"GOP Should Drop Opposition to Gay Marriage"

[Reason]

YouTube - Ex-McCain Aide "GOP Should Drop Opposition to Gay Marriage" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=138BQlrBaR4)

[BuddyRey]

Agreed! The GOP is supposed to be the party of individual liberty and equality under the law, not *group* liberty (liberty for some and tyranny for others) and a form of law where "some are more equal than others."

[LittleLightShining]

GOP needs to drop support of state-sanctioned marriage.

[nayjevin]

politicians should drop the practice of deciding what their principles should be in order to get votes!

[Danke]

...and polygamy.

[ItsTime]

The government should get out of my bed! Agreed GOP should drop the opposition to gay marriage. But at the same time gays (through law/courts) should not force churches that oppose it to marry them. :2 cents

[tonesforjonesbones]

Here we go again...the Founders didn't approve of sodomy...this is not conducive to a moral society and without that ...forget freedom and liberty...when will you get off this kick? Why can't you understand that we must have a moral society to have true liberty??? Jefferson passed a law to castrate sodomists and rapists and poligamists...why can't you understand this was not part of the grand plan???? You are GOING down the wrong path.

[ItsTime]

Here we go again...the Founders didn't approve of sodomy...this is not conducive to a moral society and without that ...forget freedom and liberty...when will you get off this kick? Why can't you understand that we must have a moral society to have true liberty??? Jefferson passed a law to castrate sodomists and rapists and poligamists...why can't you understand this was not part of the grand plan???? You are GOING down the wrong path.

Your god killed over 2,000,000 people in the bible alone. I think YOU are going down the wrong path.

Jefferson was a HUMAN. He was wrong.

[Danke]

Here we go again...the Founders didn't approve of sodomy...

What about cocksuckers?

[ItsTime]

With that in mind, maybe you're wrong??? :D;)

Of course. But I dont use fairy tales to back up my arguments.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Itstime....grow up. Stop cherry picking the Founders intent to suit your agenda.. immorality and liberty don't jibe...when you accept this...maybe we can get somewhere. Porn, homosexuality, etc etc..are not conducive to Liberty. tones

[ItsTime]

Itstime....grow up. Stop cherry picking the Founders intent to suit your agenda.. immorality and liberty don't jibe...when you accept this...maybe we can get somewhere. Porn, homosexuality, etc etc..are not conducive to Liberty. tones

You're the one cherry picking. So what you are saying is..... You are at liberty to do what I say and only what I think is moral and everything else you can not do.

THAT is not the intent of freedom. I find nothing immoral about homosexuality or porn, or whatever else your crazy bat shit bible says.

So killing is MORAL? Because your god killed 2,000,000? Jihad! :rolleyes:

[tonesforjonesbones]

Itstime...stop hating the founders. Your agenda is TWISTED. They clearly believed that you must have a MORAL SOCIETY for this system of government to work. They ALL attended church regularly, they tithed to the churches. Something is WRONG with the brains of those who can not understand this concept. You have been brainwashed over time, to believe immorality is ok and it defies logic. You have been hoodwinked by the Dialectic and chaos / demoralization by those who have hijacked our country. STOP IT. I suppose YOU believe like the socialists...that Christians are domestic terrorists? Please, get your hat on straight. tones

[hugolp]

Itstime...stop hating the founders. Your agenda is TWISTED. They clearly believed that you must have a MORAL SOCIETY for this system of government to work. They ALL attended church regularly, they tithed to the churches. Something is WRONG with the brains of those who can not understand this concept. You have been brainwashed over time, to believe immorality is ok and it defies logic. You have been hoodwinked by the Dialectic and chaos / demoralization by those who have hijacked our country. STOP IT. I suppose YOU believe like the socialists...that Christians are domestic terrorists? Please, get your hat on straight. tones

Did you just said there that only by being religious a person can be moral? So all the not religious people are inmoral no matter how they live or behave?

Please tell me I got it wrong.

[ItsTime]

Itstime...stop hating the founders. Your agenda is TWISTED. They clearly believed that you must have a MORAL SOCIETY for this system of government to work. They ALL attended church regularly, they tithed to the churches. Something is WRONG with the brains of those who can not understand this concept. You have been brainwashed over time, to believe immorality is ok and it defies logic. You have been hoodwinked by the Dialectic and chaos / demoralization by those who have hijacked our country. STOP IT. I suppose YOU believe like the socialists...that Christians are domestic terrorists? Please, get your hat on straight. tones

Good for them. Do I believe Christians are terrorists NO. But I can tell you think Agnostics/Atheists/Pagans are! Pretty much makes you a hypocrite with no idea about liberty and freedom.

[ItsTime]

Did you just said there that only by being religious a person can be moral? So all the not religious people are inmoral no matter how they live or behave?

Please tell me I got it wrong.

Sadly you are not.

[ItsTime]

Oh yeah Tones did you know a PORNOGRAPHER helped spread Ron Pauls Ron Paul youtubes more than any one? He got millions of hits to Ron Paul youtubes. What do you think about that?

YES that is FACT.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I believe that IMMORALITY is not conducive to liberty...the Founders said it..even Thomas Paine who was the ONLY admitted deist. Now, if you think there is nothing immoral about homosexuality..sodomy of any kind, abortion, pornography...something is NOT connecting. This stuff was REJECTED by the folks who set up our government...prove to me that it wasn't..you cannot do it. Prove to me that running around in the streets doing indecent things is conducive to liberty...which is what the gays want..prove to me that killing unborn babies is liberty...show me. tones

[ItsTime]

I believe that IMMORALITY is not conducive to liberty...the Founders said it..even Thomas Paine who was the ONLY admitted deist. Now, if you think there is nothing immoral about homosexuality..sodomy of any kind, abortion, pornography...something is NOT connecting. This stuff was REJECTED by the folks who set up our government...prove to me that it wasn't..you cannot do it. Prove to me that running around in the streets doing indecent things is conducive to liberty...which is what the gays want..prove to me that killing unborn babies is liberty...show me. tones

homosexuality, porn are not the same as abortion. Man you have many screws loose.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ron Paul said it himself in his speech at the Rally for the Republic...there must be a MORAL society in order to have liberty..HE SAID IT. He said without a moral society you can't have moral politicians...therefore you will have chaos. Why do you reject this???? You even Reject Ron Paul. Are you that selfish? tones

[ItsTime]

Ron Paul said it himself in his speech at the Rally for the Republic...there must be a MORAL society in order to have liberty..HE SAID IT. He said without a moral society you can't have moral politicians...therefore you will have chaos. Why do you reject this???? You even Reject Ron Paul. Are you that selfish? tones

Whos morals? We cant have a society with crazy bat shit christians who want to CONTROL people. CONTROL is not LIBERTY. What dont you understand about that?

[tonesforjonesbones]

Porn, homosexuality, killing babies, rape , incest, fornication, drunkness, stealing, fraud, all IM:MORAL. Prove to me how any of those things create a healthy society. Do you have children??? Do you remember Babylon at all? Who hijacked your brain??? Babyoln was a GODLESS society...look what happened to it. Is that what you want? tones

[ItsTime]

Porn, homosexuality, killing babies, rape , incest, fornication, drunkness, stealing, fraud, all IM:MORAL. Prove to me how any of those things create a healthy society. Do you have children??? tones

Wow MOST OF THOSE THINGS YOUR GOD DID! How is YOUR GOD MORAL? :eek: This is too funny for words.

[tonesforjonesbones]

You are nutz. This is where many people part ways with the libertarian party. Show me ONE..just one immoral society that survived. Show me that this stuff was going on in the days the constitution was written...openly. Now, if someone is a homosexual and keeps it on the downlow..I have no issue, but they flaunt it..and I , quite frankly, don't want it influencing my grandchildren. There is something to be said for discretion. tones

[ItsTime]

You are nutz. This is where many people part ways with the libertarian party. Show me ONE..just one immoral society that survived. tones

Humans. No society lasts for ever.


You didnt answer the question. How is your god moral? Flooded the earth, how many babies were killed? Killed every first born in Egypt, how many babies killed? Just two quick samples of the immoral things your god did.

[micahnelson]

Porn,
consensual

homosexuality
consensual

killing babies
non consensual

rape
non consensual

incest
Usually non consensual

fornication
Usually consensual

drunkness
Personal Choice, all things being equal.

stealing
Depriving of Property- violating another's right to the fruit of their labor.

fraud
Taking something from another person based on false pretenses.

all IM:MORAL.
Possibly, but morality is something individuals must decide for themselves. Its a religious issue. If you believe these things to be immoral- you must convince people to change the way they act. It is authoritarian to make illegal those things which do not harm another.



Prove to me how any of those things create a healthy society. Do you have children??? Do you remember Babylon at all? Who hijacked your brain??? TONES

Well lets see, my biological mother was 16 and unmarried when she got pregnant with me. I believe I am working to build a healthier society. Plus one for fornication? The demand for privacy and availability of Pornographic viewing practically built the modern internet. The internet is now vital to the liberty movement. Many homosexual people helped with this campaign. And as far as drunkenness, did you ever listen to Ron Paul Radio?

Well... maybe that last one is a bad example.

[tonesforjonesbones]

So you do believe in God....you just don't like Him. It's His world..we just live in it. Immorality exists...but pushing it to be normal and mainstream is another story. Do you believe this sort of behavior is conducive to a healthy society? Yes or no. tones

[ItsTime]

So you do believe in God....you just don't like Him. It's His world..we just live in it. Immorality exists...but pushing it to be normal and mainstream is another story. Do you believe this sort of behavior is conducive to a healthy society? Yes or no. tones

Do you believe your god killed babies? Yes or no

[heavenlyboy34]

Porn, homosexuality, killing babies, rape , incest, fornication, drunkness, stealing, fraud, all IM:MORAL. Prove to me how any of those things create a healthy society. Do you have children??? Do you remember Babylon at all? Who hijacked your brain??? Babyoln was a GODLESS society...look what happened to it. Is that what you want? tones

Tones,

You've got something of a point in all this, but your solution is hopelessly flawed. :( The issues you mentioned must be resolved by real people, for the force of government will always cause resentment and backlash. Reason must prevail, and government is not reason, but force.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with the porn industry (though much of it is silly, IMO). If you don't agree with it, just don't buy it! As you well know, the market is a much better way to regulate this than the oppressive force of government coercion.

Hugs,
HB34

[Danke]

Is 69 immoral?

[tonesforjonesbones]

I asked you first...you can't seem to answer the question and stick to the issues..you want to use the tack of trying to divert the focus of the debate. I asked you if you considered this behavior to be conducive to a healthy society..and you divert the focus to "well your god did it". Why don't you just answer the question? tones

[ItsTime]

Is 69 immoral?

Maybe we just need tones to make up a list of things people will be killed for if they do it. :o

[ItsTime]

I asked you first...you can't seem to answer the question and stick to the issues..you want to use the tack of trying to divert the focus of the debate. I asked you if you considered this behavior to be conducive to a healthy society..and you divert the focus to "well your god did it". Why don't you just answer the question? tones


edit: micahnelson summed it up for you. Read that post.

Because like most nut jobs you ask a question that can not be answered with a yes or no. You classify homosexuality and pornography in the same class as killing people.

But my question is simple. Did your god kill babies? yes or no.

[zach]

Groups should just stop vying for government-sponsored marriages.

Same-sex or opposite-sex.

Forcing institutions to acknowledge your marriage is not freedom regardless of who you're in love with at the moment.

[micahnelson]

edit: micahnelson summed it up for you. Read that post.

Because like most nut jobs you ask a question that can not be answered with a yes or no. You classify homosexuality and pornography in the same class as killing people.

But my question is simple. Did your god kill babies? yes or no.

Lets not call people nut jobs. This whole conversation isn't very productive, frankly.

[micahnelson]

Groups should just stop vying for government-sponsored marriages.

ding ding ding ding ding.

[ItsTime]

Lets not call people nut jobs. This whole conversation isn't very productive, frankly.

