PDA

View Full Version : To settle this once and for all, Ron Paul on Gay Marriage...




Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 02:26 AM
I remembered this video for the longest time as I had stumbled across it on youtube but had failed to bookmark it. I mentioned it repeatedly as the debate on the critical differences between Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin were revealed. Someone dug this up and put it in another thread, but I feel it deserves to be put in it's own thread for the sake of finally putting this matter to rest as far as the position of Ron Paul and therefore the movement that follows him is on this issue. I remembered this video because it was the final word that told me that I would support him. The video is to the right of the article.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/70276/ron_paul_comes_out_for_marriage_equality/

JS - Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?


RP - Sure.


JS - The state says we believe in this...


RP - Sure. They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want;

May the notion that Ron Paul is a theocrat who believes in any church overriding the civil liberties of the individual rest in peace.

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 02:29 AM
He doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, Neil.

tonesforjonesbones
12-24-2008, 02:41 AM
Exactly. he is for one man one woman. Gays can get married. I have two lesbian friends who have been married over 20 years. they wear rings etc. They got married at a gay church..and they consider themselves just as married as anyone else. Tones

Brassmouth
12-24-2008, 03:45 AM
Exactly. he is for one man one woman. Gays can get married. I have two lesbian friends who have been married over 20 years. they wear rings etc. They got married at a gay church..and they consider themselves just as married as anyone else. Tones

Did you even read the OP?

Thanks for settling this, Neil. I'm sure the theocrats and other social authoritarians on these boards will be disappointed.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 04:30 AM
Did you even read the OP?

Thanks for settling this, Neil. I'm sure the theocrats and other social authoritarians on these boards will be disappointed.

I am sure they will vehemantly deny it too. Ron goes on to point out that they should not be able to push their relationship on anyone else, but makes it clear that he has no right to tell them what to do. And that is the critical point. I still remember my long fights with my friends about this, and how they would pull the "But Ron Paul endorses him! Are you going to go against Ron Paul!"

And now I have the proof as to why I felt that this position of Chuck Baldwin's was in no way compatible with the feelings of Ron Paul.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 06:51 AM
Let it be...

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 06:52 AM
Why bother about others sex lives?

Sandra
12-24-2008, 06:54 AM
Why did you create another thread for the same thing?

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 07:00 AM
Why did you create another thread for the same thing?

What me? I created no such thread.;)

KenInMontiMN
12-24-2008, 07:50 AM
"....just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else."
-Ron Paul

Attempts to get government recognition of non-traditional marriages are exactly that- an imposition of and an expectation that the entire society recognize their marriage in every sense of the word, whether you agree or disagree with all of the legal ramifications that have sprung up in the century or so of gov't getting involved in the thing in the first place.

Ideally at the Federal level we clearly uphold that it is not a Federal matter; ideally at the state level we work together toward that same end. Ideally there is no expectation of either a state blessing or a state frown on relationships adults choose to enter into. Not the state's business at all.

All of the national disarray over the issue springs directly from people on both sides of the issue expecting and wishing for a gov't ruling on the matter one way or another, on one level or another. The disarray dissolves when that expectation dissolves. You can't help but wish and hope for the refreshing non-statist ruling to emerge from a supreme court somewhere on this- a simple, straightforward null ruling stating that it's simply not a matter for gov't jurisdiction, but of course that's quite a pipe dream in an increasingly statist world.

The more practical questions for Dr. Paul personally, since the interviewer in the video allowed him to frame his answer inside an idealistic scenario, would be these- if the statists in Congress forced a vote against that idealistic scenario, and Congress was going to either support or deny Federal recognition of same-sex marraige, which way would he vote or would he abstain from voting completely in order to avoid the statist trap? Same question for the Dr. as a voter if Texas put the question on a state referendum.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 07:59 AM
"....just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else."
-Ron Paul

Attempts to get government recognition of non-traditional marriages are exactly that- an imposition of and an expectation that the entire society recognize their marriage in every sense of the word, whether you agree or disagree with all of the legal ramifications that have sprung up in the century or so of gov't getting involved in the thing in the first place.

Ideally at the Federal level we clearly uphold that it is not a Federal matter; ideally at the state level we work together toward that same end. Ideally there is no expectation of either a state blessing or a state frown on relationships adults choose to enter into. Not the state's business at all.

All of the national disarray over the issue springs directly from people on both sides of the issue expecting and wishing for a gov't ruling on the matter one way or another, on one level or another. The disarray dissolves when that expectation dissolves. You can't help but wish and hope for the refreshing non-statist ruling to emerge from a supreme court somewhere on this- a simple, straightforward null ruling stating that it's simply not a matter for gov't jurisdiction, but of course that's quite a pipe dream in an increasingly statist world.

The more practical questions for Dr. Paul personally, since the interviewer in the video allowed him to frame his answer inside an idealistic scenario, would be these- if the statists in Congress forced a vote against that idealistic scenario, and Congress was going to either support or deny Federal recognition of same-sex marraige, which way would he vote or would he abstain from voting completely in order to avoid the statist trap? Same question for the Dr. as a voter if Texas put the question on a state referendum.

Spoken for truth. Ron Paul is a conservative guy, but he is bored with gay marriage issues, as is the rest of the thinking world.

Get over it.

nobody's_hero
12-24-2008, 08:07 AM
I bet in less than three hours, we have a thread dedicated to settling the "to settle this once and for all, Ron Paul on gay marriage" thread.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 08:39 AM
The government's job is not to define marriage. I'm in CA, and I abstained. It has nothing to do with my beliefs about a homosexual lifestyle -- the question is, what should the government do, and the answer is get their noses out.

If the statists had a vote on whether everyone would be forced to have green houses, or yellow houses, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote on whether everyone should be forced to wear jeans or khakis, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote on whether to force everyone to be hindu or christian, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote selecting which words and phrases, or thoughts, would be permitted by the federal government, would you vote?

No. Bills and politicians do not have to be perfect to be suppored, but there is a difference between being willing to take small steps in order to roll back statism and promote freedom, and being willing to participate in statism to force your own personal beliefs on others.

Using the state to prohibit gay marriage, or using the state to force recognition of it, are both statist ideas. The only moral stance is to abstain, IMO.

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Using the state to prohibit gay marriage, or using the state to force recognition of it, are both statist ideas. The only moral stance is to abstain, IMO.

Agreed. Unless there was a choice of, should the government keep their nose out of marriage?, in which case I would vote and vote yes. I won't hold my breath though. :)

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 09:24 AM
May the notion that Ron Paul is a theocrat who believes in any church overriding the civil liberties of the individual rest in peace.

Neil, I grant you he was a little confusing on this whole subject. At least he was to me. But, my understanding is that he does not think the state should be involved in marriage at all and that the churches should return to handling marriage, as they once did. So, that does not seem to coincide with what you said so well. But here's the thing, there is no reason why gay churches shouldn't be allowed to marry people, right? If the state was taken out of the equation, they would be able to.

Did anyone else come away from Ron's discussions on this issue with a different take on it, than I?

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 09:39 AM
Agreed. Unless there was a choice of, should the government keep their nose out of marriage?, in which case I would vote and vote yes. I won't hold my breath though. :)

Yeah, not holding my breath. I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine who actually worked on the Obama campaign, where I said something like, "Why do we have to make this a political football? Social conservatives don't want to redefine marriage, and homosexuals want equal rights. Both are quite reasonable for wanting these things, so why not just get government out of it, let them just treat people as individuals, and let people call their relationships whatever they want. We can just respect peoples rights instead of pitting them against each other." And, "I think we do a lot of that, we make politics unnecessarily controversial, because we're always abusing the rights of one person in order to favor the rights of others. If government just let people made their own choices instead of mandating everything, I think most people would be a lot happier.

I think it gave him pause for a second, and I could see the wheels were turning, which was nice to see.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 09:42 AM
Neil, I grant you he was a little confusing on this whole subject. At least he was to me. But, my understanding is that he does not think the state should be involved in marriage at all and that the churches should return to handling marriage, as they once did. So, that does not seem to coincide with what you said so well. But here's the thing, there is no reason why gay churches shouldn't be allowed to marry people, right? If the state was taken out of the equation, they would be able to.

Did anyone else come away from Ron's discussions on this issue with a different take on it, than I?

Yeah, I think anyone could call their relationship what they want. We don't have a government definition of "dating", or "friend", why should we need one for marriage? Marriage, to me, would need to happen in a church, but others are free to think of marriage differently, it's up to them.

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 09:47 AM
Yeah, I think anyone could call their relationship what they want. We don't have a government definition of "dating", or "friend", why should we need one for marriage? Marriage, to me, would need to happen in a church, but others are free to think of marriage differently, it's up to them.

Agreed.

It's almost like we've become so brainwashed to believe that the government has to be involved in everything and the reality is that they don't.

klamath
12-24-2008, 09:58 AM
The question is should businesses that grants health care and other benefits to the spouses of their workers be forced by the state to give that coverage to gay people or later down the road poligomists or pedophiles should that life style become acceptable??
I voted against Prop 8 on the principal that we have to start somewhere to get the state out of marriage.

I believe that if RP was asked this question the answer would have been a lot different.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 10:05 AM
Agreed.

It's almost like we've become so brainwashed to believe that the government has to be involved in everything and the reality is that they don't.

Exactly. All's great when the tide of opinion is on my side, and I'm the one forcing my beliefs on others, but then the tide turns, and the power I gave the government is now used to suppress me.

Some of my fellow Christians would do well to remember that. A government that has the power to enforce personal morality will still have that power when the public's definition of morality has changed.

Suppose you believe that government should prohibit drugs, prostitution, or pornography, because while these things do not involve the imposition of force or violence, they're immoral and a corrupting influence on society.

Now, opinion changes, and the Bible is viewed as an anachronistic, superstitious, corrupting influence on society. It does no good to protest for your rights at this point, that you are not committing any violence or fraud, or harming anyone, and that you should be left alone. You already tore that wall down, and you handed them the power to oppress you.

Only God is rightfully the enforcer of morality. The only morality the state can enforce is that of popular opinion. I for one do not want morality as defined by popular opinion enforced at all. And, I'm imperfect, so if I'm honest with myself, my view of morality really shouldn't be enforced in the first place, even if it weren't a slippery slope ...

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 10:11 AM
The question is should businesses that grants health care and other benefits to the spouses of their workers be forced by the state to give that coverage to gay people or later down the road poligomists or pedophiles should that life style become acceptable??
I voted against Prop 8 on the principal that we have to start somewhere to get the state out of marriage.

I believe that if RP was asked this question the answer would have been a lot different.

That is an irrational statement, and shit-stirring.

To equate homosexuality or lesbianism with pedophiles is a typical furphy.

Let's have a constructive debate.

Chester Copperpot
12-24-2008, 10:12 AM
I remembered this video for the longest time as I had stumbled across it on youtube but had failed to bookmark it. I mentioned it repeatedly as the debate on the critical differences between Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin were revealed. Someone dug this up and put it in another thread, but I feel it deserves to be put in it's own thread for the sake of finally putting this matter to rest as far as the position of Ron Paul and therefore the movement that follows him is on this issue. I remembered this video because it was the final word that told me that I would support him. The video is to the right of the article.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/70276/ron_paul_comes_out_for_marriage_equality/

JS - Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?


RP - Sure.


JS - The state says we believe in this...


RP - Sure. They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want;

May the notion that Ron Paul is a theocrat who believes in any church overriding the civil liberties of the individual rest in peace.

I can't believe people following Ron Paul would even question this??

Do people on here REALLY think Ron Paul is some sort of theocrat?? That IS completely nuts, really.

