would that still be acceptable to you?

No- would a tyrannical government that only "gives" rights to people you like, agree with you?
Note- the "give" part.
You act as though you are god, and you can dictate who gets the same rights as you do.
YOu make me sick.

TurtleBurger
10-15-2008, 08:39 AM
No- would a tyrannical government that only "gives" rights to people you like, agree with you?
Note- the "give" part.
You act as though you are god, and you can dictate who gets the same rights as you do.
YOu make me sick.

Thanks, you answered my question fully.

Theocrat
10-15-2008, 10:02 AM
hahaha what.

There is no contradiction there, but I should have made my point more clear. What I was driving at is the point that homosexuals do not receive their rights to live on this earth from the civil magistrate, but from God. They were not born gay, though. That was a decision they chose to make of their own volition at some point of crisis or frustration in their life. Their homosexual lifestyle is a crime against nature, and thus, that makes it a capital offense, punishable by death.

Having said that, our justice system today does not view homosexuality as a capital crime in any wise. That is a serious defect in our justice system. So, based on a measure of grace, I would simply say that homosexuals need to repent of their perverse lifestyle, and return to the natural affection with which God gave them in the beginning of their lives.

Suffice it to say, homosexuals do not have a right to get married just as murderers do not have right to kill other people. Both acts are inherently sinful, and God does not give any of His creatures the right to sin.

H Roark
10-15-2008, 11:26 AM
They were not born gay, though. That was a decision they chose to make of their own volition at some point of crisis or frustration in their life. Their homosexual lifestyle is a crime against nature, and thus, that makes it a capital offense, punishable by death.

Having said that, our justice system today does not view homosexuality as a capital crime in any wise. That is a serious defect in our justice system.

Wow! :eek: Sooo Theocrat, did you vote for Huckabee during the primaries or was he too liberal for you?

Theocrat
10-15-2008, 12:55 PM
Wow! :eek: Sooo Theocrat, did you vote for Huckabee during the primaries or was he too liberal for you?

No, I voted for Congressman Paul in the Primaries. Yes, I think Huckabee is too liberal, particularly on economic issues (not in the classical "liberal" sense, either). Huckabee is a neocon, global socialist just like the rest of the Presidential candidates were in the Primaries, except Dr. Paul, of course.