I didnt call her a nut job.

[max]

yes...and while they are it...we should also drop any opposition to people marrying and buggering their pet dogs, pet cats and pet chickens....

ya know guys...preserving a civilization is more than just about Austrian Economics !

Once the family and traditional morals are wiped out, a degenerate mass of perverted people will INEVITABLY fall under state socialism..

You think its a coincidence that the biggest proponents of socialism are always the biggest suporters og homosexuality, feminism, pornography etc??????

[zach]

yes...and while they are it...we should also drop any opposition to people marrying and buggering their pet dogs, pet cats and pet chickens....

ya know...preserving a civilization is more than just about Austrian Economics people!

Once the family and traditional morals are wiped out, a degenerate mass of perverted people will INEVITABLY fall under state socialism..

You think its a coincidence that the biggest proponents of socialism are always the biggest suporters og homosexuality, feminism, pornography etc??????

If you want to marry a dog, then why is it my business?
If I want to marry my boyfriend, then why is it your business?
And why am I perverted? I haven't called anyone names yet, and I'm already being labeled as immoral.

[heavenlyboy34]

yes...and while they are it...we should also drop any opposition to people marrying and buggering their pet dogs, pet cats and pet chickens....

ya know guys...preserving a civilization is more than just about Austrian Economics !

Once the family and traditional morals are wiped out, a degenerate mass of perverted people will INEVITABLY fall under state socialism..

You think its a coincidence that the biggest proponents of socialism are always the biggest suporters og homosexuality, feminism, pornography etc??????

As long as the State is in control of marriage, a vestige of State Socialism will remain. It is indeed the State's intervention into marriage which created the slippery slope of "redefining" marriage. :(:mad:

No more State, no more problem! ;):D

[ItsTime]

If you want to marry a dog, then why is it my business?
If I want to marry my boyfriend, then why is it your business?
And why am I perverted? I haven't called anyone names yet, and I'm already being labeled as immoral.

These people dont want liberty, they want control. :mad:

What brings down these "immoral" countries is that a group of people thinks they know better than the individual and try to get control over their "immoral" activities and then find out they can not and it destroys the country. Pretty much what is happening to the US now. People like Tones and Max think they know better than the individual and want CONTROL and they use the state to get that control.

[zach]

These people dont want liberty, they want control. :mad:

What brings down these "immoral" countries is that a group of people thinks they know better than the individual and try to get control over their "immoral" activities and then find out they can not and it destroys the country. Pretty much what is happening to the US now. People like Tones and Max think they know better than the individual and want CONTROL and they use the state for that control.

Yes.. those who advocate a ban against same-sex marriage might force gay couples to live in denial and under "special notice."
But on the other hand, those who advocate gay couples to have the right to marry might force institutions to do this under the guise of "special rights."

It's tyranny on both sides no matter how newspeak you put it, which is why I stand behind this:


Groups should just stop vying for government-sponsored marriages.

[ItsTime]

Yes.. those who advocate a ban against same-sex marriage might force gay couples to live in denial and under "special notice."
But on the other hand, those who advocate gay couples to have the right to marry might force institutions to do this under the guise of "special rights."

It's tyranny on both sides no matter how newspeak you put it, which is why I stand behind this:

I dont believe the state should have a say in marriage. I also believe the state should not have the say on who a church chooses to marry.

[angelatc]

Agreed! The GOP is supposed to be the party of individual liberty and equality under the law, not *group* liberty (liberty for some and tyranny for others) and a form of law where "some are more equal than others."

Like it or not, the GOP will isolate its base by adopting this as a plank. The GOP needs to stick to a Constitutional message.

[max]

Yes.. those who advocate a ban against same-sex marriage might force gay couples to live in denial and under "special notice."
But on the other hand, those who advocate gay couples to have the right to marry might force institutions to do this under the guise of "special rights."

It's tyranny on both sides no matter how newspeak you put it, which is why I stand behind this:

no one is "banning" anyone from shacking up and sodomizing.

the issue is these people wanting the state to recognize their "marriages": as a moral equivalency to real marriage.

it's a direct assault on the moral foundations of civiization...has nothing to do with liberty...

I cant understand homosexuality, but I'm not out to oppress anyone. I have my own vices, but I dont wear them on my sleeve demanding that people recognize and respect my vices.

I smoke cigarettes...and if people say that I have a disgusting and smelly habit I'm not gonna ask the state to recognize me as special.


Smoking is gross...so is buggering another man

[tonesforjonesbones]

Nope...you are incorrect. I never said I believed the central government should control moral issues..I am a strong 10th amendment advocate. Leave it to the states and to the people. SO...in California that happened...and the people spoke. They voted against gay marriage..that wasn't good enough though..and the supreme court stepped in and denied the will of the people. How is this a good thing? Those people who voted against it..now are violated. Is that liberty... that the minority overcame the will of the majority at the state level? So..the majority has no voice in the USA? I am ok with getting government o;ut of marriage all together. I could stand on that . It should be left to the churches like it used to be. I believe the churches should get the government out of their business and let go of the tax exempt 501 c 3's. I'd rather pay the dang tax than have the government say I must go against my belief system. It is no good for the churches. Morals have to come from within...and I maintain that a Babylonesque society will most surely fail. LOOK at what the USA has become...and you think this is ok? God didn't cherry pick sin either...God never said one sin is worse than another sin..killing and porn are the same degree in Gods' eyes...MAN places degree on sin. Be it porn or murder or lies...we will have to answer for it eventually. Furthermore, God forgives all sin equally..the murder has exactly the same chance to get to heaven as the liar or theif ..and that is liberty. That is my truth...tones

[hugolp]

no one is "banning" anyone from shacking up and sodomizing.

the issue is these people wanting the state to recognize their "marriages": as a moral equivalency to real marriage.

it's a direct assault on the moral foundations of civiization...has nothing to do with liberty...

I cant understand homosexuality, but I'm not out to oppress anyone. I have my own vices, but I dont wear them on my sleeve demanding that people recognize and respect my vices.

I smoke cigarettes...and if people say that I have a disgusting and smelly habit I'm not gonna ask the state to recognize me as special.


Smoking is gross...so is buggering another man

Christians copied marriage from the romans. They did not invented it. Romans were very homosexual (you wont see that in the movies).

Anyway, goverment should not have anything to do with marriage. Each private entity should decide who they want to marry and how they want to call it.

[ItsTime]

Tones there is something deeply flawed with your god

God killing babies = good
Consensual sex between adults = bad

So much for liberty when you wear the shackles of a baby killing god :(

[klamath]

GOP needs to drop support of state-sanctioned marriage.

You got it.

[zach]

no one is "banning" anyone from shacking up.

the issue is these people wanting the state to recognize their "marriages": as a moral equivalency to real marriage.

it's a direct assault on the moral foundations of civiization...has nothing to do with liberty...

I cant understand homosexuality, but I'm not to oppress anyone. I have my own vices, but I dont wear them on my sleeve demanding that people recognize and respect my vices.

I smoke cigarettes...and if people say that I have a disgusting and smelly habit I'm not gonna ask the state to recognize me as special.


Smoking is gross...so is buggering another man

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I.
You make it seem as if it's a sorry, sad thing that some people like the same sex, when in reality, people are human beings regardless of who they are attracted to.

But how is societal norm marriage any more moral when the divorce rate is ~50%? Divorce is a sad state of being in my opinion.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2uykfa0.gif

All I would like is to be recognized as a human being who can love just like the next person.
Forcing someone to like, understand, or advocate how I love is not my business, but it'd be nice to at least be considered like everyone else. There always seems to be a more negative, "Aw, you're not straight? I'm sorry!" mentality when it comes to how I live my life, and it's rather annoying. I'm happy with my life, and I have morals regarding how I live it; it can be a stark difference compared to some other people I know regardless of their sexuality. But I don't need to "flaunt" my sexuality.. just like a heterosexual doesn't need to proclaim their sexuality.

If the state I live in doesn't recognize my want of marriage, then I will move to a state that does. No use in bitching and moaning. And I don't want federal government to come in and force my acknowledgment upon institutions that don't want to do it in the first place

[max]

Romans were very homosexual (you wont see that in the movies).




false...in the days of roman republic, romans were very traditional and moral.

it was after rome lost its republic and became an empire that some of the elites became homosexual....(just like known homosexuals Hilary Clinton, Obama, Lindsey Graham, Barney Frank etc)

rome collapsed due to moral decay , cost of maintaining empire, and government spending (sound familiar)

[JS4Pat]

As an opponent of Gay Marriage - I believe the GOP can strike a principled position as well as a politically winning position if they go with something like this:

The Republican Party believes government should play no role in the issue of marriage. Marriage is an important institution that should be defined by one's spiritual/religious beliefs and/or private legal contracts.

The Republican Party will work to remove any government requirements (to include "licenses") on an individual's decision to marry.

What do you think?

[Matt Collins]

Here is what I wrote on this guy's blog (http://www.dolphinsdock.com/2009/04/17/future-of-the-gop-one-can-hope/):

...if the government can define “marriage” then what else about our families can they control? Will the bureaucrats, and politicians eventually try to define “love”? I should hope not.


Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The government should have nothing to do with it and the very idea that one must ask permission to marry is a direct insult to our freedom. In fact the implication of having to attain a license to marry is that marriage is a privilege granted by the government. A privilege is the opposite of a right because rights are inherent and do not require permission. Even the Constitution recognizes our unlimited right to contract.




The best plan?
Leave the government out of it. And you’re right that the Republican Party and my fellow conservatives should adopt this philosophy. Besides, one cannot call themselves a “conservative” if they advocate big government intrusion into the personal lives of consenting adults. If the government is powerful enough to force one group of morals upon another group, then it is powerful enough to trample the rights of all individuals.

[ItsTime]

Here is what I wrote on this guy's blog (http://www.dolphinsdock.com/2009/04/17/future-of-the-gop-one-can-hope/):

...if the government can define “marriage” then what else about our families can they control? Will the bureaucrats, and politicians eventually try to define “love”? I should hope not.


Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The government should have nothing to do with it and the very idea that one must ask permission to marry is a direct insult to our freedom. In fact the implication of having to attain a license to marry is that marriage is a privilege granted by the government. A privilege is the opposite of a right because rights are inherent and do not require permission. Even the Constitution recognizes our unlimited right to contract.




The best plan?
Leave the government out of it. And you’re right that the Republican Party and my fellow conservatives should adopt this philosophy. Besides, one cannot call themselves a “conservative” if they advocate big government intrusion into the personal lives of consenting adults. If the government is powerful enough to force one group of morals upon another group, then it is powerful enough to trample the rights of all individuals.

well said Matt

[zach]

The Republican Party believes government should play no role in the issue of marriage. Marriage is an important institution that should be defined by one's spiritual/religious beliefs and/or private legal contracts.

The Republican Party will work to remove any government requirements (to include "licenses") on an individual's decision to marry.

What do you think?


Here is what I wrote on this guy's blog (http://www.dolphinsdock.com/2009/04/17/future-of-the-gop-one-can-hope/):

...if the government can define “marriage” then what else about our families can they control? Will the bureaucrats, and politicians eventually try to define “love”? I should hope not.


Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The government should have nothing to do with it and the very idea that one must ask permission to marry is a direct insult to our freedom. In fact the implication of having to attain a license to marry is that marriage is a privilege granted by the government. A privilege is the opposite of a right because rights are inherent and do not require permission. Even the Constitution recognizes our unlimited right to contract.




The best plan?
Leave the government out of it. And you’re right that the Republican Party and my fellow conservatives should adopt this philosophy. Besides, one cannot call themselves a “conservative” if they advocate big government intrusion into the personal lives of consenting adults. If the government is powerful enough to force one group of morals upon another group, then it is powerful enough to trample the rights of all individuals.

These.

[Danke]

Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Minnesotans for Limited Government Position Paper on Gay Marriage

The GOP in Ramsey County has a lot of challenges. Often they are of their own making and therefore capable of a rapid reversal and a better statement of Liberty under a Constitutional Government. This it is to be hoped will make the GOP more acceptable here in Ramsey County.