C"mon people this should be as simple to know as say property rights or the federal reserve.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 10:15 AM
The question is should businesses that grants health care and other benefits to the spouses of their workers be forced by the state to give that coverage to gay people or later down the road poligomists or pedophiles should that life style become acceptable??
I voted against Prop 8 on the principal that we have to start somewhere to get the state out of marriage.

I believe that if RP was asked this question the answer would have been a lot different.

Businesses should be allowed to have whatever heath care policies, or lack thereof, they choose. If they want to attract employees, they'll do a good job with it. They can choose to cover no spouses, only opposite sex spouses, gay partners, casual friends, whatever they want.

And voting on how the state should define marriage is not by any means a step towards getting the state out of the business of defining marriage.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 10:16 AM
All poligamists are heterosexual, and most pedophiles are heterosexual.

I am a straight man, but let's get the facts right.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 10:18 AM
Businesses should be allowed to have whatever heath care policies, or lack thereof, they choose. If they want to attract employees, they'll do a good job with it. They can choose to cover no spouses, only opposite sex spouses, gay partners, casual friends, whatever they want.

As a business-owner, I commend your statement!

heavenlyboy34
12-24-2008, 10:23 AM
agreed.

It's almost like we've become so brainwashed to believe that the government has to be involved in everything and the reality is that they don't.

+1776 :)

klamath
12-24-2008, 10:24 AM
That is an irrational statement, and shit-stirring.

To equate homosexuality or lesbianism with pedophiles is a typical furphy.

Let's have a constructive debate.

It is what is socially acceptable to a society at any moment in time. Cultures in the past have practiced Pedophilia. Pedophilia is absolutely unaceptable to American society now but there are groups that are pushing for it. In a hundred years it might be acceptable.

Present an argument beyond morallity on why one is ok and why one is wrong?

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 10:30 AM
It is what is socially acceptable to a society at any moment in time. Cultures in the past have practiced Pedophilia. Pedophilia is absolutely unaceptable to American society now but there are groups that are pushing for it. In a hundred years it might be acceptable.

Present an argument beyond morallity on why one is ok and why one is wrong?

C'mon Mate,

That's like saying shoplifting=murder.

Get some sense into your head.

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 10:33 AM
I can't believe people following Ron Paul would even question this??

Do people on here REALLY think Ron Paul is some sort of theocrat?? That IS completely nuts, really.

C"mon people this should be as simple to know as say property rights or the federal reserve.

Mike, it's a little more complicated than that. Some seem to believe that Ron thinks the government should pass a law to allow gay marriage. Which would lead to government requiring everyone to recognize that marriage, with all the obligatory legal ramifications. When in reality, I don't think that's what he has advocated at all, as he has said the government should stay out of it and marriage should be handled by churches.

These are very different things and this seems to be where the confusion is coming from.

klamath
12-24-2008, 10:34 AM
Businesses should be allowed to have whatever heath care policies, or lack thereof, they choose. If they want to attract employees, they'll do a good job with it. They can choose to cover no spouses, only opposite sex spouses, gay partners, casual friends, whatever they want.

And voting on how the state should define marriage is not by any means a step towards getting the state out of the business of defining marriage.

The point is that if California judges have established that gay mariage is a legal contract any business that refuses to pay health benefits to a married gay person, it will be in violation of EEOC laws and can be sued or fined by the state.

Is this giving gay people equal rights or is it forcing a business to accept them?

klamath
12-24-2008, 10:45 AM
C'mon Mate,

That's like saying shoplifting=murder.

Get some sense into your head.

I am trying to emotionally and morally detach myself from this argument and only use logical progression of society.
I agree that to me gay life is nowhere on the same scale of unacceptablity as pedophilia. I am trying to look at it from how this effects long term trends. A hundred years ago in this country society shunned gays worse than pedophiles. All you have to do is look at some of the ages of the women that were married a hundred years ago.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 10:50 AM
I am trying to emotionally and morally detach myself from this argument and only use logical progression of society.
I agree that to me gay life is nowhere on the same scale of unacceptablity as pedophilia. I am trying to look at it from how this effects long term trends. A hundred years ago in this country society shunned gays worse than pedophiles. All you have to do is look at some of the ages of the women that were married a hundred years ago.

I wouldn't worry about it. The government shouldn't be involved in any case, except against pedophilia, but that's a whole other discussion.

What's right is right, the government doesn't define it, and you're not going to know or change what popular opinion is on it in 100 years.

tonesforjonesbones
12-24-2008, 10:51 AM
I distinctly remember Ron Paul saying everyone knows what marriage is and there is no need to redefine it. tones

tonesforjonesbones
12-24-2008, 10:52 AM
Furthermore, all the people in the states are doing is establishing in their state constitutions with amendments what already IS. Tones

Sandra
12-24-2008, 10:55 AM
Can this thread be joined with the other one? They are the same subject by the same OP and right next to each other on the front page. Apparently people are confusing the two when responding.

BlackTerrel
12-24-2008, 10:55 AM
Ron Paul isn't God. To think that we should parrot every position he has and if he supports hay marriage than we should too is absurd.

Although speaking of God perhaps someone should start a "To settle this once and for all, God on gay marriage" thread. You want to me to look up some good biblical quotes?

tonesforjonesbones
12-24-2008, 11:11 AM
Sure Terrell...that would be good! tones

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 01:09 PM
Exactly. All's great when the tide of opinion is on my side, and I'm the one forcing my beliefs on others, but then the tide turns, and the power I gave the government is now used to suppress me.

Some of my fellow Christians would do well to remember that. A government that has the power to enforce personal morality will still have that power when the public's definition of morality has changed.

Suppose you believe that government should prohibit drugs, prostitution, or pornography, because while these things do not involve the imposition of force or violence, they're immoral and a corrupting influence on society.

Now, opinion changes, and the Bible is viewed as an anachronistic, superstitious, corrupting influence on society. It does no good to protest for your rights at this point, that you are not committing any violence or fraud, or harming anyone, and that you should be left alone. You already tore that wall down, and you handed them the power to oppress you.

Only God is rightfully the enforcer of morality. The only morality the state can enforce is that of popular opinion. I for one do not want morality as defined by popular opinion enforced at all. And, I'm imperfect, so if I'm honest with myself, my view of morality really shouldn't be enforced in the first place, even if it weren't a slippery slope ...


Now, opinion changes, and the Bible is viewed as an anachronistic, superstitious, corrupting influence on society. It does no good to protest for your rights at this point, that you are not committing any violence or fraud, or harming anyone, and that you should be left alone. You already tore that wall down, and you handed them the power to oppress you.

This is why Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or the free excercize thereof. Legislating anything on religious grounds other then to protect freedom of religion itself is a DANGEROUS slippery slope. And that's why I called it religious fascism. You cannot impose your morality on anyone else and claim to be following the Constitution.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 01:16 PM
I can't believe people following Ron Paul would even question this??

Do people on here REALLY think Ron Paul is some sort of theocrat?? That IS completely nuts, really.

C"mon people this should be as simple to know as say property rights or the federal reserve.

You are clearly late getting into this. I suggest you read the threads "The Constitution Party is NOT Constitutional" and "The case against Chuck Baldwin" on this forum (You can click on my name and go to statistics "threads started by"), you will hear plenty of wacky stories. When Ron Paul gave his "support" of the Chuck Baldwin candidacy for President, theocrats came out of the woodwork saying "I told you so!" and tried to claim that is what the movement was about. They were always in the movement, I remember because I was told that Wiccans and people who followed the Native American religions had no place in the Ron Paul movement because they were Satanists (whether they admitted it or not) and would not fight the NWO. I called the RP HQ about it and needless to say, they did not agree. This was back during the primaries. And the person I was debating with was a fellow named Steve Martin, a big time grass roots activist who posted regularly on the Ron Paul worldwide meetup group message board.

After the Chuck Baldwin "support" was coined as an "endorsement" I got to sit and watch as people who three months prior would of scoffed at the idea of banning profanity or pornography, or no equal rights for Gay people were suddenly embracing these completely non-freedom attitudes. People were saying things like "I don't care if Chuck Baldwin makes it illegal for me not to go to church every Sunday as long as he gets rid of the Federal reserve..."

Yes, I too was shocked, but it certainly happened.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 01:20 PM
Mike, it's a little more complicated than that. Some seem to believe that Ron thinks the government should pass a law to allow gay marriage. Which would lead to government requiring everyone to recognize that marriage, with all the obligatory legal ramifications. When in reality, I don't think that's what he has advocated at all, as he has said the government should stay out of it and marriage should be handled by churches.

These are very different things and this seems to be where the confusion is coming from.

In past threads, some of the theocrats have made it clear they feel that Ron Paul supports making gay marriage illegal. I am fine with the "keep the state out of it" argument. But the fact that he as a LIBERTARIAN not a THEOCRAT said in plain english.

"Sure, they can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want." Makes it clear that he supports their right to do this. Legal or not. That he does not have the right to impose his morality on anyone else. This is the crux of the issue. Ron Paul is not their champion for legislating morality, which is exactly what people like Theocrat want to do.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 01:26 PM
The point is that if California judges have established that gay mariage is a legal contract any business that refuses to pay health benefits to a married gay person, it will be in violation of EEOC laws and can be sued or fined by the state.

Is this giving gay people equal rights or is it forcing a business to accept them?

Different gay couples have different priorities. I don't want any buisness to be forced to do anything. And as I have met many Libertarians who are also Gay, there is a whole caucus of them in the LP for example I don't think they want any buisness to do that either.

However, Gay couples should have the right to enjoin their assets (If these rights exist at all), visit their partners in the hospital, and any number of other things that have been denied to them.

The dangerous slope that people are sliding down is that they feel that because they think something is "wrong" they should be allowed to force other people to follow their morality. And this is tottally wrong.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 01:27 PM
in past threads, some of the theocrats have made it clear they feel that ron paul supports making gay marriage illegal. I am fine with the "keep the state out of it" argument. But the fact that he as a libertarian not a theocrat said in plain english.

"sure, they can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want." makes it clear that he supports their right to do this. Legal or not. That he does not have the right to impose his morality on anyone else. This is the crux of the issue. Ron paul is not their champion for legislating morality, which is exactly what people like theocrat want to do.

qft

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 01:29 PM
Ron Paul isn't God. To think that we should parrot every position he has and if he supports hay marriage than we should too is absurd.

Although speaking of God perhaps someone should start a "To settle this once and for all, God on gay marriage" thread. You want to me to look up some good biblical quotes?


Hey, so long as your willing to admit that this religious fascism is not supported by Ron Paul, no problem. What set this off in the first place was when we were being given Chuck Baldwin as the alternative to Ron Paul, and he simply DID NOT fit the bill. The Constiuttion Party is also not an alternative to the Libertarian party, or just Libertarian ideas in general. The Theocrats showed up in droves and set up shop in this movement and tried to act like those of us who supported Gay rights or the first amendment didn't belong here. And they tried to say that Ron Paul was a Theocrat just like them.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 01:29 PM
Different gay couples have different priorities. I don't want any buisness to be forced to do anything. And as I have met many Libertarians who are also Gay, there is a whole caucus of them in the LP for example I don't think they want any buisness to do that either.

However, Gay couples should have the right to enjoin their assets (If these rights exist at all), visit their partners in the hospital, and any number of other things that have been denied to them.

The dangerous slope that people are sliding down is that they feel that because they think something is "wrong" they should be allowed to force other people to follow their morality. And this is tottally wrong.

Nice.

Well said.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 01:30 PM
Can this thread be joined with the other one? They are the same subject by the same OP and right next to each other on the front page. Apparently people are confusing the two when responding.