What follows is a position paper that I wrote for Sue Jeffers, Republican candidate for governor in Minnesota last year 2006. This is a freedom position on gay marriage and marriage licenses.

First some history: The first marriage license law in the United States was passed in 1867 in Massachusetts. This law came about because a black man wanted to marry a white woman. Before 1867 no one in America had needed or even thought to need them marriage license. They would consider the idea that they would have to get the government's permission to get married and to pay a fee for the right of getting married would be completely alien to their thinking. George and Martha Washington, Abraham and Mary Lincoln and every other couple in America who wanted to get married before 1867 only needed the permission of their families and their churches. As far as I am concerned, marriage licenses violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. So marriage licenses started as a Jim Crow law.

Now to get a marriage license, you have to pay a fee. This FEE can be considered a tax. It is interesting to note that when you buy a marriage license, they are only good for six months. If your plans change and your marriage is postponed past the date of the license, you have to buy a second license. So this Jim Crow law was soon found to be an excellent tax revenue source.

With the rise of the Welfare State many benefits and subsidies were distributed in ways that made your marriage status important in deciding if you would be receiving these benefits. I have heard that there are 1100 specific government benefits and subsidies dependent upon your marriage status. This is particularly true in the assignment of health benefits, especially employee provided health benefits. So this racist law, and tax cash cow, became an important tool for the welfare state.

Some more history: I was in college in the late 1970's, this with a time of great intellectual and social change. Gay rights became an important issue in America. The gay activists that I knew wanted nothing to do with marriage or any of the other traditional social arrangements. They wanted their right to be free to enjoy a promiscuous sex without social stigma. I for one am willing to give them this. However something happened during the party. They started getting sick. They're getting herpes simplex, hepatitis A B and C, and the big one; AIDS.

Sick people will do what they can to get well. It is their right under the pursuit of happiness clause in the Constitution. Many decided to take advantage of the health insurance benefit provided by the employers of their friends to pay for the costs of their health care. Employer provided health insurance is the unintended consequence of the wage freeze of 1945 during the Truman administration. Price freezes never work and health insurance benefits were invented as a non-cash payment for services rendered by employees. To access these benefits the idea of gay marriage was promoted I am not saying that the partners don't love each other. I am saying that we have backed ourselves into a corner by continually looking to the government to solve problems they aren't competent to solve.

So here are the Conservatives, the traditionalists fighting to “save marriage." They aren't saving marriage. They're fighting to preserve: a racist law, the tax on a religious sacrament, and the welfare state.

The true liberty and freedom answer to this dilemma is less government. Repeal all marriage licensing laws. The Sacrament of marriage belongs to the Church not the State. Churches should decide who they marry not the government. This repeal will be a tax cut, putting the employer-employee relationship back on a cash basis. A fair day's wage for a fair day's work in the worker can spend his money however he likes.

An honest government should treat you as an individual and should not consider your marital status or anything else but your individuality in dealing with you. If gay people want to get married and are unable to find a church that will marry them, they are free to start their own churches. This is an example of using Historical Analysis to identify past Constitutional abuses and by working to rectify them, forward the cause of Liberty.

If the GOP adopts this position it leaves the opposition forced to defend a TAX and a HUGE violation of the "Separation of Church and State". Meanwhile we can ask the Social Conservatives: Do you really want to give the government the right and power to license that which "that which the LORD has joined?" What happens if the government decides to license and tax other sacraments like Baptism? Do the born again have to pay twice?

Liberty!
Colin Wilkinson
Minnesotans for Limited Government
www.MNLG.org

[torchbearer]

Everyone should have the right to like fish sticks.

[zach]

Everyone should have the right to like fish sticks.

Especially if they're fresh. :D

[Meatwasp]

As an opponent of Gay Marriage - I believe the GOP can strike a principled position as well as a politically winning position if they go with something like this:

The Republican Party believes government should play no role in the issue of marriage. Marriage is an important institution that should be defined by one's spiritual/religious beliefs and/or private legal contracts.

The Republican Party will work to remove any government requirements (to include "licenses") on an individual's decision to marry.

What do you think?
I think you said it all and nothing more to add to this thread

[Ninja Homer]

At first, there were no marriage licenses... the government had nothing to do with it. Then some people had issues with mixed marriages, so they made it law that marriage licenses were required, but just for African-Americans. Later on, people cried out for equal rights, but rather than getting rid of marriage licenses altogether, they made them required for everybody. Rather than everybody being equally free, we all became equally in bed with the government.

Now homosexuals are feeling left out, and they want to be in bed with the government too. If they really knew what that meant, I don't think they'd want it.

The best position on this should be very obvious. The government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all.

[Ninja Homer]

Ron Paul said it himself in his speech at the Rally for the Republic...there must be a MORAL society in order to have liberty..HE SAID IT. He said without a moral society you can't have moral politicians...therefore you will have chaos. Why do you reject this???? You even Reject Ron Paul. Are you that selfish? tones

You can't create morals with law, just like you can't spread democracy by pointing a gun.

You create and spread morals by example.

[torchbearer]

You can't create morals with law, just like you can't spread democracy by pointing a gun.

You create and spread morals by example.

Good luck finding Christians who believe in "witnessing". (only a very small minority still do)
They are lazy and would rather have the government force morality... which in the end, has the opposite result.
They don't even listen to their own lord. I can't stand the hypocrisy.

[Eric21ND]

Itstime....grow up. Stop cherry picking the Founders intent to suit your agenda.. immorality and liberty don't jibe...when you accept this...maybe we can get somewhere. Porn, homosexuality, etc etc..are not conducive to Liberty. tones
Thank you Jerry Falwell, but we're adults and can decide these things for ourselves.

[ItsTime]

Everyone should have the right to like fish sticks.

Fish sticks are immoral

[torchbearer]

Fish sticks are immoral

I'm thinking that you secretly like fish sticks and feel a great guilt about it.
Just come out of the freezer and tell everyone.

[Austin]

GOP should stop supporting state sanctioned marriages altogether.

Also, tones..

Ron Paul also opposed the idea that "some monolithic government is going to make you a better person." Laws will not make an immoral nation moral! Only through freedom and voluntary action can a nation experience true morality.

[He Who Pawns]

Here we go again...the Founders didn't approve of sodomy...this is not conducive to a moral society and without that ...forget freedom and liberty...when will you get off this kick? Why can't you understand that we must have a moral society to have true liberty??? Jefferson passed a law to castrate sodomists and rapists and poligamists...why can't you understand this was not part of the grand plan???? You are GOING down the wrong path.

Wow, please go form a "Religion Party" and take all the other Christian fundies with you. Maybe Sarah Failin can be your candidate in 2012. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon13.gif

[Danke]

Fish sticks are immoral

Silly Rabbit, Fish Sticks are for Chicks.

[Anti Federalist]

At first, there were no marriage licenses... the government had nothing to do with it. Then some people had issues with mixed marriages, so they made it law that marriage licenses were required, but just for African-Americans. Later on, people cried out for equal rights, but rather than getting rid of marriage licenses altogether, they made them required for everybody. Rather than everybody being equally free, we all became equally in bed with the government.

Now homosexuals are feeling left out, and they want to be in bed with the government too. If they really knew what that meant, I don't think they'd want it.

The best position on this should be very obvious. The government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all.

Salvo for Homer.

+1

[Eric21ND]

Christians copied marriage from the romans. They did not invented it. Romans were very homosexual (you wont see that in the movies).

Anyway, goverment should not have anything to do with marriage. Each private entity should decide who they want to marry and how they want to call it.
Watch Rome on HBO. :D

[Eric21ND]

^^
Wants his fishsticks and porn

[Theocrat]

The GOP should work in its platform to get both state governments and the federal government out of marriage. It's unbiblical as well as unconstitutional.

Steve Schmidt is making a categorical mistake to suggest that people have the right to be gay. Who gives them that right? It certainly is not God, and the State has no jurisdiction to grant any individual rights. This continual jargon of "gay rights" needs to stop. People do not obtain rights because they are in a minority group.

Also, honoring "gay rights" is not an extension of liberty. As tones pointed out earlier in this thread, you can't have liberty in an immoral society. That is why our country is suffering now. We tolerate immorality too much, and as we continue to grant homosexual unions as "rights" to those couples, we will continue to fall as a nation.

[zach]

We will continue to fall as a nation as long as we keep oppressing each other to make ourselves happy.

[Matt Collins]

Steve Schmidt is making a categorical mistake to suggest that people have the right to be gay. Who gives them that right? It certainly is not God, and the State has no jurisdiction to grant any individual rights.Individuals have the right to be or do anything they want so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. If you don't believe or understand that you should ask yourself why you are here on this forum. One does not have to be a Christian or even a believer in a higher power to understand that rights are inherent. Yes it says we are endowed by our Creator (which I happen to believe in) however the belief in God or a Creator is not the basis for our rights. Our rights are based upon the fact that we are individuals and as part of our humanity, our rights are inseperable because they are inherent. You can believe God put them there, or you can believe that we evolved into this position, or whatever you want. But the fact is that regardless of HOW humans got to where we are, we all have individual rights that are unalienable.



This continual jargon of "gay rights" needs to stop. People do not obtain rights because they are in a minority group.That is correct. Only individuals can have rights.





you can't have liberty in an immoral society. That is why our country is suffering now. We tolerate immorality too much, and as we continue to grant homosexual unions as "rights" to those couples, we will continue to fall as a nation.Who's morality? Your morality? My morality? An atheists' morality? A Wiccan's morality? A Muslim's morality? A Mormon's morality?

Morality and legality are two seperate lines; sometimes they intersect but most of the time they don't.


Having liberty and rights is NOT contigent upon morality, it's only contingent upon your respect of my individual rights and vice versa.





.

[micahnelson]

We will continue to fall as a nation as long as we keep oppressing each other to make ourselves happy.

And zach is well on his way to be RPF'R of the day.

[heavenlyboy34]

And zach is well on his way to be RPF'R of the day.
yay! Zach is awesome! :cool: He makes funny noises when I rub his belly. :D:eek::)

[AuH20]

At first, there were no marriage licenses... the government had nothing to do with it. Then some people had issues with mixed marriages, so they made it law that marriage licenses were required, but just for African-Americans. Later on, people cried out for equal rights, but rather than getting rid of marriage licenses altogether, they made them required for everybody. Rather than everybody being equally free, we all became equally in bed with the government.

Now homosexuals are feeling left out, and they want to be in bed with the government too. If they really knew what that meant, I don't think they'd want it.

The best position on this should be very obvious. The government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all.

Agreed. The Constitution guarantees homosexuals all the rights of every other American citizen. However, abortion is a completely different animal in my book because we're talking about the intentional sabotage of another sentient being's liberty. A society that murders it own children for convenience doesn't deserve to exist. Wheres the justice and virtue in abortion? There is none.

[AuH20]

Porn, homosexuality, killing babies, rape , incest, fornication, drunkness, stealing, fraud, all IM:MORAL. Prove to me how any of those things create a healthy society. Do you have children??? Do you remember Babylon at all? Who hijacked your brain??? Babyoln was a GODLESS society...look what happened to it. Is that what you want? tones

You equate "homosexuality" as a some kind of amoral choice. Its not a choice. Its a genetic aberration. Do you think these people chose to be gay?

[pahs1994]

Tones, Please stop trying to push your "morals" on us. Noone on here is trying to stop you from worshipping your god (who may or may not have killed babies). So why get all huffy if some dude wants to get drunk, smoke a blunt, watch some porn and stick something up his ass. As long as he isn't doing anything to hurt you.

GOP or any type of party in the government shouldn't be telling people what to do in their own homes period. tones

[Ninja Homer]

Good luck finding Christians who believe in "witnessing". (only a very small minority still do)
They are lazy and would rather have the government force morality... which in the end, has the opposite result.
They don't even listen to their own lord. I can't stand the hypocrisy.

Two great universal truths everybody needs to learn:

1. Whatever you focus on, you get more of. If everybody focuses on "gay marriage", gay marriage will be more popular. If Christians want less gay marriage, they should instead focus on improving heterosexual marriage statistics. This effect can be seen in all the government declared wars. The "War on Drugs" increases drug use. The "War on Terror" increases the amount of terror.

Focus on what you want instead of what you don't want, and it's a lot more likely to happen. Rather than "End the Fed rallies" we should be having "Sound Money rallies".

2. When you ban people from doing something, they're more likely to do it. The majority of people are rebellious in nature, especially young people in this country. Tell people they can't drink alcohol, use drugs, or smoke cigarettes, and they'll do it more just to prove they can. It stems from an inner desire to be free.

[pahs1994]

Two great universal truths everybody needs to learn:

1. Whatever you focus on, you get more of. If everybody focuses on "gay marriage", gay marriage will be more popular. If Christians want less gay marriage, they should instead focus on improving heterosexual marriage statistics. This effect can be seen in all the government declared wars. The "War on Drugs" increases drug use. The "War on Terror" increases the amount of terror.

Focus on what you want instead of what you don't want, and it's a lot more likely to happen. Rather than "End the Fed rallies" we should be having "Sound Money rallies".

2. When you ban people from doing something, they're more likely to do it. The majority of people are rebellious in nature, especially young people in this country. Tell people they can't drink alcohol, use drugs, or smoke cigarettes, and they'll do it more just to prove they can. It stems from an inner desire to be free.

+1 you make too much sence

[heavenlyboy34]

Two great universal truths everybody needs to learn:

1. Whatever you focus on, you get more of. If everybody focuses on "gay marriage", gay marriage will be more popular. If Christians want less gay marriage, they should instead focus on improving heterosexual marriage statistics. This effect can be seen in all the government declared wars. The "War on Drugs" increases drug use. The "War on Terror" increases the amount of terror.

Focus on what you want instead of what you don't want, and it's a lot more likely to happen. Rather than "End the Fed rallies" we should be having "Sound Money rallies".

2. When you ban people from doing something, they're more likely to do it. The majority of people are rebellious in nature, especially young people in this country. Tell people they can't drink alcohol, use drugs, or smoke cigarettes, and they'll do it more just to prove they can. It stems from an inner desire to be free.

Well said, and very rational. :D:)

[Reason]

Originally Posted by Ninja Homer View Post
Two great universal truths everybody needs to learn:

1. Whatever you focus on, you get more of. If everybody focuses on "gay marriage", gay marriage will be more popular. If Christians want less gay marriage, they should instead focus on improving heterosexual marriage statistics. This effect can be seen in all the government declared wars. The "War on Drugs" increases drug use. The "War on Terror" increases the amount of terror.

Focus on what you want instead of what you don't want, and it's a lot more likely to happen. Rather than "End the Fed rallies" we should be having "Sound Money rallies".

2. When you ban people from doing something, they're more likely to do it. The majority of people are rebellious in nature, especially young people in this country. Tell people they can't drink alcohol, use drugs, or smoke cigarettes, and they'll do it more just to prove they can. It stems from an inner desire to be free.

+1

[Zera]

I believe this thread just proves that Tones is another neocon, religious right idiot.

[misterx]

How did such an obscure, no name Republican get spotlighted on CNN? Oh yeah, he towed the PC line.

[micahnelson]

I believe this thread just proves that Tones is another neocon, religious right idiot.

I think this thread proves that we have a hard time acting like grown ups.

[pahs1994]

I believe this thread just proves that Tones is another neocon, religious right idiot.

ask tones who she voted for president :eek:

[ItsTime]

I think this thread proves that we have a hard time acting like grown ups.

Please tell us how we are suppose to act :rolleyes:

We need a list from Tones of immoral acts their god can kill us for

and

We need a list of appropriate behavior that micahnelson thinks we should follow

Then those lists need to be sent to a sub committee for review then amendments need to be made then needs to go to a vote in the hot topics :D

[Jace]

...

[Zera]

ask tones who she voted for president :eek:

Of course I know it was McCain. She was defending him on every front during the election. Too much of a shill to vote third party.

[misterx]

GOP should stop supporting state sanctioned marriages altogether.

Also, tones..

Ron Paul also opposed the idea that "some monolithic government is going to make you a better person." Laws will not make an immoral nation moral! Only through freedom and voluntary action can a nation experience true morality.

True. The government shouldn't discourage unhealthy attitudes and behaviors, society should. I'm sympathetic to the government staying out of marriage, but I disagree with how society embraces unhealthy behaviors like homosexuality. Government has no business teaching it in schools as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. From my perspective, this issue has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with fostering a healthy, enduring society.

[Natalie]

I am marrying Lily Allen, and nobody, including the government, is going to stop me!! *waves fist*

[ItsTime]

I am marrying Lily Allen, and nobody, including the government, is going to stop me!! *waves fist*

Can I get an invite?

[heavenlyboy34]

I am marrying Lily Allen, and nobody, including the government, is going to stop me!! *waves fist*

:eek: Where do I get tickets to see this spectacle? :confused:

[micahnelson]

Please tell us how we are suppose to act :rolleyes:



Following the forum guidelines of respectful debate would be a good start. Working to a compromise, a resolution, or a point where you recognize a disagreement and agree to move on- one of those scenarios would be helpful.

Civility, cooperation, and patience is of critical importance when working together collectively. Since we are all on a forum, it stands to reason that our goal is to share information and act more effectively. If we spend our time fighting on issues we don't agree on, we won't advance issues on which we do agree.

Please do not confuse a word of advice or caution as some sort of tyrannical attempt to oppress free speech. I'm pretty sure calling someone a neoconservative moron doesn't serve a purpose other than to insult. If you feel that someone is of lesser intelligence, than be the bigger man. Let people's arguments stand on their own, and leave off the ad hominem.

I would be curious to note, however, how many people say things here to get feedback- and how many are attempting to start a fight? If this place becomes a flame war, we will lose whatever organizational power we have left.

[Theocrat]

Individuals have the right to be or do anything they want so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. If you don't believe or understand that you should ask yourself why you are here on this forum. One does not have to be a Christian or even a believer in a higher power to understand that rights are inherent. Yes it says we are endowed by our Creator (which I happen to believe in) however the belief in God or a Creator is not the basis for our rights. Our rights are based upon the fact that we are individuals and as part of our humanity, our rights are inseperable because they are inherent. You can believe God put them there, or you can believe that we evolved into this position, or whatever you want. But the fact is that regardless of HOW humans got to where we are, we all have individual rights that are unalienable.

You need to stop thinking one-dimensionally. Rights are not granted just because we're humans. That's only begging the question when you argue for rights on that level. In essence, you're saying that we get our rights because we're humans, and because we're humans, we have rights. That doesn't tell us anything about why we have rights, nor does it explain where rights come from. You're just arguing in a circle when you make the basis of rights contingent on humanity alone.

Instead, you need to think two-dimensionally. Our rights are derived from God, and particularly, the triune God as revealed in the Bible. It's because of Him that rights can even exist in the first place. You said that as long as an individual doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, he can do anything he wants. However, this dismisses God from the equation. Individuals do not have the liberty to do whatever they want because they are still living in God's universe, and He has standards and laws which men are accountable to, even if they supersede the State's. God is affected by what we do (because He has covenanted Himself with His creation), and He will punish nations for living immorally because it goes against His character and nature of righteousness. George Mason, who was considered the "Father of the Bill of Rights," stated this,


As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.

Thomas Jefferson also stated,


Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever.

So, you see, God does punish nations for living immorally, especially those nations which once acknowledged God as their God but turned away from Him. Our Founders understood this, so why don't you?


Who's morality? Your morality? My morality? An atheists' morality? A Wiccan's morality? A Muslim's morality? A Mormon's morality?

Morality and legality are two seperate lines; sometimes they intersect but most of the time they don't.


Having liberty and rights is NOT contigent upon morality, it's only contingent upon your respect of my individual rights and vice versa.

Obviously, I'm referring to God's standard of morality. All other attempts to define morality are futile, and they only lead to logical incoherency and an eradication of morality itself (a discussion for another thread, which I've covered several times already).

To separate liberty and rights from morality is political/social suicide, for there would be no basis to honor liberty and rights without establishing a standard of morality to make liberty and rights honorable in the first place. You've said that we must respect others' individual rights, but that in and of itself is a moral statement. Undoubtedly, you would have a moral problem if one did not respect another's individual rights (whatever you classify those to be), but that is your standard of morality.

So, your posing of the statement only proves what I've been saying all along. You can't have liberty and rights without morality, and you can't have morality (in an objective and absolute sense) without God. In this case, homosexuality is not moral in the sight of God, and therefore, He does not give anyone the right to be immoral in His universe. The State should not honor nor protect homosexuality as if it's a right acknowledged by the Giver of our rights. That is why the State should not grant marriage to those in the gay community. It seems some people in the GOP have forgotten that important principle, as evidenced in the video of the OP.

Once again, I refer you to the link in my signature if you have any doubts about the religious basis for rights and morality as understood in our early Republic.

[ItsTime]

micah I was kidding

[ItsTime]

blah blah blah

You get your rights from a baby killer? Mine are NATURAL born. I dont need the chains of a baby killing god to be free do you?

[He Who Pawns]

Oh, Theo..... :rolleyes:

[micahnelson]

micah I was kidding

You'll have to excuse me, i've had my sense of humor revoked ever since i started trying to buy a house.

[ItsTime]

You'll have to excuse me, i've had my sense of humor revoked ever since i started trying to buy a house.

n/p I am a bit harsh so it can be hard to tell :cool:

Good luck with the house buy.

[Theocrat]

Two great universal truths everybody needs to learn:

1. Whatever you focus on, you get more of. If everybody focuses on "gay marriage", gay marriage will be more popular. If Christians want less gay marriage, they should instead focus on improving heterosexual marriage statistics. This effect can be seen in all the government declared wars. The "War on Drugs" increases drug use. The "War on Terror" increases the amount of terror.

Focus on what you want instead of what you don't want, and it's a lot more likely to happen. Rather than "End the Fed rallies" we should be having "Sound Money rallies".

It wouldn't even be an issue if some gays didn't appeal to the State to give them permission to be married. It also wouldn't be an issue if some gays didn't try to punish Christians through "anti-discrimination" legislation for not accepting their lifestyle. That is why Christians focus on this issue. It is the militant homosexuals who are attacking the principles of morality which established the institution of the Family, as honored by many Americans. They are seeking to enforce their way of life upon everyone else, and one is labeled a "bigot" if he chooses to fight back. Their focus is to get the State and American citizens to believe that homosexuality is a right which ought to be protected. God doesn't grant it as a right, and neither did the Founders of our Republic. So, as soon as they remain silent about their homosexual unions, they maybe Christians will, as well.


2. When you ban people from doing something, they're more likely to do it. The majority of people are rebellious in nature, especially young people in this country. Tell people they can't drink alcohol, use drugs, or smoke cigarettes, and they'll do it more just to prove they can. It stems from an inner desire to be free.

I agree. When one tells Christians they cannot speak out against the homosexual agenda which pervades our society, it will only inspire them to speak out more against it. If those in the gay community want to use a bullhorn to ban Christians from speaking out against their sexual preference as "hate speech," then Christians will speak out all the more using God's word to ban their lifestyle as unrighteous. There is no neutrality about it.

[LittleLightShining]

It wouldn't be an issue if some single person sued the state for discrimination.

[Theocrat]

You get your rights from a baby killer? Mine are NATURAL born. I dont need the chains of a baby killing god to be free do you?

It's very ignorant of you to dismiss my argument as "blah blah blah," but then go on labeling my God as a "baby-killer," which has nothing to do with my discussion. You also missed the point I made about rights being nonexistent without God, and I know this because you've made the claim that rights are "natural born." There is nothing in nature which gives us rights, for nature itself is impersonal. How can an impersonal entity endow personal values, like rights, upon people with personalities? Like many on this forum, you're limited to thinking only one-dimensionally about the nature of rights, and when you do so, you only leave yourself in a logical bind which can never make sense of rights at all.