The reason I broke this out into a new thread is explained in the first post.

We debated the issue of Gay Marriage, but until I found that video the issue of what Ron Paul felt personally on the issue was being debated back and forth as much as the words of the founding fathers on Seperation of Church and State.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 01:35 PM
Something Jesse Ventura said that makes more sense to me, is that he feels that we should replace all marriages with Civil Unions, and that the circumstances of those marriages, who is loving who, should be irreleveant.

We run into a problem here, because some people want a state binding contract to help them negotiate an end to the contract (divorce) and that makes sense. But when we go attaching religious conotations to it then we are flirting with that seperation of church and state problem.

If we are going to have a legal contract between two people that provides the legal rights of a marriage, we should either A. Make all such contracts "Civil Unions" and stay out of the buisness of who has a right to love or committ to whom.

Or B. Get out of the issue altogether.

surf
12-24-2008, 02:24 PM
A marriage is equivalent to a contract. The only place the government should be involved is helping to resolve or ruling on contract disputes.

Perhaps this should be another thread, but the only comment Ron Paul made during the debate season that disappointed me had to do with his apparent "support" for "don't ask, don't tell"

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 02:34 PM
A marriage is equivalent to a contract. The only place the government should be involved is helping to resolve or ruling on contract disputes.

Perhaps this should be another thread, but the only comment Ron Paul made during the debate season that disappointed me had to do with his apparent "support" for "don't ask, don't tell"

Right, but the problems arise when one religious group tries to say that they have the monopoly on a form of contract, that no one else may enter into that legal contract if it in any way violates their own personal religious views. This idea completely stomps on the 1st amendment, not to mention Libertarianism.

Dave39168
12-24-2008, 02:49 PM
The government should only recognize people as individuals; not married heteros, *****, gays, lesbians, polygamists, or anything else.

Let consenting adults engage in whatever kind of voluntary agreement they want, and call it what they want. Just don't give them any special treatment or legal recognition.

This might disturb some Christians because it messes with tradition, but hey if you want freedom then you've got to let others to have it too.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 02:50 PM
Different gay couples have different priorities. I don't want any buisness to be forced to do anything. And as I have met many Libertarians who are also Gay, there is a whole caucus of them in the LP for example I don't think they want any buisness to do that either.

Good :)



However, Gay couples should have the right to enjoin their assets (If these rights exist at all), visit their partners in the hospital, and any number of other things that have been denied to them.

Certainly if the government allows people to enter a contract to enjoin their assets, they should allow anyone to do so.

The government shouldn't be involved with hospitals at all, IMO. It's up to hospitals to set their visitation policies. If it were me, I would allow patients to submit lists of friends/family/whoever, who they would like to be able to visit them in an emergency, and I would respect their wishes.

As a patient, I would try to use hospitals that had a reasonable visitation policy.



The dangerous slope that people are sliding down is that they feel that because they think something is "wrong" they should be allowed to force other people to follow their morality. And this is totally wrong.

I agree with this. But, what is right is to get the government out of the business of determining who gets what rights and privileges entirely.

The correct response to someone who is trying to use the government to enforce morality is not, "No, we need to redefine the morality you are trying to impose so that it includes recognition for the beliefs of others". Rather, the correct response is, "That's not the governments job -- the government, which represents the use of force and violence, has no place in moral issues at all."

That is, I encourage you to not fight to get gay marriage recognized. Rather, fight to get government out of the business of marriage entirely. That way we can all be free.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 02:55 PM
The government should only recognize people as individuals; not married heteros, *****, gays, lesbians, polygamists, or anything else.

Let consenting adults engage in whatever kind of voluntary agreement they want, and call it what they want. Just don't give them any special treatment or legal recognition.

This might disturb some Christians because it messes with tradition, but hey if you want freedom then you've got to let others to have it too.

Not at all, just the opposite. If anything messes with tradition it's the idea that government is the arbiter or some kind of authority for these moral issues. That's what offends me. The government should do as you say, and leave people alone.

Todd
12-24-2008, 03:04 PM
He doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, Neil.

Chuck Baldwin said it pretty clearly as a Christian pastor. Until the government got involved for health reasons, it was essentially a religious issue. Thus if the government were out of the way, Marriage would be defined by the Churches.

I guess if a gay wanted to go to some Liberal church that would recognize the institution of gay marriage, then they were married.

Christian's should look at it this way. If God doesn't believe in gay marriage and he is omnipotent, then they are no more married in his eyes than the man in the moon.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 03:04 PM
Jesus Mate

You babble some shit.

BlackTerrel
12-24-2008, 03:26 PM
Hey, so long as your willing to admit that this religious fascism is not supported by Ron Paul, no problem. What set this off in the first place was when we were being given Chuck Baldwin as the alternative to Ron Paul, and he simply DID NOT fit the bill. The Constiuttion Party is also not an alternative to the Libertarian party, or just Libertarian ideas in general. The Theocrats showed up in droves and set up shop in this movement and tried to act like those of us who supported Gay rights or the first amendment didn't belong here. And they tried to say that Ron Paul was a Theocrat just like them.

Does it matter? I doubt most Ron Paul supporters are here because of his stance on "gay rights". Me personally, I think gays aren't mentally stable and I wouldn't trust them. I put my opinions out in the open and I don't care if I get flak for it. And it really doesn't matter to me whether or not Ron Paul agrees with me. For the record, the issues of "gay rights" is about 1000 on my list of priorities, I have a lot of other things to worry about right now.

DeadheadForPaul
12-24-2008, 03:31 PM
Just because you endorse or vote for someone does not mean that you agree with every single one of their positions.

I suspect that Ron Paul is somewhere between the LP and CP. He was probably going to remain neutral due to this point...that is, until Barr slighted him.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 03:33 PM
Does it matter? I doubt most Ron Paul supporters are here because of his stance on "gay rights". Me personally, I think gays aren't mentally stable and I wouldn't trust them. I put my opinions out in the open and I don't care if I get flak for it. And it really doesn't matter to me whether or not Ron Paul agrees with me. For the record, the issues of "gay rights" is about 1000 on my list of priorities, I have a lot of other things to worry about right now.

I respect you for being honest

And I have better things to be concerned about also.

But, I have no problem with gay people. Some of the best friends I have.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 03:37 PM
Just because you endorse or vote for someone does not mean that you agree with every single one of their positions.

I suspect that Ron Paul is somewhere between the LP and CP. He was probably going to remain neutral due to this point...that is, until Barr slighted him.

Really spunky women seem to hang around gay blokes.

I say gobble them up, or vice - a - versa.

klamath
12-24-2008, 03:43 PM
Different gay couples have different priorities. I don't want any buisness to be forced to do anything. And as I have met many Libertarians who are also Gay, there is a whole caucus of them in the LP for example I don't think they want any buisness to do that either.

However, Gay couples should have the right to enjoin their assets (If these rights exist at all), visit their partners in the hospital, and any number of other things that have been denied to them.

The dangerous slope that people are sliding down is that they feel that because they think something is "wrong" they should be allowed to force other people to follow their morality. And this is tottally wrong.

You say you don't believe businesses should be forced to do anything but if gay marriage is defined as legal in the state of California, businesses WILL be forced BY THE STATE to give all priviledges to to Gay employees.
As has been stated before instead of fighting to get state sanctioned gay mariages why not fight to get the state out of marriage?
This is why I support the sales tax over income taxes. There are hundreds of pages in the tax codes the are used to manipulate the countries social behavior.

tonesforjonesbones
12-24-2008, 03:47 PM
I agree..and the gays wont stop there. They will go to churches and demand to be married there..if the minister balks..which ministers SHOULD DO...the gays will try to burn the church down...they will work to close all christian churches down in this country if the christian ministers stand on the Gospel of Christ. THiS is what it is leading to and i will fight it until I leave the planet! ToNES

tonesforjonesbones
12-24-2008, 03:48 PM
It is NOTHING but a PLOY to further destroy Christianity in the USA..and I will DAMN well fight it. tones

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 03:51 PM
It is NOTHING but a PLOY to further destroy Christianity in the USA..and I will DAMN well fight it. tones

Right on bro!

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 03:53 PM
I agree..and the gays wont stop there. They will go to churches and demand to be married there..if the minister balks..which ministers SHOULD DO...the gays will try to burn the church down...they will work to close all christian churches down in this country if the christian ministers stand on the Gospel of Christ. THiS is what it is leading to and i will fight it until I leave the planet! ToNES

:rolleyes: seriously?

Ok, tell you what then, let's get rid of marriage by the state, and once all those hoards of torch wielding gays that you imagine show up at your church demanding to be married, then you'll have a right to defend yourself, if you choose.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 03:55 PM
It is NOTHING but a PLOY to further destroy Christianity in the USA..and I will DAMN well fight it. tones

If modern US Christianity depends upon government policies to survive, then it's not the Christianity I know and love. And judging by history, it's not the one most of my ancestors did ...

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 04:00 PM
It is ridiculous that Christians are represented by over-blown zealots worried about " Gay and Lesbian" people falling in love, settling down, raising children, and protecting them.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 04:38 PM
I agree..and the gays wont stop there. They will go to churches and demand to be married there..if the minister balks..which ministers SHOULD DO...the gays will try to burn the church down...they will work to close all christian churches down in this country if the christian ministers stand on the Gospel of Christ. THiS is what it is leading to and i will fight it until I leave the planet! ToNES

I am a bit more concerned with the Christian right not "stopping there" if they get their way on these issues. More freedom does not usually breed tyranny, however as soon as we introduce more tyranny into the equation by allowing any religion to dictate law, then we have a vehichle for Tyranny.

Soon as we decide that the bible is a key to intrepeting the Constitution, you will have Neo-cons re-writing the Constitution around Romans 13, the same crap that was used to convince people to give up their guns during the Katrina disaster. They sent out clergy response teams armed with that little piece of scripture.

And no, I am pretty sure the Gays will be apt to just have you leave them alone. It is utter absurdity that there is this pack of gays who ar going to burn down churches. Seriously. The group of people that has a propensity for violence in this century has been the Christian Right as compared to any form of civil rights movement.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 04:40 PM
It is NOTHING but a PLOY to further destroy Christianity in the USA..and I will DAMN well fight it. tones

This is absolute insanity.

You should have the right to FORCE your religion's views on morality onto me because anything less is a conspiracy to destroy your church?

Your getting good at this fanatic stuff. Do you have any torches and pitchforks ready in your house so that you and your friends can go round up all the gay people who are trying to destroy your church? What's next? The Jews? The Blacks? The Heretics? The Witches?

Nobody wants to destroy Christianity, and people being free to NOT be Christian does not destroy your church. We just want you to leave us alone. And stop arrogantly thinking you can tell everyone else how to live their lives.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 04:44 PM
If modern US Christianity depends upon government policies to survive, then it's not the Christianity I know and love. And judging by history, it's not the one most of my ancestors did ...

Well said.

And Washington agreed.

And so did Jefferson.

And so did Madison.

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 04:49 PM
You say you don't believe businesses should be forced to do anything but if gay marriage is defined as legal in the state of California, businesses WILL be forced BY THE STATE to give all priviledges to to Gay employees.
As has been stated before instead of fighting to get state sanctioned gay mariages why not fight to get the state out of marriage?
This is why I support the sales tax over income taxes. There are hundreds of pages in the tax codes the are used to manipulate the countries social behavior.

Agreed. It's the government force that we abhor.

Why aren't we fighting to get the government completely out of marriage altogether?

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 04:54 PM
This is absolute insanity.

You should have the right to FORCE your religion's views on morality onto me because anything less is a conspiracy to destroy your church?