[fedup100]

I believe this thread just proves that Tones is another neocon, religious right idiot.

First off, I do not care what you do in secret, PERIOD! When you bring your filth to the surface and fling open the doors for the world to see and make demands that are so out of touch with decency, you deserve to be rebuked.

Christians WAKE UP, for you and your children will be brought down for allowing this great abomination to fester and gain ground and then control in your nation.

WE were a christian nation and founded on those principals. We have allowed the slop to dictate to the people and all the people will pay the price for GOD is not amused..

ABOMINATION: 3. A cause of pollution or wickedness, "away from man," thus "beastly."

Leviticus
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. (18:23)
Don't have sex with animals. It's confusing.

Bestiality
18:24 [B]Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

(18:25-29) If you do any of these things, God will vomit you out and "cut you off" from among your people.

18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

18:28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

18:30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

[ItsTime]

It's very ignorant of you to dismiss my argument as "blah blah blah," but then go on labeling my God as a "baby-killer," which has nothing to do with my discussion. You also missed the point I made about rights being nonexistent without God, and I know this because you've made the claim that rights are "natural born." There is nothing in nature which gives us rights, for nature itself is impersonal. How can an impersonal entity endow personal values, like rights, upon people with personalities? Like many on this forum, you're limited to thinking only one-dimensionally about the nature of rights, and when you do so, you only leave yourself in a logical bind which can never make sense of rights at all.

They are natural born. You are BORN FREE. I label your god as baby killer because your bible says it is. And this is a discussion of morality and rights. If I were to believe you that only God (a immoral baby killer) gave me my rights, I would not want those rights. I believe as I do that our rights are NATURAL born not GIVEN to be taken away by a baby killing god.

[ItsTime]

I am the LORD your God.

So you openly admit your god is a immoral killer. :confused:

[fedup100]

So you openly admit your god is a immoral killer. :confused:

I admit that he is GOD and he kills whomever he pleases and the *****s and the lover's and accepter's of *****s are on his list. :eek:

[Theocrat]

They are natural born. You are BORN FREE. I label your god as baby killer because your bible says it is. And this is a discussion of morality and rights. If I were to believe you that only God (a immoral baby killer) gave me my rights, I would not want those rights. I believe as I do that our rights are NATURAL born not GIVEN to be taken away by a baby killing god.

You label God as "baby-killing," as if that is the only attribute of God worthy of mentioning. In effect, you're engaging in a personal attack on God because you fail to understand the context and reason for why God chose to punish generations of offspring in the Bible. Yes, God killed babies in the Bible, but God also saves babies, too. Not only is God just, but He is also merciful. However, you choose to only focus on the former while denying the latter in a weak attempt to make God look like a meanie. It's not going to work, and I suggest you do some study on the doctrine of the sovereignty of God before you try to judge God's character. Even so, you still have no objective basis to judge God's "baby-killing" as immoral, to begin with.

You still haven't resolved the dilemma of how impersonal nature can give a personal value of living, such as rights, to personal human beings. To say we're born free is really missing the point, for none of us asked to be born. That was not a "free choice" made on our part before our existence. So, I would reject your notion that we are born free. Babies are born dependent upon their parents, and through proper training, they are taught how to live morally and responsibly to ensure their own liberty and survival. After all, no baby comes out of the womb with an American flag and a Constitution.

[ItsTime]

You label God as "baby-killing," as if that is the only attribute of God worthy of mentioning. In effect, you're engaging in a personal attack on God because you fail to understand the context and reason for why God chose to punish generations of offspring in the Bible. Yes, God killed babies in the Bible, but God also saves babies, too.

So a doctor that saves people lives and gives abortions is ok? After all the baby didnt ask to be born. :rolleyes:

[fedup100]

So a doctor that saves people lives and gives abortions is ok? After all the baby didnt ask to be born. :rolleyes:

Twist it brother, I wouldn't want to be you. Keep it up and you may actually get to experience an awesome God up close and personal. :rolleyes:

[ItsTime]

Twist it brother, I wouldn't want to be you. Keep it up and you may actually get to experience an awesome God up close and personal. :rolleyes:

Your god kills babes there for has NO moral standing. It is not rocket science.

[Theocrat]

So a doctor that saves people lives and gives abortions is ok? After all the baby didnt ask to be born. :rolleyes:

No, that's not okay because no man has the right to kill innocent life (from a civil perspective). Still, we all have sinful natures, and on a spiritual level, that puts God alone as worthy to punish sinners by death, as He sees fit in accordance with His holy will. Physicians do not have access to the spiritual nature of their patients, so therefore, they cannot kill them in a judicious way. On a human revelatory level, God calls us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that includes human neighbors inside the womb (for they are made in God's image). God has the power of life and death, not doctors of human physiology. Their profession presupposes the protection of life, and any attempt to do otherwise is a breach to their own office as physicians.

[fedup100]

Your god kills babes there for has NO moral standing. It is not rocket science.

Whip it up brother, go ahead curse GOD, you know you want to. Wish I could be a fly on the wall the day you meet him. :eek:

[AuH20]

Your god kills babes there for has NO moral standing. It is not rocket science.

Thats inappropriate. I'm a deist but that's uncalled for.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Tones, Please stop trying to push your "morals" on us. Noone on here is trying to stop you from worshipping your god (who may or may not have killed babies). So why get all huffy if some dude wants to get drunk, smoke a blunt, watch some porn and stick something up his ass. As long as he isn't doing anything to hurt you.

GOP or any type of party in the government shouldn't be telling people what to do in their own homes period. tones

hahahaha or gal?

I have to agree with this. To each his own. Just because some people like it in the ass doesn't mean that is something they do in the privacy of their own home. This doesn't mean that they can't be a productive member in society and that they don't have morals.

[pahs1994]

hahahaha or gal?

I have to agree with this. To each his own. Just because some people like it in the ass doesn't mean that is something they do in the privacy of their own home. This doesn't mean that they can't be a productive member in society and that they don't have morals.

lol yea I forgot to include the gals. get freaky wit urselves, or your partner(s)! XD

[Danke]

lol yea I forgot to include the gals. get freaky wit urselves, or your partner(s)! XD

Now that's something I can get behind.

[ItsTime]

Thats inappropriate. I'm a deist but that's uncalled for.

The truth is painful sometimes. :cool:

I think defending a baby killer is uncalled for. :2cents

[Freedom 4 all]

Itstime....grow up. Stop cherry picking the Founders intent to suit your agenda.. immorality and liberty don't jibe...when you accept this...maybe we can get somewhere. Porn, homosexuality, etc etc..are not conducive to Liberty. tones

Not letting people do stuff that affects the life of no one else = liberty??

[Theocrat]

Not letting people do stuff that affects the life of no one else = liberty??

It does affect the lives of others, especially Christians. For an example of what I'm talking about, read the thread here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188111).

[torchbearer]

Not letting people do stuff that affects the life of no one else = liberty??

Everytime a gay couple gets married, theo's sperm count goes down.
It affects him personally. Didn't you know?

[Zera]

Everytime a gay couple gets married, theo's sperm count goes down.
It effects him personally. Didn't you know?

I think his sperm count going down may benefit the future generations...

[Theocrat]

I think his sperm count going down may benefit the future generations...

Since gays cannot have children on their own, it's going to be rather easy for Christians like myself to outbreed them for future generations. That's why we Christians are having more children, so in a few generations, our society will be dominated by Christian people who will hopefully be trained to overcome the evils of homosexuality as well as other anti-Christian agendas. ;)

[torchbearer]

Since gays cannot have children on their own, it's going to be rather easy for Christians like myself to outbreed them for future generations. That's why we Christians are having more children, so in a few generations, our society will be dominated by Christian people who will hopefully be trained to overcome the evils of homosexuality as well as other anti-Christian agendas. ;)

Then what are you worried about? They will die out with no children. They have chosen a fate of no legacy.
They can't spread "The Gay".

Go forth and be hetero.

[AuH20]

Since gays cannot have children on their own, it's going to be rather easy for Christians like myself to outbreed them for future generations. That's why we Christians are having more children, so in a few generations, our society will be dominated by Christian people who will hopefully be trained to overcome the evils of homosexuality as well as other anti-Christian agendas. ;)

Aren't alot of these younger Christians flirting with the statist model to further the "Lord's work"? I don't trust many of these younger Christians.

[Danke]

Since gays cannot have children on their own, it's going to be rather easy for Christians like myself to outbreed them for future generations. That's why we Christians are having more children, so in a few generations, our society will be dominated by Christian people who will hopefully be trained to overcome the evils of homosexuality as well as other anti-Christian agendas. ;)

have you seen then movie "Idiocracy"?

[torchbearer]

using plastic bottles for babies probably has a lot to do with male children becoming homosexual.
stop using plastic and your lords work will be done.

[Theocrat]

Then what are you worried about? They will die out with no children. They have chosen a fate of no legacy.
They can't spread "The Gay".

Go forth and be hetero.

Who said I was worried? I'm just concerned that homosexuals will continue to get favors to support their causes from the State. That is unconstitutional. If gay people want to behave that way in the privacy of their homes, then they should keep it there (even though I would disapprove of their actions as sinful). However, when they strike a charge against Christians and Christian organizations and businesses to accept their behaviors in public (at the expense of the State) and all in the name of "equality," then I have even more of a problem with it. A Christian's opposition to things like gay marriage should not be punished by the State. Yet, that is exactly what's going on in our political climate today on the issue of marriage, when it should neither be a state nor a federal issue.

[BKV]

If GOP drops opposition to gay marriage, they'll just lose members to the Constitution Party

[torchbearer]

Who said I was worried? I'm just concerned that homosexuals will continue to get favors to support their causes from the State. That is unconstitutional. If gay people want to behave that way in the privacy of their homes, then they should keep it there (even though I would disapprove of their actions as sinful). However, when they strike a charge against Christians and Christian organizations and businesses to accept their behaviors in public (at the expense of the State) and all in the name of "equality," then I have even more of a problem with it. A Christian's opposition to things like gay marriage should not be punished by the State. Yet, that is exactly what's going on in our political climate today on the issue of marriage, when it should neither be a state nor a federal issue.

I pretty sure i've seen you object to my post about getting the government out of marriage all together.

[Theocrat]

I pretty sure i've seen you object to my post about getting the government out of marriage all together.

I agree with you that the government should get out of marriages altogether. It's not within its jurisdictional right to be involved with defining nor legitimizing any marriage. God has already defined and legitimized marriages as between one man and one woman for life. Gays just want the State to usurp God, and that's why they fight so hard to get it on their side so the State can create a new right via legislation or court decisions.

[Objectivist]

YouTube - Ex-McCain Aide "GOP Should Drop Opposition to Gay Marriage" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=138BQlrBaR4)

NO! They should drop the support of marriage as a government institution. Marriage should not be taxed, or regulated by the government, period. There should not be a reward from the government for getting married, how shallow are the people who mention that they get tax benefits for being married, not something that comes to mind when I'm with my beloved.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree with you that the government should get out of marriages altogether. It's not within its jurisdictional right to be involved with defining nor legitimizing any marriage. God has already defined and legitimized marriages as between one man and one woman for life. Gays just want the State to usurp God, and that's why they fight so hard to get it on their side so the State can create a new right via legislation or court decisions.

On this one we agree, my friend. :D ~hugs~

[heavenlyboy34]

NO! They should drop the support of marriage as a government institution. Marriage should not be taxed, or regulated by the government, period. There should not be a reward from the government for getting married, how shallow are the people who mention that they get tax benefits for being married, not something that comes to mind when I'm with my beloved.

qft! ~applauds~ :D

[ItsTime]

If GOP drops opposition to gay marriage, they'll just lose members to the Constitution Party

And gain 10x that from conservative gays and other rational thinking people.