Your getting good at this fanatic stuff. Do you have any torches and pitchforks ready in your house so that you and your friends can go round up all the gay people who are trying to destroy your church? What's next? The Jews? The Blacks? The Heretics? The Witches?

Nobody wants to destroy Christianity, and people being free to NOT be Christian does not destroy your church. We just want you to leave us alone. And stop arrogantly thinking you can tell everyone else how to live their lives.

Neil, some people REALLY DO want to destroy Christianity. But that aside, I could care less about gay marriage. It's none of my business if they want to get married. However, it IS my business if by so doing, it will force me to fund their decision. Government shouldn't be in the business of sanctifying marriage and forcing businesses to offer benefits according to government's dictates, regardless if it is a heterosexual or homosexual marriage. Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Would you agree?

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 04:56 PM
Well said.

And Washington agreed.

And so did Jefferson.

And so did Madison.

Yes, but unless you are fighting to get government out of the marriage business altogether, you are desiring to use that same government force that you condemn Tones for wanting, but for gay marriage or "gay rights", instead. Government force is government force.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 04:59 PM
Yes, but unless you are fighting to get government out of the marriage business altogether, you are desiring to use that same government force that you condemn Tones for wanting, but for gay marriage or "gay rights", instead. Government force is government force.

+1

We must fight to be free, so that all of our rights are protected, instead of fighting for our own rights at the expense of others.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 05:01 PM
If modern US Christianity depends upon government policies to survive, then it's not the Christianity I know and love. And judging by history, it's not the one most of my ancestors did ...

I would also say that beyond the political aspect, you are hitting on a serious point in the Christian religion that many Christians in politics fail to see. And that is that people are supposed to have the choice.

If the only reason people are obeying the Ten Commandments is because a Christian Right politcian made them law, where is that person's devotion to God in the equation?

Is your choice to obey your God's laws driven by TRUE PIETY as Washington refers to when he says that the path to true piety needs no help from government?

If you choose to keep your God's laws because you love your God and wish to serve him that is faith.

If you are forced to do so because the state will punish you if you don't, that is tyranny.

This is why even the Koran, the from the religion that is supposedly supposed to be one of the most oppressive by many Christian right's opinions states plainly that there is to be no compulsion in religion. It's not just that people should have the freedom, it's that someone being compliant to their religion's views should be a choice for them, or else it has no power behind it.

Take this for example. If someone gave to a charity, that would be a great thing they did. And the right thing.

But when a socialist passes a law FORCING someone to give to a charity, they rob the person of the chance of actually doing the right thing for themselves.

This is why only God has the power to judge.

It is also why you are supposed to allow for free will.

TRUE CHRISTIANS would do what they felt God would want of them even if it was illegal.

They certainly shouldn't be able to make others do what they feel God would want of them by making it illegal.

If furthering your religion is your goal, the state is not the path to saving people's souls. People can only choose to do that for themselves.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 05:07 PM
Agreed. It's the government force that we abhor.

Why aren't we fighting to get the government completely out of marriage altogether?

This is the critical flaw in the Constitution Party's platform. They absolutely advocate using government force to enforce Christian morality.

And yes, I am ok with getting government out of marriage. That is not what the CP calls for. They call for no government to ever acknowledge any marriage to what their God has in their opinion instituted. And they call on their local, state and federal governments to uphold as they put it "Their cherished 1st amendment rights" to do this, along with banning anything they find profane.

What has my hair up in hackles is that there is a group of people in this movement that are willing to justify SOME government fascism as long as it is in line with their religious beliefs.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 05:10 PM
I would also say that beyond the political aspect, you are hitting on a serious point in the Christian religion that many Christians in politics fail to see. And that is that people are supposed to have the choice.

If the only reason people are obeying the Ten Commandments is because a Christian Right politcian made them law, where is that person's devotion to God in the equation?

Is your choice to obey your God's laws driven by TRUE PIETY as Washington refers to when he says that the path to true piety needs no help from government?

If you choose to keep your God's laws because you love your God and wish to serve him that is faith.

If you are forced to do so because the state will punish you if you don't, that is tyranny.

This is why even the Koran, the from the religion that is supposedly supposed to be one of the most oppressive by many Christian right's opinions states plainly that there is to be no compulsion in religion. It's not just that people should have the freedom, it's that someone being compliant to their religion's views should be a choice for them, or else it has no power behind it.

Take this for example. If someone gave to a charity, that would be a great thing they did. And the right thing.

But when a socialist passes a law FORCING someone to give to a charity, they rob the person of the chance of actually doing the right thing for themselves.

This is why only God has the power to judge.

It is also why you are supposed to allow for free will.

TRUE CHRISTIANS would do what they felt God would want of them even if it was illegal.

They certainly shouldn't be able to make others do what they feel God would want of them by making it illegal.

If furthering your religion is your goal, the state is not the path to saving people's souls. People can only choose to do that for themselves.

+1000000

I don't even have anything to add to this, this is exactly right, and it's the #1 thing I wish more of my fellow Christians in the U.S. understood.

I think the new generation is getting it more than the older one, but that just may be my personal experience.

Edit: I also think that the highly visible political activity of some is really hurting our witness, and this really makes me sad. Not only is political activity not a way to bring people to God, it's a good way to drive them away. :(

klamath
12-24-2008, 05:14 PM
I would also say that beyond the political aspect, you are hitting on a serious point in the Christian religion that many Christians in politics fail to see. And that is that people are supposed to have the choice.

If the only reason people are obeying the Ten Commandments is because a Christian Right politcian made them law, where is that person's devotion to God in the equation?

Is your choice to obey your God's laws driven by TRUE PIETY as Washington refers to when he says that the path to true piety needs no help from government?

If you choose to keep your God's laws because you love your God and wish to serve him that is faith.

If you are forced to do so because the state will punish you if you don't, that is tyranny.

This is why even the Koran, the from the religion that is supposedly supposed to be one of the most oppressive by many Christian right's opinions states plainly that there is to be no compulsion in religion. It's not just that people should have the freedom, it's that someone being compliant to their religion's views should be a choice for them, or else it has no power behind it.

Take this for example. If someone gave to a charity, that would be a great thing they did. And the right thing.

But when a socialist passes a law FORCING someone to give to a charity, they rob the person of the chance of actually doing the right thing for themselves.

This is why only God has the power to judge.

It is also why you are supposed to allow for free will.

TRUE CHRISTIANS would do what they felt God would want of them even if it was illegal.

They certainly shouldn't be able to make others do what they feel God would want of them by making it illegal.

If furthering your religion is your goal, the state is not the path to saving people's souls. People can only choose to do that for themselves.

Why is it you refuse to answer the questions about the gay lobbies through the power of the state courts forcing businesses to accept and pay benefits to ther spouses?
You have a valid argument that many hard core christians wish to push their beliefs on others but by refusing to answer the questions about the gay lobby trying to force others to accept them is coming across as hypocritical.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 05:15 PM
It amazes me how you yanks get led down the garden path.

You kinda rant about guns and ammo. But lets face it, you are pussy whipped.

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 05:15 PM
This is the critical flaw in the Constitution Party's platform. They absolutely advocate using government force to enforce Christian morality.

And yes, I am ok with getting government out of marriage. That is not what the CP calls for. They call for no government to ever acknowledge any marriage to what their God has in their opinion instituted. And they call on their local, state and federal governments to uphold as they put it "Their cherished 1st amendment rights" to do this, along with banning anything they find profane.

What has my hair up in hackles is that there is a group of people in this movement that are willing to justify SOME government fascism as long as it is in line with their religious beliefs.

Neil, get off of the CP. The election is OVER. But what I see you arguing for in this thread is no better than what you claim to hate them so much for, in that you seem to be just fine with government force, as long as it is used to carry out something that YOU want. In this case, gay marriage. This is no different than what the neocons do. They rail against what their cohorts use government force to do on the other side of the aisle, but yet they're fine with using govenrment force to carry out what THEY want. People have gotten used to this BS and now believe that government force is a given; that you just choose which things that government is going to force that you agree with most.

Weren't we the ones who said YOU HAVE ANOTHER OPTION. NO GOVERNMENT FORCE in these areas? That's what I thought anyway. So why in heck are we here arguing about whether government force should be used to force gay marriage down everyone's throats?

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 05:18 PM
Don't worry about gay sex.

Your Banks and Government are having their way with you.

Lie down and take it like a man...

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 05:19 PM
It amazes me how you yanks get led down the garden path.

You kinda rant about guns and ammo. But lets face it, you are pussy whipped.

At least we didn't run off with our tail between our legs to go live in a whiskey bottle on an island and yell back about how wrong we're doing everything.

;):p

klamath
12-24-2008, 05:20 PM
It amazes me how you yanks get led down the garden path.

You kinda rant about guns and ammo. But lets face it, you are pussy whipped.

Hey Oz, slow down on the Eggnog:D

torchbearer
12-24-2008, 05:20 PM
Don't worry about gay sex.

Your Banks and Government are having their way with you.

Lie down and take it like a man...

reminds me if this one time at mardi gras...

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 05:28 PM
At least we didn't run off with our tail between our legs to go live in a whiskey bottle on an island and yell back about how wrong we're doing everything.

;):p

Clever shit mate.

I earned very expensive Scotch.

I would probably knock your socks off, and date women 30 years younger than me.

I do allright for an old fart.

During the meantime... To save your Country.

What the F%*cks sake are you doing? Pussy.

LibertyEagle
12-24-2008, 05:30 PM
Clever shit mate.

I earned very expensive Scotch.

I would probably knock your socks off, and date women 30 years younger than me.

I do allright for an old fart.

During the meantime... To save your Country.

What the F%*cks sake are you doing? Pussy.

More than you. :p

By the way, in your drunken stupor, did you forget that I am a woman?

torchbearer
12-24-2008, 05:35 PM
More than you. :p

By the way, in your drunken stupor, did you forget that I am a woman?

Now-a-days... you can never be 100% certain.... sorry. that kinda fits in this thread... i think.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 05:38 PM
reminds me if this one time at mardi gras...

:eek:

torchbearer
12-24-2008, 05:40 PM
:eek:

You should have seen what they were doing to that chicken...
If you are ever down in mamou...

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 05:45 PM
More than you. :p

By the way, in your drunken stupor, did you forget that I am a woman?

My regret. I was single minded.

I am not in a drunken stupor, and I forgot you were a women. I'm slightly rambunctous.

Get over it.

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 05:49 PM
More than you. :p

By the way, in your drunken stupor, did you forget that I am a woman?

I'll lay down like a dead dog , just for you...

Ozwest
12-24-2008, 05:51 PM
Just for a Woman.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 06:57 PM
Why is it you refuse to answer the questions about the gay lobbies through the power of the state courts forcing businesses to accept and pay benefits to ther spouses?
You have a valid argument that many hard core christians wish to push their beliefs on others but by refusing to answer the questions about the gay lobby trying to force others to accept them is coming across as hypocritical.

I did answer that already. I don't feel that businesses should be forced to pay benefits at all, to gays or anyone else for that matter.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 07:05 PM
Neil, get off of the CP. The election is OVER. But what I see you arguing for in this thread is no better than what you claim to hate them so much for, in that you seem to be just fine with government force, as long as it is used to carry out something that YOU want. In this case, gay marriage. This is no different than what the neocons do. They rail against what their cohorts use government force to do on the other side of the aisle, but yet they're fine with using govenrment force to carry out what THEY want. People have gotten used to this BS and now believe that government force is a given; that you just choose which things that government is going to force that you agree with most.

Weren't we the ones who said YOU HAVE ANOTHER OPTION. NO GOVERNMENT FORCE in these areas? That's what I thought anyway. So why in heck are we here arguing about whether government force should be used to force gay marriage down everyone's throats?

Um, no, I said I am ok with getting the government out of it.

As for the CP, no I am not going to get off them just because this election cycle is over. How much has their screwed up ideology that comes off the like the bastard child of the Libertarian party and the Inquisition polluted the real movement for freedom?

Oh, and Proposal 8 was an attempt by the Christian right to use government force to fulfill their own desires for the lives of everyone around them. As long as the Constitution party has this in their platform, and flat out calls for government force to force their morality on others, then we have a problem.

Asking for equal rights for gays is not forcing anything down anyone's throats. There is no cause for someone to ask for a law to prevent other people from doing something that does no harm to them.

klamath
12-24-2008, 07:12 PM
I did answer that already. I don't feel that businesses should be forced to pay benefits at all, to gays or anyone else for that matter.

So what is the aceptable way to proceed? A; Give full status and entitlements by force to gays, B; by force deny them those entitements or option C: fight to get the state out of marriage so that every individual has the right to choose how they want to live?

Josh_LA
12-24-2008, 07:25 PM
He doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, Neil.

does this mean you believe 3 gay men should have the equal right to adapt children than 1 straight couple?

Or should children be taught that 3 gay men are equally normal as one straight couple in school?

Also, nobody asked your opinion, the title is "Ron Paul" on it.

Josh_LA
12-24-2008, 07:26 PM
So what is the aceptable way to proceed? A; Give full status and entitlements by force to gays, B; by force deny them those entitements or option C: fight to get the state out of marriage so that every individual has the right to choose how they want to live?

C. Get the state out of marriage, as well as legal consent, so girls at 16 can decide who to sleep with on their own.

tonesforjonesbones
12-24-2008, 07:26 PM
Neil are you gay? tones

Josh_LA
12-24-2008, 07:29 PM
Exactly. he is for one man one woman. Gays can get married. I have two lesbian friends who have been married over 20 years. they wear rings etc. They got married at a gay church..and they consider themselves just as married as anyone else. Tones

And I consider myself just as black as any black, so can I say I am black and collect welfare?

Josh_LA
12-24-2008, 07:30 PM
"....just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else."
-Ron Paul


No social conservative I've heard of is admitting that Prop 8 supporters LIED about this in the campaign, claiming that gays will force their marriage on others. As if blacks have forced their humanity on whites.

Josh_LA
12-24-2008, 07:32 PM
The government's job is not to define marriage. I'm in CA, and I abstained. It has nothing to do with my beliefs about a homosexual lifestyle -- the question is, what should the government do, and the answer is get their noses out.

If the statists had a vote on whether everyone would be forced to have green houses, or yellow houses, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote on whether everyone should be forced to wear jeans or khakis, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote on whether to force everyone to be hindu or christian, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote selecting which words and phrases, or thoughts, would be permitted by the federal government, would you vote?

No. Bills and politicians do not have to be perfect to be suppored, but there is a difference between being willing to take small steps in order to roll back statism and promote freedom, and being willing to participate in statism to force your own personal beliefs on others.

Using the state to prohibit gay marriage, or using the state to force recognition of it, are both statist ideas. The only moral stance is to abstain, IMO.

Luckily, ballot issues are never green house or yellow house.

Only green house or not green house (yes or no).

ssdded
12-24-2008, 07:35 PM
This is why Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or the free excercize thereof. Legislating anything on religious grounds other then to protect freedom of religion itself is a DANGEROUS slippery slope. And that's why I called it religious fascism. You cannot impose your morality on anyone else and claim to be following the Constitution.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but 'religious' and 'fascism' are incompatible. If the state is guided by religious doctrine, it can't be fascist because in a fascist state, EVERYTHING is subordinate to the state, including spiritual values. Everything has to be, for nothing can exist outside of the state:


The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

And, no, hiding behind spirituality doesn't count (if that's even possible in a fascist state.) That would be like saying a person in a Grim Reaper costume is really the Grim Reaper.



Soon as we decide that the bible is a key to intrepeting the Constitution, you will have Neo-cons re-writing the Constitution around Romans 13

Only if enough states agreed to a Constitutional Convention. And I'd be more worried about the damage that liberals would do than neo-cons. (Or do I repeat myself?) In any case, we'd almost certainly be screwed no matter what, so in the end it doesn't really matter how they could screw us all over, IMO.

rich34
12-24-2008, 08:09 PM
The defination of marriage is MAN and WOMAN period! If the gays want to call it civil union, hunky dorry or wtf ever that's fine with me, but don't call it MARRIAGE!

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 09:48 PM
Neil are you gay? tones

It's statements like this that make it clear to me that you probably don't actually read my posts and then just make up your answer.

No. I am not Gay. I covered that about a dozen times already. As if that would somehow be releveant.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-24-2008, 09:49 PM
So what is the aceptable way to proceed? A; Give full status and entitlements by force to gays, B; by force deny them those entitements or option C: fight to get the state out of marriage so that every individual has the right to choose how they want to live?

C.

tonesforjonesbones
12-24-2008, 09:51 PM
then why is this always the topic of your conversations? tones

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 09:52 PM
The defination of marriage is MAN and WOMAN period! If the gays want to call it civil union, hunky dorry or wtf ever that's fine with me, but don't call it MARRIAGE!

Sure I respect your right to not call it marriage, in fact, I personally support that definition. I also respect the right of those who wish to call it marriage, to do so. That is why we shouldn't be fighting over which definition the state will force people to accept.

Do we fight over how government should define dating? Or a friend? Or what definition of baptism the government should institute as law? Shall we have endless, caustic, public debate between Baptists and Catholics over sprinkling vs. immersion? No. We should stand united and say the government should not define dating, friendship, baptism, or marriage. It's absurd to think they can do so.

Do not try to get your idea of the right definition passed. Try to get the government out of the business.

tremendoustie
12-24-2008, 10:04 PM
Asking for equal rights for gays is not forcing anything down anyone's throats. There is no cause for someone to ask for a law to prevent other people from doing something that does no harm to them.

Gays should have equal rights, in that government should not define marriage for anyone. Everyone should be free to have whatever ceremony they wish, and call it whatever they will.

If, by "asking for equal rights", you mean codifying gay marriage as law, then I disagree. It does step on the rights of others, who wish to use a different definition of marriage.

As I say, the only right thing to do is to fight for liberty for all, not to try to win the battle for your side on the field of politics. We need to grab the ball and take it away from them.

Even if you "win", and have your ideas codified as law, then the state's power over the issue has been strengthened. Then, when the tides of public opinion turn (as they have in CA), which they often do, you will find that that power is used to suppress your rights.

The gay lobby in CA, and the social conservatives, and all others who care to protect their rights, should fight to remove the power over marriage from the state. That way, no matter which way public opinion turns, gays will have equal rights, social conservatives will not have a non-traditional definition of marriage forced upon them, and we all will have begun to push the state out of our personal lives.

Anything less is an implicit acceptance of the state's control over the issue, and is ultimately damaging, not productive.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-25-2008, 12:08 AM
then why is this always the topic of your conversations? tones

Because I respect the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they please with one another in the privacy of their own lives.

If I was speaking for women's rights would I have to be a woman? Or rights for Blacks would I have to be Black?

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-25-2008, 12:09 AM
Gays should have equal rights, in that government should not define marriage for anyone. Everyone should be free to have whatever ceremony they wish, and call it whatever they will.

If, by "asking for equal rights", you mean codifying gay marriage as law, then I disagree. It does step on the rights of others, who wish to use a different definition of marriage.

As I say, the only right thing to do is to fight for liberty for all, not to try to win the battle for your side on the field of politics. We need to grab the ball and take it away from them.

Even if you "win", and have your ideas codified as law, then the state's power over the issue has been strengthened. Then, when the tides of public opinion turn (as they have in CA), which they often do, you will find that that power is used to suppress your rights.

The gay lobby in CA, and the social conservatives, and all others who care to protect their rights, should fight to remove the power over marriage from the state. That way, no matter which way public opinion turns, gays will have equal rights, social conservatives will not have a non-traditional definition of marriage forced upon them, and we all will have begun to push the state out of our personal lives.

Anything less is an implicit acceptance of the state's control over the issue, and is ultimately damaging, not productive.

I have no problem with any of this.

tremendoustie
12-25-2008, 12:28 AM
I have no problem with any of this.

Cool :)

blocks
12-25-2008, 01:47 AM
Marriage is, simply put, a contract. That's it. States shouldn't even be in the business of granting them, they should be strictly in the business of protecting them. Saying that two (or more :P) consenting adults can't enter into a contract together is, well, retarded.

LibertyEagle
12-25-2008, 03:49 AM
gays should have equal rights, in that government should not define marriage for anyone. Everyone should be free to have whatever ceremony they wish, and call it whatever they will.

If, by "asking for equal rights", you mean codifying gay marriage as law, then i disagree. It does step on the rights of others, who wish to use a different definition of marriage.

As i say, the only right thing to do is to fight for liberty for all, not to try to win the battle for your side on the field of politics. We need to grab the ball and take it away from them.

Even if you "win", and have your ideas codified as law, then the state's power over the issue has been strengthened. Then, when the tides of public opinion turn (as they have in ca), which they often do, you will find that that power is used to suppress your rights.

The gay lobby in ca, and the social conservatives, and all others who care to protect their rights, should fight to remove the power over marriage from the state. That way, no matter which way public opinion turns, gays will have equal rights, social conservatives will not have a non-traditional definition of marriage forced upon them, and we all will have begun to push the state out of our personal lives.

Anything less is an implicit acceptance of the state's control over the issue, and is ultimately damaging, not productive.

+1000

Orgoonian
12-25-2008, 06:40 AM
Gays should have equal rights, in that government should not define marriage for anyone. Everyone should be free to have whatever ceremony they wish, and call it whatever they will.

If, by "asking for equal rights", you mean codifying gay marriage as law, then I disagree. It does step on the rights of others, who wish to use a different definition of marriage.

As I say, the only right thing to do is to fight for liberty for all, not to try to win the battle for your side on the field of politics. We need to grab the ball and take it away from them.

Even if you "win", and have your ideas codified as law, then the state's power over the issue has been strengthened. Then, when the tides of public opinion turn (as they have in CA), which they often do, you will find that that power is used to suppress your rights.

The gay lobby in CA, and the social conservatives, and all others who care to protect their rights, should fight to remove the power over marriage from the state. That way, no matter which way public opinion turns, gays will have equal rights, social conservatives will not have a non-traditional definition of marriage forced upon them, and we all will have begun to push the state out of our personal lives.

Anything less is an implicit acceptance of the state's control over the issue, and is ultimately damaging, not productive.

Cheers,bravo,and well said!

klamath
12-25-2008, 07:06 AM
Gays should have equal rights, in that government should not define marriage for anyone. Everyone should be free to have whatever ceremony they wish, and call it whatever they will.

If, by "asking for equal rights", you mean codifying gay marriage as law, then I disagree. It does step on the rights of others, who wish to use a different definition of marriage.

As I say, the only right thing to do is to fight for liberty for all, not to try to win the battle for your side on the field of politics. We need to grab the ball and take it away from them.

Even if you "win", and have your ideas codified as law, then the state's power over the issue has been strengthened. Then, when the tides of public opinion turn (as they have in CA), which they often do, you will find that that power is used to suppress your rights.

The gay lobby in CA, and the social conservatives, and all others who care to protect their rights, should fight to remove the power over marriage from the state. That way, no matter which way public opinion turns, gays will have equal rights, social conservatives will not have a non-traditional definition of marriage forced upon them, and we all will have begun to push the state out of our personal lives.