[torchbearer]

I agree with you that the government should get out of marriages altogether. It's not within its jurisdictional right to be involved with defining nor legitimizing any marriage. God has already defined and legitimized marriages as between one man and one woman for life. Gays just want the State to usurp God, and that's why they fight so hard to get it on their side so the State can create a new right via legislation or court decisions.

Gays didn't want anything until the government forbid it.
I know a lot of gay people, they want to be able to have a contract with their partner for insurance and inheritance.
The solution is.. civil unions with the state for everyone.
This is for health, insurance and inheritance reasons.
Marriage left up to the churches.
Civil unions, a man made contract.
marriage, a god made contract.

Then everyone, leave each other the fuck alone.

If people keep pushing the issue, it will come down to state's forcing churches to marry gay couples. Do you want that?
I don't think so.

So christians need to push for the agenda i prescribed at the beginning of this post or they are going to get more government control over their churches.

[Theocrat]

Gays didn't want anything until the government forbid it.
I know a lot of gay people, they want to be able to have a contract with their partner for insurance and inheritance.
The solution is.. civil unions with the state for everyone.
This is for health, insurance and inheritance reasons.
Marriage left up to the churches.
Civil unions, a man made contract.
marriage, a god made contract.

Then everyone, leave each other the fuck alone.

If people keep pushing the issue, it will come down to state's forcing churches to marry gay couples. Do you want that?
I don't think so.

So christians need to push for the agenda i prescribed at the beginning of this post or they are going to get more government control over their churches.

I'm sorry, but gays do not have a right to be together in a marital/civil union contract under any circumstance. It is an affront to God's institution of the Family. By the State granting civil union contracts to gay couples, it is approving of the union between the couple. The underpinning issue here is legitimacy, and some gays want the State to legitimize their union under the pretense that they have a right to be together. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[torchbearer]

I'm sorry, but gays do not have a right to be together in a marital/civil union contract under any circumstance. It is an affront to God's institution of the Family. By the State granting civil union contracts to gay couples, it is approving of the union between the couple. The underpinning issue here is legitimacy, and some gays want the State to legitimize their union under the pretense that they have a right to be together. Nothing could be further from the truth.

all people have the right to contract.
You are a tyrant wishing to force your personal beliefs on others.
Do you know what I do to tyrants?
Don't tread on me on my friends or you will find out.

[Theocrat]

all people have the right to contract.
You are a tyrant wishing to force your personal beliefs on others.
Do you know what I do to tyrants?
Don't tread on me on my friends or you will find out.

Who gives anyone the right to contract? You're just being arbitrary.

[torchbearer]

Who gives anyone the right to contract? You're just being arbitrary.

It is a natural right, and one required for a free society to function.
People like Obama believe contracts aren't rights but privileges of the government. You are like Obama.

[Matt Collins]

have you seen then movie "Idiocracy"?One of the best films... EVER! :D:D:D:D:D

[Matt Collins]

Who gives anyone the right to contract?Rights aren't given; they are self evident and inherent. They exist because the individual exists. The right to contract has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

[Matt Collins]

Since gays cannot have children on their own, it's going to be rather easy for Christians like myself to outbreed them for future generations. That's why we Christians are having more children, so in a few generations, our society will be dominated by Christian people who will hopefully be trained to overcome the evils of homosexuality as well as other anti-Christian agendas. ;)Well that depends on whether being gay is a choice or a genetic predisposition.

[heavenlyboy34]

Rights aren't given; they are self evident and inherent. They exist because the individual exists. The right to contract has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

+a bunch :cool:

[Theocrat]

It is a natural right, and one required for a free society to function.
People like Obama believe contracts aren't rights but privileges of the government. You are like Obama.


Rights aren't given; they are self evident and inherent. They exist because the individual exists. The right to contract has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Nature does not give us our rights. Nature is impersonal and cannot endow anything personal upon personal human beings. Rights are not made of natural elements, so how can they derive from nature, anyway? God is the precondition for legitimizing any civil contract, and He gives us provisions for what the nature of those contracts are based on the principle that we should love God with all our being and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Matt, I want to refer you this post here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2082580#post2082580), where I dealt with your argument about natural rights. I just don't want to repeat myself. :)

[Danke]

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He ows no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

[Freedom 4 all]

It does affect the lives of others, especially Christians. For an example of what I'm talking about, read the thread here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188111).

Anti gay agenda hurts Unitarian Universalists like myself. Most UU ministers want to marry gays and the state says they can't. Seems like a violation of religious liberty to me.

[Reason]

I think my quote in my signature fits into this debate quite nicely :)

[Captain Bryan]

At first, there were no marriage licenses... the government had nothing to do with it. Then some people had issues with mixed marriages, so they made it law that marriage licenses were required, but just for African-Americans. Later on, people cried out for equal rights, but rather than getting rid of marriage licenses altogether, they made them required for everybody. Rather than everybody being equally free, we all became equally in bed with the government.

Now homosexuals are feeling left out, and they want to be in bed with the government too. If they really knew what that meant, I don't think they'd want it.

The best position on this should be very obvious. The government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all.This.
/Thread

Seriously. I basically made this argument in a thread on SuperHeroHype.com (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=310683) it didn't go over so well. (I'm Scarlet spidey, by the way.)


You need to stop thinking one-dimensionally. Rights are not granted just because we're humans. Yes, they are.

[Matt Collins]

You need to stop thinking one-dimensionally. Rights are not granted just because we're humans.Rights aren't granted at all, they exist naturally.



In essence, you're saying that we get our rights because we're humans, and because we're humans, we have rights. That doesn't tell us anything about why we have rights, nor does it explain where rights come from. You're just arguing in a circle when you make the basis of rights contingent on humanity alone.Fine... make me drag out Napolitano's books on a Saturday night ;):p


Freedom comes by virtue of bring human, from our very nature. Because all humans desire freedom from artificial restraint and all humans year to be free, our freedoms stem from our humanity.

Jefferson said "under the law of nature, all men are born free; everyone comes into the world with a right to his own person"

Judge Napolitano writes:
"Natural law is not linked to a particular religion ,or to religion at all necessarily. It recognizes that as human beings we must have a core set of liberties in order to live just and peaceful lives. Humanity is the basis for these rights and therefore are common to all of us".

Again it doesn't matter what one believes as to the origins of our humanity because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Our rights exist in every human being regardless of what they believe.



And because I quoted the Judge I feel obligated to post this picture from the CFL STL weekend:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/MattandtheJudge-ee.jpg




You said that as long as an individual doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, he can do anything he wants. However, this dismisses God from the equation. Individuals do not have the liberty to do whatever they want because they are still living in God's universe, and He has standards and laws which men are accountable to, even if they supersede the State's.We are talking about law of man, not divine law.



God is affected by what we do (because He has covenanted Himself with His creation), and He will punish nations for living immorally because it goes against His character and nature of righteousness.
So, you see, God does punish nations for living immorally, especially those nations which once acknowledged God as their God but turned away from Him. Our Founders understood this, so why don't you?This is outside of the scope of discussion I am prepared to delve into at this time.





To separate liberty and rights from morality is political/social suicide, for there would be no basis to honor liberty and rights without establishing a standard of morality to make liberty and rights honorable in the first place. You've said that we must respect others' individual rights, but that in and of itself is a moral statement. You fail to understand that rights and morals are NOT contingent upon each other.


That is why the State should not grant marriage to those in the gay community. The State should not grant marriage to anyone. It should be a private contract between consenting individuals.

[Matt Collins]

Nature does not give us our rights. Nature is impersonal and cannot endow anything personal upon personal human beings. Rights are not made of natural elements, so how can they derive from nature, anyway? God is the precondition for legitimizing any civil contract, and He gives us provisions for what the nature of those contracts are based on the principle that we should love God with all our being and love our neighbor as ourselves.Do you have a college degree? :confused:

[He Who Pawns]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/MattandtheJudge-ee.jpg

Epic photo.

I'm jealous.

[Matt Collins]

Epic photo.

I'm jealous.Yeah, I even wore the right color tie and our suits are symmetrical as two brothers of liberty embrace each other! It couldn't have been much better than this. :)

[ItsTime]

Anti gay agenda hurts Unitarian Universalists like myself. Most UU ministers want to marry gays and the state says they can't. Seems like a violation of religious liberty to me.

Amen

[Bruno]

Gays didn't want anything until the government forbid it.
I know a lot of gay people, they want to be able to have a contract with their partner for insurance and inheritance.
The solution is.. civil unions with the state for everyone.
This is for health, insurance and inheritance reasons.
Marriage left up to the churches.
Civil unions, a man made contract.
marriage, a god made contract.

Then everyone, leave each other the fuck alone.

If people keep pushing the issue, it will come down to state's forcing churches to marry gay couples. Do you want that?
I don't think so.

So christians need to push for the agenda i prescribed at the beginning of this post or they are going to get more government control over their churches.

+1

[HOLLYWOOD]

If these GOP NEOCONs are true republicans... what do they care what any person's personal preferences may be to another. As long as they are good citizens and support ALL parts of the US Constitution, not just some parts.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I could have sworn Jefferson wrote in the declaration of indep. something about rights granted by the Creator...and Natures GOD...did I miss something? tones

[ItsTime]

I could have sworn Jefferson wrote in the declaration of indep. something about rights granted by the Creator...and Natures GOD...did I miss something? tones

Yes a lot. Jefferson also believed in slaves. Should I try to by Theo? No because that is wrong. Jefferson was right about a lot of things, others he was wrong.

[Icymudpuppy]

That's NATURE's God. Not Abraham's God. Nature's god must approve of Homosexuality or it wouldn't be so prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, not just humans. Abraham's God takes a lot of credit he is not due.

[carlangaslangas]

Itstime....grow up. Stop cherry picking the Founders intent to suit your agenda.. immorality and liberty don't jibe...when you accept this...maybe we can get somewhere. Porn, homosexuality, etc etc..are not conducive to Liberty. tones

Listen, as long as one's freedom does not restrict someone else's freedom it should be allowed.
Why is it that everytime gay marriage is discussed, I hear sodomy, rape, abuse???
Seems to me like you are the one that needs to grow up... or maybe you just need some lovin'
Let people enjoy their freedoms just like you enjoy yours.

[carlangaslangas]

I could have sworn Jefferson wrote in the declaration of indep. something about rights granted by the Creator...and Natures GOD...did I miss something? tones

Good point, he did not say Catholic Church or Heterosexual God.
Do you know homosexuality occurs in Nature too?

[Dr.3D]

Gays didn't want anything until the government forbid it.
I know a lot of gay people, they want to be able to have a contract with their partner for insurance and inheritance.
The solution is.. civil unions with the state for everyone.
This is for health, insurance and inheritance reasons.
Marriage left up to the churches.
Civil unions, a man made contract.
marriage, a god made contract.

Then everyone, leave each other the fuck alone.

If people keep pushing the issue, it will come down to state's forcing churches to marry gay couples. Do you want that?
I don't think so.

So christians need to push for the agenda i prescribed at the beginning of this post or they are going to get more government control over their churches.

I fully agree with what you just said. I also believe, if the government didn't treat single people differently from married people, there wouldn't be this problem in the first place. They have slots in the tax forms asking if you are filing single or married or even single and married.

The forms should not have those slots where a person has to answer those questions. If the government want's to treat people who are living together differently from people who live by themselves, they should have the people file for a 'Civil Union'. Then on the various benefits forms people could answer the same type of questions with slots in the forms asking of they are filing single or Civilly United or single and Civilly United.

I believe you are correct and this would end the problem once and for all.

[dgr]

I think you should pause for a minute and take a look at the big picture. The gays who want to get married are not what people see when they think about this, they see those dressed up made up nuts crashing a church service and defiling the alter, they see the S&M street festivals, they see angry crouds in Ca after the people voted and they see not being able to take their kids to Disney during Gay Pride week, and they don't think these people ar immoral they think they are nuts
And that is before they start worring if they will get Aids from a blood transfusion
it is a issues much biger than creating a new civil rights group,

[carlangaslangas]

Since gays cannot have children on their own, it's going to be rather easy for Christians like myself to outbreed them for future generations. That's why we Christians are having more children, so in a few generations, our society will be dominated by Christian people who will hopefully be trained to overcome the evils of homosexuality as well as other anti-Christian agendas. ;)

Well... that's the Pope's plan for Africa, and that's why that place will stay a mess for decades to come. Have lots of unprotected sex and raise kids without being able to feed them... Great plan!! :rolleyes:

[ItsTime]

So who are all these low post count posters? If you are using fake nicks thats pretty sad.

[carlangaslangas]

I fully agree with what you just said. I also believe, if the government didn't treat single people differently from married people, there wouldn't be this problem in the first place. They have slots in the tax forms asking if you are filing single or married or even single and married.

The forms should not have those slots where a person has to answer those questions. If the government want's to treat people who are living together differently from people who live by themselves, they should have the people file for a 'Civil Union'. Then on the various benefits forms people could answer the same type of questions with slots in the forms asking of they are filing single or Civilly United or single and Civilly United.

I believe you are correct and this would end the problem once and for all.

+1

[Freedom 4 all]

I could have sworn Jefferson wrote in the declaration of indep. something about rights granted by the Creator...and Natures GOD...did I miss something? tones

Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian Universalist. Check out that particular denomination's views on gays. Just because someone believes in God does not automatically make that person a homophobe.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Did Jefferson Propose Legislation Calling for the Castration of Homosexuals?

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"

It is true that he proposed this legislation. The problem with the argument though is that it drops the context of the times and intent of Jefferson’s proposal. At this time the punishment for these "crimes" was death (so those that say that Jefferson’s position was too extreme are, in effect, saying that they believe they should have continued to execute homosexuals). Jefferson sought to make the punishment less severe. He did not propose castration where no law had existed before.

http://www.ronstringfield.com/?r=m&d=2&e=168

[canadian4ronpaul]

i agree that government should get out of marriage all together. this way gays wont have to stage huge protests and it will cease to be an issue altogether. then people can do whatever the fuck they want in privacy and it wont have to be on tv all the time so christians and everyone else can be happy. it really would then be no different at all, as gay couples are going to be around no matter what, just this way they will have no publicity so they wont be corrupting your children (for the record i think anyone who believes homosexuality is a choice is an idiot).

at the end of that day...what fucking business is it of yours what gays want to do in a mutual, consensual agreement? mind your own business and stop trying to control people. you cannot legislate morality. im kind of shocked to see so many wanting to ban gays from being married. you tend to agree with the government being unable to legislate morality on other issues, but this one you cannot. your hypocrisy makes you look stupid

[Ninja Homer]

Yes a lot. Jefferson also believed in slaves. Should I try to by Theo? No because that is wrong. Jefferson was right about a lot of things, others he was wrong.

Just to keep the record straight on my man Jefferson...

"Thomas Jefferson and Slavery
by Gregory Buls


Given the prevalence of slavery and its widespread acceptance throughout history, the fact that our American ancestors are singled out for condemnation is disturbing, but, unfortunately, not surprising. And this troublesome trend becomes more irksome when one considers that the general acceptance of an institution with roots thousands of years in the past, practiced by nearly every race of man, was torn asunder in the historical blink of an eye by the ancestors of those who are now asked by the ruling elite to "apologize" for slavery. As Fogel and Engerman write, "It is amazing how rapidly, by historical standards, the institution of slavery gave way before the abolitionist onslaught, once the ideological campaign gained momentum...." In fact, the debate was raging among many of America's Founding Fathers before public opinion was sufficiently mobilized to produce the first official act banishing slavery in the New World — the 1777 prohibition contained in the Vermont Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson is often singled out for scorn by the politically correct historical revisionist crowd because of the apparent dichotomy between his public rhetoric and his personal actions. Jefferson was a slaveholder by inheritance, and he was prohibited by Virginia law from freeing them, a law he sought to overturn with his first act in the Virginia legislature. Though Monticello was deeply in debt at the time of Jefferson's death, in his will he arranged for the freedom of a number of his slaves, and as Captain Edmund Bacon, overseer at Monticello from 1806-22, noted after Jefferson's death, "I think he would have freed all of them if his affairs had not been so much involved that he could not do it."

Jefferson's actions throughout his life demonstrated an abhorrence of slavery, an institution which, he wrote, "is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other." When Jefferson was asked to pen Virginia's constitution, his first proposals included a clause stipulating that all people born on Virginia soil would be born free.

Jefferson also wrote the Ordinance of 1784, a preliminary draft of the Northwest Ordinance, which would govern the land between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River. Jefferson included in his bill a clause that would have prohibited slavery in these new territories after 1800. When this measure was blocked in Congress by just one vote, Jefferson lamented, "The voice of a single individual ... would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment!" Jefferson, certain that God's wrath would not be forever stilled, said: "We must await with patience the workings of an overruling Providence, and hope that He is preparing the deliverance of these, our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a God of justice will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing light and liberality among their oppressors, or, at length, by His exterminating thunder, manifest His attention to the things of this world....

"Jefferson's magnum opus, the Declaration of Independence, was amended to strike a ringing condemnation of King George's promotion of the slave trade: "He has waged cruel war upon human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his [veto] for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."

At a time when history was firmly on the side of the slave trade, Jefferson was not alone in his beliefs. Many of America's most renowned statesmen were vocal in their opposition to slavery. While Britain did not prohibit its commerce in slaves until 1807, the United States laid the groundwork for such a prohibition nearly 20 years earlier at its Constitutional Convention, by including a clause that would allow Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves beginning in 1808. In that year, Congress so acted, and the importation of slaves into the United States was banned."

[bunklocoempire]

I fully agree with what you just said. I also believe, if the government didn't treat single people differently from married people, there wouldn't be this problem in the first place. They have slots in the tax forms asking if you are filing single or married or even single and married.

The forms should not have those slots where a person has to answer those questions. If the government want's to treat people who are living together differently from people who live by themselves, they should have the people file for a 'Civil Union'. Then on the various benefits forms people could answer the same type of questions with slots in the forms asking of they are filing single or Civilly United or single and Civilly United.

I believe you are correct and this would end the problem once and for all.

Another +1

The GOP should drop the marriage tax rebate game.

However, this would unite instead of divide, something they do not want to do.

Just like any "hot issue" played up by the two major parties.

Divide and conquer, or, divide and mantain power.

Bunkloco

[newtoforums]

Another +1

The GOP should drop the marriage tax rebate game.

However, this would unite instead of divide, something they do not want to do.

Just like any "hot issue" played up by the two major parties.

Divide and conquer, or, divide and mantain power.

Bunkloco



True. Why should homosexuals pay into a system which they can't take out of?

If we eliminate finacial benefits then there is no reason for this to be an issue.


I also believe in eliminating alimony something the Republicans will never go for with all their man hating chivalry.

[BlackTerrel]

Here we go again...the Founders didn't approve of sodomy...this is not conducive to a moral society and without that ...forget freedom and liberty...when will you get off this kick? Why can't you understand that we must have a moral society to have true liberty??? Jefferson passed a law to castrate sodomists and rapists and poligamists...why can't you understand this was not part of the grand plan???? You are GOING down the wrong path.

I oppose gay marriage but I could give a shit what the founders thought of it. The founders also supported slavery so I wouldn't exactly hold them up as moral arbiters.

[LibertyEagle]

I oppose gay marriage but I could give a shit what the founders thought of it. The founders also supported slavery so I wouldn't exactly hold them up as moral arbiters.

Way to throw out the baby with the bathwater. :rolleyes:

[Dreamofunity]

God, I forgot how insane pharisee christians were.

I hope one of Theo's children ends up gay.

[literatim]

Agreed! The GOP is supposed to be the party of individual liberty and equality under the law, not *group* liberty (liberty for some and tyranny for others) and a form of law where "some are more equal than others."

A gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex just the same as a straight person.

To paint this as an issue of equality is ridiculous.

[BuddyRey]

A gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex just the same as a straight person.


To paint this as an issue of equality is ridiculous.



Yes, but they don't want to. They want to marry people of the same gender, and since it's a consensual act, they have every Natural Right to do so.

It is very much an issue of equality as it pertains to the idea that each man or woman has equal authority over his or her own life.

[Gary]

There are really two issues at play here. The first is the definition of marriage. The second is the desire for homosexuals to be legally recognized as married.

The definition of marriage has not only pre-existed the US government, but every government ever. Casual observation of the human species would lead you to conclude that marriage is a natural institution designed for bringing man and woman together and for the propogation of the species. For a government to decide to redefine what marriage is, would most certainly be a form of despotism, for governments have no right to redefine what pre-existed it. This is precisely what some homosexual groups are advocating.

The second question is how we should treat marriage and other relationships legally. While Christians see marriage as a covenant (that is a giving of persons to each other in love), this covenant is legally reflected as a contract. Because marriages are so common, the contract is implied in our various laws rather than an explicit one drawn up by husband and wife.

I guess it would be pretty easy to simply codify the details of the marriage contract that provide "rights" of one party of the marriage to the other. Of course such contracts could then be entered into by any two people for whatever reasons. For instance a parent and child who are both single adults might want to make sure they have access to each other's legal and medical records etc. All of this can be done already today, but it could be (slightly) easier - it is already pretty simple. Nothing prevents two homosexuals from doing likewise today.

The stickier issues come from benefits granted to marriages by the state (or taxes such as the marriage tax on the converse side). Marriage provides obvious benefits to society at large (and by society I do not mean government). Many studies confirm what most people obviously know - that marriages are the healthiest place to raise children, and with no children society would cease to exist altogether. Given this, a reasonable argument could be made to grant benefits to marriages and especially married couples raising children. Relationships rendered sterile by their very nature obviously cannot provide society at large the same benefits: namely more children raised in a loving home by their mother and father.

A society that has an ample replacement rate of children might not value marriages so highly and find no need to offer marriage special benefits. Many western European countries are experiencing population implosions. The USA has a replacement rate barely enough to keep the population size intact.

Finally as a side note, those of you who are making negative comments about the Catholic Church and the pope are making blatantly false statements that are typically propogated by the media. To avoid looking ignorant, I suggest you either refrain from saying anything or go spend some time reading what the Catholic Church and the pope actually say. You may not agree with what they actually say, but take the time to know the facts before making a judgment - something I think would be prudent for any situation. Otherwise you are just ranting.

[BeFranklin]

Your god killed over 2,000,000 people in the bible alone. I think YOU are going down the wrong path.


Reposted for all its splended "glory" to be shown.

2 Corinthians 6:14
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

[BeFranklin]

FYI: Nope, the founders didn't support slavery for the most part. Actually, biblical christianity helped to eliminate it, but it took longer than the revolution.

[zach]

Bump because this thread might never die.

[BeFranklin]

There are really two issues at play here. The first is the definition of marriage. The second is the desire for homosexuals to be legally recognized as married.

The definition of marriage has not only pre-existed the US government, but every government ever. Casual observation of the human species would lead you to conclude that marriage is a natural institution designed for bringing man and woman together and for the propogation of the species.

When gays naturally have kids and start raising them in families is when the institution of marriage changes, which is to say never. It is a law of nature and the God of it.

The more the gay rights movement attacks marriage, honestly the angrier I get. I think its time to put the criminal penalities back in place where they are missing to protect the families and children they are bullying. And sodomy is still illegal in many places.

[Brian4Liberty]

Did Jefferson Propose Legislation Calling for the Castration of Homosexuals?

The problem with the argument though is that it drops the context of the times and intent of Jefferson’s proposal. At this time the punishment for these "crimes" was death (so those that say that Jefferson’s position was too extreme are, in effect, saying that they believe they should have continued to execute homosexuals). Jefferson sought to make the punishment less severe.