Anything less is an implicit acceptance of the state's control over the issue, and is ultimately damaging, not productive.

Right on.

By the way it wasn't the Christian right that passed Prop 8. It was a solid, by 60% democratic electorate that voted. Like I said before I voted against because I think we have to start somewhere, though I fear the courts are going to force the businesses in california to pay for all benefits to gay employees in the end.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-26-2008, 05:07 AM
If the majority of the anti-gay marriage movement was comprised of people who just feel we should not have government legislated marriage, I would be a lot more comfortable with it. That's not what we have. We have religous zealots who are willing to use the power of the state to prevent other people from doing something they themselves don't approve of. They simply cannot stand that such a "sin" is taking place, even if they never see it, hear it, or even smell it. Even if it is going on in the privacy of the homes of consenting adults. They just can't stand that someone out there might not be living to their standards. So it should be illegal.

Not to mention the backwards absurdity that somehow allowing Gay Marriage is going to "increase homosexual behavior". The only thing it will increase is that people who are homosexual will be less afraid to show it. They delude themselves into believing that homosexuals are just a few people who for some reason have decided to be attracted to someone of the same sex. As if that was even possible. The only decisions people have ever made in this regard is the decision to pretend that they are not because they don't want to get beaten up for it. Or run out of their neighborhoods. It's easier to terrorize these people into pretending that they are "normal" then it is to accept that some people chemically are attracted to people of the same gender. We as a society have worked very hard on coercing conformity from these people, and damn it, we simply cannot allow them to be themselves, because it mean being "normal" is not as important anymore! I am not Gay, I could never decide to be Gay, anymore then someone who is Gay could suddenly decide not to feel a chemical attraction to someone of the same gender they happened to like. They only thing a Gay person can DECIDE to do is to LIE and PRETEND not to be so that some pathetic people insecure in their own sexuality can feel better when they go to bed at night, knowing that they scored one against those damned sinners! Those people make me uncomfortable, so I will SHAME them and TERRIFY them into pretending to be like me! Please explain to me how this bullshit is in any way compatible with the freedom movement?

Well, people who think we should still be executing homosexuals make me feel uncomfortable. And if I ever witness someone committing a bigoted crime like that, I hope they are wearing a bullet proof vest.

People dream up crazy conspiracy theories about what they think the gays will do if they are allowed to marry. The stories about how gays are just going to start burning down churches and all that are outright madness.

However, nobody thinks about what the more extreme of the Christian Right would do with the power of a precedent that gives their religion control over legal definitions of any kind. Or choosing what is illegal and what is not. I have studied various Theocracies, every one of them has amounted to evil.

tonesforjonesbones
12-26-2008, 08:49 AM
If they are allowed to marry..for the 5th time, they will demand ministers perform ceremonies which are against the Bible. If the ministers balk, they will start lawsuits and try to close down churches. THAT is what this is all about. We're not stupid. I will fight it until I leave the planet. This is the only issue you harp on...something is going on...you have some sort of vested interest in this..I hope you aren't running for office..if so..where so I can alert people. TONES!

Brian4Liberty
12-26-2008, 12:43 PM
"Traditional" marriage, in the majority of human history, is polygamy.

Those who are obsessed with the issue "doth protest too much...methinks".

It's just another red herring. Feel free to debate endlessly.

SeanEdwards
12-26-2008, 04:59 PM
Let's have a constructive debate.

It's impossible to have a constructive debate with a guy who is unable to express more than three sentences in a single post.

tremendoustie
12-26-2008, 05:12 PM
If the majority of the anti-gay marriage movement was comprised of people who just feel we should not have government legislated marriage, I would be a lot more comfortable with it ...

Of course the prop 8 effort was not comprised of people who are against government legislated marriage, it was comprised of people who want their own personal views codified as law. Likewise, most of the gay lobby is comprised of people who want their own personal views codified as law. I disagree with both, and as I say, I abstained on prop 8, which I think was the only right way to go.

I agree that gays have a right to equal treatment under the law, and the law has no business making distinctions about personal morality.

You must also recognize, though, the rights of those who oppose gay marriage. Marriage has been around for thousands of years. This is not about a desire to outlaw a behavior, this is about opposition to the redefinition of what marriage is.

Say, for example, that the government somehow got control over the definition of "celibate" -- I'll use this as an example, because I think it is illustrative, not because I think it is analogous in every way to the gay marriage issue. They regulated it, licensed it, and otherwise screwed around in what was no business of theirs. They keep a rather traditional definition, however -- a "celibate" person is one who does not have sex. Years pass, to the point where the public recognizes a "celibate" person as one who has been deemed so by the state.

Also, suppose the state institutes certain special privileges for those who are deemed "celibate".

Now suppose, for whatever reason, perhaps in an effort combat STDs, the state redefines "celibate" to mean, "one who does not have unprotected sex".

Can you see how this would cause an outcry? Monks, nuns, and priests who have centuries long traditions of "celibacy", as well as those who have vowed to be "celebate" until marriage, and others, would view this as a direct attack against them and their traditions.

It is completely understandable to me that gays are offended that they are not treated equally, and given equal rights. It is also completely understandable to me that those with a traditional definition of marriage are offended by the state's efforts to change it.

Gays must recognize and appreciate the rights of those for whom marriage is a millenia long oral and written, religious and moral tradition, and who do not wish to see the definition changed. Those who ascribe to a traditional definition of marriage need to recognize and appreciate the rights of gays to equal treatment under the law, and equal rights.

The only way everyone's rights can be protected is to stop fighting against each other, and recognize that the real culprit is out of control government power.

tremendoustie
12-26-2008, 05:17 PM
If they are allowed to marry..for the 5th time, they will demand ministers perform ceremonies which are against the Bible. If the ministers balk, they will start lawsuits and try to close down churches. THAT is what this is all about. We're not stupid. I will fight it until I leave the planet. This is the only issue you harp on...something is going on...you have some sort of vested interest in this..I hope you aren't running for office..if so..where so I can alert people. TONES!

It is a dangerous thing to ascribe motives to people we don't understand out of our own fears and imagination.

Are you secretly trying to take over the world and force everyone by law to be christian and pray three times a day and read the bible and live exactly the way you say? No?

I guarantee you there are those in the gay lobby who think you are, because they are ascribing motives to you out of their own fears and imagination.

Perhaps you should not do the same.

The_Orlonater
12-26-2008, 09:06 PM
Can't we just all agree that gays can build their own churches and get married at their own free will and that the government has nothing to do with it?

We don't need to write huge articles to recognize this.

Get the state out of marriage, that's it.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-27-2008, 02:16 AM
If they are allowed to marry..for the 5th time, they will demand ministers perform ceremonies which are against the Bible. If the ministers balk, they will start lawsuits and try to close down churches. THAT is what this is all about. We're not stupid. I will fight it until I leave the planet. This is the only issue you harp on...something is going on...you have some sort of vested interest in this..I hope you aren't running for office..if so..where so I can alert people. TONES!

Yes, something is going on. In some places there are wackjobs who protest at the funerals of dead soldiers because they say it is punishment for our tolerance of homosexuals.

And you ASSUME they will demand ministers perform these ceremonies. Do you you have any evidence of your grand conspiracy on the part of homosexuals?

And hey, should I run for office again I would be very thankful for you spreading the word that I hate bigotry and hatred.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-27-2008, 02:18 AM
"Traditional" marriage, in the majority of human history, is polygamy.

Those who are obsessed with the issue "doth protest too much...methinks".

It's just another red herring. Feel free to debate endlessly.

lol excellent point. (about the polygamy)

I don't feel it is a red herring though.

I do think it is very dangerous that any percentage of this movement would be willing to just ignore this issue.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-27-2008, 02:23 AM
Of course the prop 8 effort was not comprised of people who are against government legislated marriage, it was comprised of people who want their own personal views codified as law. Likewise, most of the gay lobby is comprised of people who want their own personal views codified as law. I disagree with both, and as I say, I abstained on prop 8, which I think was the only right way to go.

I agree that gays have a right to equal treatment under the law, and the law has no business making distinctions about personal morality.

You must also recognize, though, the rights of those who oppose gay marriage. Marriage has been around for thousands of years. This is not about a desire to outlaw a behavior, this is about opposition to the redefinition of what marriage is.

Say, for example, that the government somehow got control over the definition of "celibate" -- I'll use this as an example, because I think it is illustrative, not because I think it is analogous in every way to the gay marriage issue. They regulated it, licensed it, and otherwise screwed around in what was no business of theirs. They keep a rather traditional definition, however -- a "celibate" person is one who does not have sex. Years pass, to the point where the public recognizes a "celibate" person as one who has been deemed so by the state.

Also, suppose the state institutes certain special privileges for those who are deemed "celibate".

Now suppose, for whatever reason, perhaps in an effort combat STDs, the state redefines "celibate" to mean, "one who does not have unprotected sex".

Can you see how this would cause an outcry? Monks, nuns, and priests who have centuries long traditions of "celibacy", as well as those who have vowed to be "celebate" until marriage, and others, would view this as a direct attack against them and their traditions.

It is completely understandable to me that gays are offended that they are not treated equally, and given equal rights. It is also completely understandable to me that those with a traditional definition of marriage are offended by the state's efforts to change it.

Gays must recognize and appreciate the rights of those for whom marriage is a millenia long oral and written, religious and moral tradition, and who do not wish to see the definition changed. Those who ascribe to a traditional definition of marriage need to recognize and appreciate the rights of gays to equal treatment under the law, and equal rights.

The only way everyone's rights can be protected is to stop fighting against each other, and recognize that the real culprit is out of control government power.

There are a lot of religions with ancient traditions, many of which are far older then Christianity. Does that mean they get special treatment when it comes to defining things? This is why we don't make laws to respect the establishment of ANY religion. Period.

I am totally ok with getting the state out of it. But the more I study what the extreme of the Christian right does, the more I worry for the future. When I hear people in this movement say things like "I don't care if Chuck Baldwin makes it illegal for me not to go to church on Sunday as long as he gets rid of the Federal reserve" (Yes, actual quote) I begin to wonder just how messed up the freedom message could get from all this.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-27-2008, 02:26 AM
It is a dangerous thing to ascribe motives to people we don't understand out of our own fears and imagination.

Are you secretly trying to take over the world and force everyone by law to be christian and pray three times a day and read the bible and live exactly the way you say? No?

I guarantee you there are those in the gay lobby who think you are, because they are ascribing motives to you out of their own fears and imagination.

Perhaps you should not do the same.

I know there are people out there who feel that way, I don't think they are the majority, but I have met a man who made it clear he would execute me as a heretic if the law didn't prevent it.

I have seen the protests of military funerals.

And I have seen religious persecution.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-27-2008, 02:27 AM
Can't we just all agree that gays can build their own churches and get married at their own free will and that the government has nothing to do with it?

We don't need to write huge articles to recognize this.

Get the state out of marriage, that's it.

Sure thing.

Proposal 8 proves that there are people who will not be satisfied with that.

tremendoustie
12-27-2008, 03:17 AM
I know there are people out there who feel that way, I don't think they are the majority, but I have met a man who made it clear he would execute me as a heretic if the law didn't prevent it.

I have seen the protests of military funerals.

And I have seen religious persecution.

Yeah, sadly those people exist. I don't know if this is what you saw on the military funeral, but I heard of a "church" which was basically a scam where they act incredibly offensively at funerals and then try to sue if their "protests" were hindered. Here it is: Westboro Baptist Church.

Seriously scummy.

And as for your run of the mill haters, I'm not sure how hating people ties into Christ's message. Apparently they think the first century was bizzaro century, where everything you say means the opposite ... so obviously loving people, even your enemies, doesn't apply ...

I bet there are those who hate all Christians too, of course. There are those who would be the manifestation of all Tones's fears.

But, those are the minority, in both cases. And there's enough evil in the world without adding evil motives to people where they don't exist.

I know there were many who supported prop 8 who weren't haters, they were just misguided people trying to protect what they believed to be the right definition of marriage.

And, I know there were many who supported the supreme court decision who weren't anything close to tradition haters, or christian haters, they just wanted equal rights.

We just need to realize that the bogeyman isn't the guy across the issue from us, and he's probably not half so bad as our imaginations make him out to be. The worst of the worst is not typical.

The people who, in their arrogant pseudo-benevolence, think they should fit all of our lives into their little boxes, to regulate, define, tax, and mange them, and then to make us fight each other over the scraps of what's left of our rights -- it is those people who are not half so good as our imaginations make them out to be.

tremendoustie
12-27-2008, 03:48 AM
There are a lot of religions with ancient traditions, many of which are far older then Christianity. Does that mean they get special treatment when it comes to defining things? This is why we don't make laws to respect the establishment of ANY religion. Period.


When it comes to defining things, the government shouldn't. There's no special treatment, religious or non, just people, who should be free to make their own decisions about what they believe, and what definitions they hold.

In the definition I gave above, it would be wrong to redefine chastity to include protected sex. But, it was also wrong for the government to define it in the first place, excluding protected sex.

As a side point, making no law respecting an establishment of a religion means government should view religion as it views sneezing. It just doesn't care -- it treats every organization and person exactly the same whether they are religious or not.

To make "no law respecting" something means exactly that -- to ignore it. If I write a law to specifically exclude, include, give preferential, or disfavorable treatment to a person or organization based on their religion or lack therof, then I am making a law with respect to that religion.

Do not think that because someone has an opinion which is based on their religious beliefs, that somehow they have no right to a voice.




I am totally ok with getting the state out of it. But the more I study what the extreme of the Christian right does, the more I worry for the future. When I hear people in this movement say things like "I don't care if Chuck Baldwin makes it illegal for me not to go to church on Sunday as long as he gets rid of the Federal reserve" (Yes, actual quote) I begin to wonder just how messed up the freedom message could get from all this.

There are people who will say almost anything inane, especially on the internet. I could go on a search engine and in five minutes provide numerous examples showing that any segment of the population is filled with uneducated, unintelligent, barely intelligible, extremist nuts.

Probably someone trying to convince you to vote for baldwin based on the idea that his opposition to the fed is way more important than any concerns you might have about his religious views. And, the person vastly overstated their case, and went to absurd extremes, as often happens on the interwebs.

I betcha I could find some statement on a gay rights site about how all christians should be burned at the stake, if I looked for it.

These people are unserious people being unserious, I wouldn't worry about it. They don't constitute any significant portion of any segment of the population, and they certainly don't represent the future.

Don't fall into the trap tones does ;).

tonesforjonesbones
12-27-2008, 11:47 AM
Mark my words...if that passes in all the states...look for the gays to start demanding ministers to marry them against their religious beliefs and expect the ACLU to be in on it. tones

Brian4Liberty
12-27-2008, 02:42 PM
lol excellent point. (about the polygamy)

I don't feel it is a red herring though.

I do think it is very dangerous that any percentage of this movement would be willing to just ignore this issue.

Government and individuals should "ignore" most issues. Which means that efforts to push certain group's preferences into government code are a bad idea. People need to get over their natural inclination to force everyone to be an exact duplicate of themselves.

There are so many important issues, yet gay marriage and abortion are the main ones that get discussed in the general public (as litmus tests). That makes the Democrats, Republicans, the Oligarchy/Plutocracy, and an assortment of special interests very happy...they are red herrings.

tremendoustie
12-27-2008, 03:57 PM
Mark my words...if that passes in all the states...look for the gays to start demanding ministers to marry them against their religious beliefs and expect the ACLU to be in on it. tones

Tones, do you love gay people, just the way they are, or do you dislike or even hate them? Because that's the feeling I get from a lot of your posts. (I could be totally wrong, I just get that vibe).

Do you really think the battle that needs to be fought is in the courts and the government? Do you remember the verse about not battling against flesh and blood?

And so what if the worst that you imagine comes to pass. Christianity has thrived under extremely adverse circumstances, throughout history. Lawsuits are peanuts compared to being used as human torches, being thrown in prison, tortured, etc. I think the reason it has thrived in these circumstances may be because it has a way of putting our priorities back on track ...

What do you think Christ would do if he were hanging out nowadays? I betcha he'd be having a beer and hanging out with a bunch of gays, among other people (hopefully including me). I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be collecting signatures for the next ballot initiative.

I'm not some super great person on this, and I don't want to be the guy with the plank trying to pick out the sawdust -- goodness knows I need to take this to heart too, but isn't the right approach to love people, to act Christ-like, and not worry as much about what political leaders do?

I am worried that we are hurting our witness because of our wrong priorities. If you asked 100 random Americans what the first word that popped into their head was when they thought, "Christian", I bet most of them would be nothing we want to be associated with. Would any of them be love?

I don't mean to offend, just some things to think about.

RonPaulMania
12-27-2008, 11:56 PM
Tones, do you love gay people, just the way they are, or do you dislike or even hate them? Because that's the feeling I get from a lot of your posts. (I could be totally wrong, I just get that vibe).

He can hate the act, but not the person. Acts don't define people as a person.


Do you really think the battle that needs to be fought is in the courts and the government? Do you remember the verse about not battling against flesh and blood?

That's missing the point. Not battling against flesh and blood is a reference to the bigger fight, but it does not exclude it. It's a manifestation through flesh and blood.


What do you think Christ would do if he were hanging out nowadays? I betcha he'd be having a beer and hanging out with a bunch of gays, among other people (hopefully including me). I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be collecting signatures for the next ballot initiative.

While he wouldn't be getting sigs for initiatives, he wouldn't be hanging out with homosexuals and having beer as a hang-out. He would be preaching about the adulterous nation, about the sin of Sodom, and said those who don't follow those words are going to Hell. You know Christ spoke of Sodom and He mentions Hell more than Heaven right?


I'm not some super great person on this, and I don't want to be the guy with the plank trying to pick out the sawdust -- goodness knows I need to take this to heart too, but isn't the right approach to love people, to act Christ-like, and not worry as much about what political leaders do?

Sorry, it's a Christians' obligation to fight not only for life everlasting but this world too. While this is not Heaven and Christ's kingdom is not of this world it certainly must be established that we are to prepare for Christ through politics. The politics that most resemble God's will are most perfect.


I am worried that we are hurting our witness because of our wrong priorities. If you asked 100 random Americans what the first word that popped into their head was when they thought, "Christian", I bet most of them would be nothing we want to be associated with. Would any of them be love?

Love and correction are not mutually exclusive. The first spiritual work of mercy is the correction of sinners. While I know you are repeating politically correct things in an innocuous way, I still think you don't recognize the New Testament as the embodiment of the entire Christian ethic spiritually or politically.

Bman
12-28-2008, 12:42 AM
Sorry, it's a Christians' obligation to fight not only for life everlasting but this world too. While this is not Heaven and Christ's kingdom is not of this world it certainly must be established that we are to prepare for Christ through politics. The politics that most resemble God's will are most perfect.


This is the same logic that has teens over in the mid-east strapping bombs on their backs and walking into large crowds.

The looming problem with christianity is not the words of Jesus. It's the belief that one is carrying out gods will as if you were god yourself. When you do something for goodness sake take a little responsibility and let the bible out of it. Why some here would argue that gays are forcing their beliefs on christians, I would have to wonder what people like yourself think you are doing. The hypocrisy and blind faith that looks past reason will keep me ever far from those who wish to organize themselves under religious text.


If you want to believe something great. But leave god out of it because in all honesty my belief in god and such isn't anything like what you think. And if you want to tell me you are right and I am wrong. Well my only response would be best described by saying... Use your imagination.

tremendoustie
12-28-2008, 02:00 AM
He can hate the act, but not the person. Acts don't define people as a person.



Sure, but if you love someone, but hate something they're doing, that means you'll treat the person with love. The person should feel loved by you, not rejected by you.

(by the way, tones is a woman)



That's missing the point. Not battling against flesh and blood is a reference to the bigger fight, but it does not exclude it. It's a manifestation through flesh and blood.


Not at all. No person is our enemy. Our enemies are those things which corrupt and distort God's creation, most especially man, each of whom Christ commands us to love as ourselves.

There is no person which is our enemy. To set up human beings as our enemies is to become more destructive then constructive, and to completely abandon the example that Christ showed us.




While he wouldn't be getting sigs for initiatives, he wouldn't be hanging out with homosexuals and having beer as a hang-out.

Consider these examples:



Matthew 9
10 Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. 13 “But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”




Luke 15
1 Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. 2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
3 So He told them this parable, saying, 4 “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?




Luke 7
36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. 37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."

40Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.

41"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[d] and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"

43Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.

44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."




5When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." 6So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.' "




But, no, I'm sure he'd be hating on the gays, probably wouldn't go anywhere near them without a bullhorn and a sandwich board :p.

I'm not saying there isn't right and wrong, or that sin isn't very real and very damaging, but we're called to love people, and we're called to love them even if we don't agree with everything they do.

I don't think preaching fire and brimstone with a holier than thou attitude ever accomplished much.




He would be preaching about the adulterous nation, about the sin of Sodom, and said those who don't follow those words are going to Hell. You know Christ spoke of Sodom and He mentions Hell more than Heaven right?


Hmm, funny thing, I just found over 350 references to heaven in the New Testament, but only 16 for hell. I tried with NIV, NAS, and KJ with similar results ...

Not that I think word counts mean much of anything anyway. I think if you read any significant portion of the New Testament, it's pretty clear that Christ consistently shows love to people of all backgrounds. He spent time with people who no one else would, and he taught people how to live.

Suprisingly, given that he was the one perfect guy on the planet, the one guy who could really pull off a good fiery sermon of condemnation without being a hypocrite, I can't remember him spending much time on that ...

Although, there was one group which Christ railed against pretty thoroughly. As I recall, he called them "hypocrites", "den of vipers", and "unwashed tombs". Yep, the pharisees. Those were the religious leaders of the day who thought they were all that, that they had it all figured out, and that looked down on everyone else.

You know, I'd much rather be a sinner who knows he needs help, and spends his time thinking about his own sin, than a pharisee who thinks he's the man, and spends his time thinking about the sins of others.




Sorry, it's a Christians' obligation to fight not only for life everlasting but this world too. While this is not Heaven and Christ's kingdom is not of this world it certainly must be established that we are to prepare for Christ through politics. The politics that most resemble God's will are most perfect.


No, I'm pretty sure Christ never said the kingdom of God was political, in fact, I'm pretty sure he made it quite clear it was not, and I'm pretty sure he gave no instructions about politics.

But, sure, let's go with it, let's say politics should reflect Christian morality.

Do you believe it would be Christ like of you to go over to your neighbor's with a gun, and threaten to throw them in a cage if they do not live according to Christian ethics? You don't? Well then, guess we shouldn't get the government to do that either.

That was easy, looks like God's the judge after all, as Paul mentions in 1st Corinthians 4:


103I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.


It's kind of a relief actually, I'm glad I'm not accountable to Nancy Peloci for keeping God's law after all.

And you know, I'm pretty glad it's not my job to enforce God's law either. After all, I've got a pretty big struggle with sin going on myself, and, being as imperfect as I am, I wouldn't make a very good judge or prosecutor.




Love and correction are not mutually exclusive. The first spiritual work of mercy is the correction of sinners.


I don't think so. It seems like the first thing Christ did was show people love, or heal them in some way. And, even when he did correct people, he also did that in love. I don't even think it's my job to correct people unless I'm in some sort of spiritual leadership position, or maybe if I really think I can do it in a gentle way (In my experience you've gotta be careful, it's kind of like surgery). Plus, "spiritual correction" doesn't make much sense for someone who's not a Christian anyway.

I think if I were to project myself as some kind of voice of condemnation to the masses, I would be taking God's job, being a hypocrite, since I'm a sinner too, and probably ultimately driving people off.

I think the best I can do is try to show people love, and maybe introduce people to God and his word. Finger pointing, as best I can tell, is not my look-out.



While I know you are repeating politically correct things in an innocuous way ...


If I were worried about political correctness I wouldn't be here ;).



I still think you don't recognize the New Testament as the embodiment of the entire Christian ethic spiritually or politically.

Firstly, I don't think Christianity is an ethic, I think it's a relationship. And secondly, I don't know where on earth the word "political" is sneaking in as a description of Christianity -- I certainly don't see it in the New Testament.

Frankly the phrase "Christian political ethic" gives me the hebbie jeebies worse than Freddie Kreuger.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-28-2008, 03:51 PM
Yeah, sadly those people exist. I don't know if this is what you saw on the military funeral, but I heard of a "church" which was basically a scam where they act incredibly offensively at funerals and then try to sue if their "protests" were hindered. Here it is: Westboro Baptist Church.

Seriously scummy.

And as for your run of the mill haters, I'm not sure how hating people ties into Christ's message. Apparently they think the first century was bizzaro century, where everything you say means the opposite ... so obviously loving people, even your enemies, doesn't apply ...

I bet there are those who hate all Christians too, of course. There are those who would be the manifestation of all Tones's fears.

But, those are the minority, in both cases. And there's enough evil in the world without adding evil motives to people where they don't exist.

I know there were many who supported prop 8 who weren't haters, they were just misguided people trying to protect what they believed to be the right definition of marriage.

And, I know there were many who supported the supreme court decision who weren't anything close to tradition haters, or christian haters, they just wanted equal rights.

We just need to realize that the bogeyman isn't the guy across the issue from us, and he's probably not half so bad as our imaginations make him out to be. The worst of the worst is not typical.

The people who, in their arrogant pseudo-benevolence, think they should fit all of our lives into their little boxes, to regulate, define, tax, and mange them, and then to make us fight each other over the scraps of what's left of our rights -- it is those people who are not half so good as our imaginations make them out to be.

People like you give me hope for Christianity in the freedom movement.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-28-2008, 03:56 PM
Tones, do you love gay people, just the way they are, or do you dislike or even hate them? Because that's the feeling I get from a lot of your posts. (I could be totally wrong, I just get that vibe).

Do you really think the battle that needs to be fought is in the courts and the government? Do you remember the verse about not battling against flesh and blood?

And so what if the worst that you imagine comes to pass. Christianity has thrived under extremely adverse circumstances, throughout history. Lawsuits are peanuts compared to being used as human torches, being thrown in prison, tortured, etc. I think the reason it has thrived in these circumstances may be because it has a way of putting our priorities back on track ...

What do you think Christ would do if he were hanging out nowadays? I betcha he'd be having a beer and hanging out with a bunch of gays, among other people (hopefully including me). I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be collecting signatures for the next ballot initiative.

I'm not some super great person on this, and I don't want to be the guy with the plank trying to pick out the sawdust -- goodness knows I need to take this to heart too, but isn't the right approach to love people, to act Christ-like, and not worry as much about what political leaders do?

I am worried that we are hurting our witness because of our wrong priorities. If you asked 100 random Americans what the first word that popped into their head was when they thought, "Christian", I bet most of them would be nothing we want to be associated with. Would any of them be love?

I don't mean to offend, just some things to think about.

What many Christians generally fail to understand, is that Jesus's word is supposed to be inspiring. Not forced. Your attitude for example would give me admiration for your position, and would far more tempt me to consider your religion then any amount of hate mongering or fire and brimstone spiritual terrorism.

We should have a Quaker theocracy. Just have to figure out how to deal with national defense.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-28-2008, 03:58 PM
He can hate the act, but not the person. Acts don't define people as a person.



That's missing the point. Not battling against flesh and blood is a reference to the bigger fight, but it does not exclude it. It's a manifestation through flesh and blood.



While he wouldn't be getting sigs for initiatives, he wouldn't be hanging out with homosexuals and having beer as a hang-out. He would be preaching about the adulterous nation, about the sin of Sodom, and said those who don't follow those words are going to Hell. You know Christ spoke of Sodom and He mentions Hell more than Heaven right?



Sorry, it's a Christians' obligation to fight not only for life everlasting but this world too. While this is not Heaven and Christ's kingdom is not of this world it certainly must be established that we are to prepare for Christ through politics. The politics that most resemble God's will are most perfect.



Love and correction are not mutually exclusive. The first spiritual work of mercy is the correction of sinners. While I know you are repeating politically correct things in an innocuous way, I still think you don't recognize the New Testament as the embodiment of the entire Christian ethic spiritually or politically.

You are supposed to be fighting.

Within yourself. And encouraging/inspiring other people to do so.

A good number of people I have met who are religiously motivated in their political activism generally have huge problems at home and in their own lives.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-28-2008, 04:01 PM
This is the same logic that has teens over in the mid-east strapping bombs on their backs and walking into large crowds.

The looming problem with christianity is not the words of Jesus. It's the belief that one is carrying out gods will as if you were god yourself. When you do something for goodness sake take a little responsibility and let the bible out of it. Why some here would argue that gays are forcing their beliefs on christians, I would have to wonder what people like yourself think you are doing. The hypocrisy and blind faith that looks past reason will keep me ever far from those who wish to organize themselves under religious text.


If you want to believe something great. But leave god out of it because in all honesty my belief in god and such isn't anything like what you think. And if you want to tell me you are right and I am wrong. Well my only response would be best described by saying... Use your imagination.

It is also the same logic they used during the crusades. And the Inquisition. We need to find and root out the devil.

Eventually the line blurs really fast. You find yourself doing things that Christ would never do in pursuit of the "devil" and become the devil yourself. This was going on all over the place when the Constitution was written. That's why George Washington pointed out that the path to TRUE PIETY requires no help from government. And therefore he felt there should be no regulation respecting religion in the Constitution.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-28-2008, 04:09 PM
Sure, but if you love someone, but hate something they're doing, that means you'll treat the person with love. The person should feel loved by you, not rejected by you.

Also, by the way, tones is a woman.



Not at all. No person is our enemy. Our enemies are those things which corrupt and distort God's creation, most especially man, each of whom Christ commands us to love as ourselves.

There is no person which is our enemy. To set up human beings as our enemies is to become more destructive then constructive, and to completely abandon the example that Christ showed us.




Consider these examples:











But, no, I'm sure he'd be hating on the gays, probably wouldn't go anywhere near them without a bullhorn and a sandwich board :p.

I'm not saying there isn't right and wrong, or that sin isn't very real and very damaging, but we're called to love people, and we're called to love them even if we don't agree with everything they do.

I don't think preaching fire and brimstone with a holier than thou attitude ever accomplished much.




Hmm, funny thing, I just found over 350 references to heaven in the New Testament, but only 16 for hell. I tried with NIV, NAS, and KJ with similar results ...

Not that I think word counts mean much of anything anyway. I think if you read any significant portion of the New Testament, it's pretty clear that Christ consistently shows love to people of all backgrounds. He spent time with people who no one else would, and he taught people how to live.

Suprisingly, given that he was the one perfect guy on the planet, the one guy who could really pull off a good fiery sermon of condemnation without being a hypocrite, I can't remember him spending much time on that ...

Although, there was one group which Christ railed against pretty thoroughly. As I recall, he called them "hypocrites", "den of vipers", and "unwashed tombs". Yep, the pharisees. Those were the religious leaders of the day who thought they were all that, that they had it all figured out, and that looked down on everyone else.

You know, I'd much rather be a sinner who knows he needs help, and spends his time thinking about his own sin, than a pharisee who thinks he's the man, and spends his time thinking about the sins of others.




No, I'm pretty sure Christ never said the kingdom of God was political, in fact, I'm pretty sure he made it quite clear it was not, and I'm pretty sure he gave no instructions about politics.

But, sure, let's go with it, let's say politics should reflect Christian morality.

Do you believe it would be Christ like of you to go over to your neighbor's with a gun, and threaten to throw them in a cage if they do not live according to Christian ethics? You don't? Well then, guess we shouldn't get the government to do that either.

That was easy, looks like God's the judge after all, as Paul mentions in 1st Corinthians 4:


It's kind of a relief actually, I'm glad I'm not accountable to Nancy Peloci for keeping God's law after all.

And you know, I'm pretty glad it's not my job to enforce God's law either. After all, I've got a pretty big struggle with sin going on myself, and, being as imperfect as I am, I wouldn't make a very good judge or prosecutor.




I don't think so. It seems like the first thing Christ did was show people love, or heal them in some way. And, even when he did correct people, he also did that in love. I don't even think it's my job to correct people unless I'm in some sort of spiritual leadership position, or maybe if I really think I can do it in a gentle way (In my experience you've gotta be careful, it's kind of like surgery). Plus, "spiritual correction" doesn't make much sense for someone who's not a Christian anyway.

I think if I were to project myself as some kind of voice of condemnation to the masses, I would be taking God's job, being a hypocrite, since I'm a sinner too, and probably ultimately driving people off.

I think the best I can do is try to show people love, and maybe introduce people to God and his word. Finger pointing, as best I can tell, is not my look-out.



If I were worried about political correctness I wouldn't be here ;).



Firstly, I don't think Christianity is an ethic, I think it's a relationship. And secondly, I don't know where on earth the word "political" is sneaking in as a description of Christianity -- I certainly don't see it in the New Testament.

Frankly the phrase "Christian political ethic" gives me the hebbie jeebies worse than Freddie Kreuger.

If this were Mortal Kombat, right now Shao Kahn would be saying "FINISH HIM!" and then shortly afterward: "tremendoustie wins...FATALITY!"

But in all seriousness, tremendoustie if your not a pastor you should seriously consider it. You reminded me of the things I liked about being a Christian when I was.

There is a really old movie with John Wayne called "Angel and the Badman". I strongly suggest you check it out. It's public domain now.

mrwiizrd
12-28-2008, 06:39 PM
It is NOTHING but a PLOY to further destroy Christianity in the USA..and I will DAMN well fight it. tones

You scare me more than the thought of George W Bush in a locked closet with the Constitution and a paper shredder, and I'm not even gay.

The Constitution Party must have a message board more suited to your ideology someplace.

tonesforjonesbones
12-28-2008, 06:48 PM
YOU with 48 posts. you don't know me. LOl tones

Knightskye
12-28-2008, 06:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M#t=2m01s

Right to the second. :)

mrwiizrd
12-28-2008, 07:05 PM
YOU with 48 posts. you don't know me. LOl tones

Your most insightful response is to try and belittle me because of my post count? Laughable.

Why don't YOU try to show some class, take off you tinfoil hat and for once give compassion a chance instead of fear.



It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and leave no doubt.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-28-2008, 07:22 PM
YOU with 48 posts. you don't know me. LOl tones

This person's post count does not in any way have any bearing on their being scared of the stuff you say.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
12-28-2008, 07:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M#t=2m01s

Right to the second. :)

In the video gaming world, we call that WTF PWNED!