Exactly. The main point was about eliminating capital punishment. And it should be noted that this was not just about homosexuals. It also applied to Rape, Polygamy, and one would assume, heterosexual sodomy.

More on Jefferson and that particular Virginia state law (not a Federal law):





Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half diameter at the least.

The above is a section of Bill 64[1] "A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishment in Cases Heretofore Capital," one of 126 Bills submitted to the Virginia Assembly in 1779 by the Committee of Revisors. This committee, headed by Thomas Jefferson, worked for two years revising the colonial laws, as Virginia began making the legal transition from colony to commonwealth.[2]

The primary objective of Bill 64 is indicated in its title, a Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments in Cases Heretofore Capital, and then stated specifically in Section 1 that capital punishment, "...should be the last melancholy resource against those whose existence has become inconsistent with the safety of their fellow citizens" and "...no crime shall be henceforth punished by deprivation of life or limb except those hereinafter ordained to be so punished."[3] With these directives included in the introduction, the bill aimed at curtailing the widespread and indiscriminate use of capital punishment, which had been common under colonial law, while insuring a more uniform dispensation of justice throughout the commonwealth.

But then how does the punishment of maiming and disfigurement suggested for the crimes of rape, polygamy, and sodomy become a part of a bill whose aim is more humane and equitable justice? Though the ninety page report presented to the General Assembly was produced by committee, Jefferson appears to have been the chief architect of Bill 64, as the outline for the bill is entirely in his hand. In his autobiography, he gives considerable attention to the Revisions of Laws and mentions the Crimes and Punishments bill specifically:

"On the subject of the Criminal Law, all were agreed that the punishment of death should be abolished, except for treason and murder; and that, for other felonies should be substituted hard labor in the public works, and in some cases, the Lex talionis. How this last revolting principle came to obtain our approbation, I do not remember...It was the English law in the time of the Anglo-Saxons, copied probably from the Hebrew law of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,' and it was the law of several ancient people. But the modern mind had left it far in the rear of it's advances."[4]

The inclusion of the lex talionis, or retaliation in kind, bothered Jefferson even as he worked on the bill. By letter he consulted with fellow committee member George Wythe and wrote, "I have strictly observed the scale of punishments settled by the Committee, without being entirely satisfied with it. The lex talionis, altho' a restitution of the Common law,...will be revolting to the humanised feelings of modern times. An eye for an eye, and a hand for a hand will exhibit spectacles in execution whose moral effect would be questionable...This needs reconsideration."[5] Despite Jefferson's reservations, the ninety page Revisal Report was submitted with the punishments for rape, polygamy, and sodomy unchanged.

The entire revisal report was not voted on as a unit, and by the time the crime and punishment bill came before the General Assembly, Jefferson was in Paris serving as American envoy. Friend and political colleague, James Madison, kept him informed of the progress of the revisals, and as for the crime and punishment bill, Madison predicted a "vigorous attack."[6] Following the passage of the bill of most significance to Jefferson, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he wrote to Madison extolling the interest it had generated in Europe, and in the same passage admitted that his crime and punishment bill had not met with the same enthusiasm: "In the criminal law, the principle of retaliation is much criticised here, particularly in the case of Rape. They think the punishment indecent and unjustifiable." Jefferson agreed but for a different reason and saw potential misuse of the law: "I should be for altering it, but for a different reason: that is on account of the temptation women would be under to make it the instrument of vengeance against an inconstant lover, and of disappointment to a rival."[7]

It was not until early 1787 that Madison reported to Jefferson, "...a rejection of the Bill on crimes and punishments...was lost by a single vote. The rage against Horse stealers had a great influence on the fate of the Bill. Our old bloody code is by this event fully restored..."[8] One could wonder from Madison's remark if the inclusion of the lex talionis ignited any more objection than the reduction of horse thievery from a capital crime punishable by death to one of three years hard labor.

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Bill_64

[buffalokid777]

i agree that government should get out of marriage all together. this way gays wont have to stage huge protests and it will cease to be an issue altogether. then people can do whatever the fuck they want in privacy and it wont have to be on tv all the time so christians and everyone else can be happy. it really would then be no different at all, as gay couples are going to be around no matter what, just this way they will have no publicity so they wont be corrupting your children (for the record i think anyone who believes homosexuality is a choice is an idiot).

at the end of that day...what fucking business is it of yours what gays want to do in a mutual, consensual agreement? mind your own business and stop trying to control people.

I agree with you on this.


you cannot legislate morality.

I disagree with you on this, there is one instance where you can, when it affects an innocent through force or coercion.

If two consenting adults commit sodomy through mutual consent in privacy (Not my cup of tea but to each their own) then so be it, who are we to judge what two consenting adults do? That is God's place to judge unless you would set yourself equal to God.

If someone commits sodomy on an innocent that doesn't consent to it, i think legislating castration is quite appropriate.

[andrewh817]

Why is gay marriage such a popular issue?? It's like people can live with the bailouts and going to war with any country in the Middle East but gay marriage should be the focus of their political activism? We're all fucked if this is all people are getting stirred up about

[BeFranklin]

Why is gay marriage such a popular issue?? It's like people can live with the bailouts and going to war with any country in the Middle East but gay marriage should be the focus of their political activism? We're all fucked if this is all people are getting stirred up about

Because the freedom movement has been compromised by decadence.

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common?"

[heavenlyboy34]

Why is gay marriage such a popular issue?? It's like people can live with the bailouts and going to war with any country in the Middle East but gay marriage should be the focus of their political activism? We're all fucked if this is all people are getting stirred up about

IMHO, the "gay marriage" issue is more popular because it requires less intellectual fortitude. If every debate about it required digging into the legal, constitutional, ethical, and moral aspects, it would die out as a trend. In other words, the shock value alone is what keeps it alive. :p

[KenInMontiMN]

Amen, Andrew- and proof positive how a divisive social issue can rend a nation apart if allowed to be a Federal issue. The founders knew what they were doing when they assigned most things to the states and to the people. No 'United States' could possibly be that, then or now, unless Federal govt was limited to only what was strictly and necessarily Federal matters.

[dannno]

You are nutz. This is where many people part ways with the libertarian party. Show me ONE..just one immoral society that survived. Show me that this stuff was going on in the days the constitution was written...openly. Now, if someone is a homosexual and keeps it on the downlow..I have no issue, but they flaunt it..and I , quite frankly, don't want it influencing my grandchildren. There is something to be said for discretion. tones

If somebody is Christian.. and they keep it on the down-low.. I have no issue.. but if they flaunt it..and I, quite frankly, don't want it influencing my grandchildren.

Show me ONE Christian society (that is not around any longer ;)) that survived.. JUST ONE




TONES, your argument is a straw man. You can't have tyranny to force whatever you think your good morals are on other people and still have liberty. Why can't you turn it around and believe that giving people liberty will REQUIRE that they become moral in order to succeed and prosper, because those who do not will not?? That is much better than taking a tyrannical approach to forcing your morals on others.

[Gary]

Liberty cannot exist without justice.

Justice is a form of morality. If you don't force justice, then there can be no liberty.

License is not liberty. License is in fact quite the opposite. License is a vice which enslaves others or themselves or both.

[BeFranklin]

IMHO, the "gay marriage" issue is more popular because it requires less intellectual fortitude. If every debate about it required digging into the legal, constitutional, ethical, and moral aspects, it would die out as a trend. In other words, the shock value alone is what keeps it alive. :p

So I'm just throwing pearls before swine.. :(

[Gary]

And I agree that it is amazing that issues like redefining marriage or killing our unborn are even issues at all. You would think everyone would recognize these as just plain wrong, and let us focus on more controversial questions like what is the best way to get out of the $10T mess we are in.

[literatim]

Yes, but they don't want to. They want to marry people of the same gender, and since it's a consensual act, they have every Natural Right to do so.

It is very much an issue of equality as it pertains to the idea that each man or woman has equal authority over his or her own life.

Freedom and equality are completely different.


Show me ONE Christian society (that is not around any longer ;)) that survived.. JUST ONE

There are a few nations in Europe with the official religion being Christian. The cantons in Switzerland have official churches.

[BuddyRey]

Freedom and equality are completely different.

I don't mean Egalitarianism or Equality of Outcome. I only mean Equality Under the Law, which is one of the fundamental tenets of a free society.

The kind of Equality I'm talking about is Equality to exercise one's "Natural Rights", i.e. the right to our own lives. If a man cannot exercise the right to his own life in a matter as basic as who he gets to welcome into his family, what kind of free man can he be?

[Bman]

Do you remember Babylon at all?

Do You?

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa10

[Krugerrand]

I don't look to McCain aides for advice.

[fj45lvr]

look in the dictionary.

there is no such thing as "gay" marriage. Marriage has always been defined as the coming together of a man and a woman.


The gay crowd should get over themselves....they can have something but it will never be "marriage".

[Reason]

The gay crowd should get over themselves....they can have something but it will never be "marriage".

you disgust me.

[KoldKut]

...

[idiom]

It takes one woman and a turkey baster to reproduce.

In addition to that, is gay adoption worse than abortion? Seriously? You would rather kill babies than give them to gay parents?

[KoldKut]

...

[revolutionman]

a long long time ago in a land far away Barry Goldwater warned about allowing the Christian right to dictate its faith as policy.

[Bman]

What's in the turkey baster, sherlock?

Oh, BTW -

A woman and a turkey baster is not a marriage either.

If gays want to call their relationship marriage, and you think they should have simular rights to married couples what's the big deal?

What makes this fight worth while.

[zach]

This thread will never die, much like the Fiji Water thread.

However, call a relationship anything you want.

In terms of one, what is it about a label that makes people up in arms?
If it still means the same thing, then how does it make one feel better if they are opposed to the relationship being called a "marriage?"

I don't see how it would upset any foundation; marriage as of right now has a good proportion of idiots getting married and divorcing some hours later to loving couples who stay married all of their lives. Prove that two people of the same sex will only make the "idiots divorcing" crowd a lot higher in numbers.

There might be some people who do jump from one person to another, but that's irrelevant to sexual orientation, and please don't give me the "I want to be married to an animal, can I call it marriage?" argument because people of the non-straight orientation are human too, and comparing them to another life-form is low and uncalled for.

[Andrew-Austin]

The FOUNDERS of our beloved STATE, those-who-wrote-the-Holy-Constitution, explicitly condemned Homosexuality, therefor it is a sin and we ought to go back to castrating these **** like we used to IN THE GOOD OLE DAYS. **** are the reason this country is going down the toilet, there is a vast liberal conspiracy to spread homosexuality in order to weaken Christian influence on AMERICA. It is immoral because GOD says so, and the founders agreed with him. Only those who hate Jesus would even think of making it legal for **** to marry. Why do you people HATE JESUS?!

Even if you are not a Christian believer in the holy founding fathers, and thus a liberal non-believing scoundrel, you should be able to recognize that SODOMY IS UNNATURAL!!
Butt sex has nothing to do with reproduction, it only has to do with PLEASURE! BE WARY of the SINS OF THE FLESH! Any lustful touching between two persons that has nothing to do with REPRODUCTION is sinful, and you can burn in hell for it. French kissing is unnatural, oral sex is unnatural, role playing fetishes are unnatural, ass slapping is unnatural, and foreplay in general is unnatural because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH REPRODUCTION!! When you are making a baby, you should just be thinking of GOD OR COUNTRY! THEOCRACY NOW, outlaw the sins of the flesh!

[TonySutton]

If that is bigoted, well then nature itself is bigoted. When two gay men, or two gay women can reproduce without any assistance from the opposite gender, then will be the time to talk about gay marriage, but not until then.

Bear with me for a second, you are saying if both members can not contribute genetic material to form a child then there is no basis for a legal marriage. Following your logic, if a person is sterile they should not be allowed to marry, right?

[KoldKut]

...

[torchbearer]

I think the rights should be similar.

um, who are you to hand out "rights"?
TO give government control over marriage is to say marriage is a privilege given by the state and not a individual right.
I find christians often don't understand this idea. If government can forbid homosexuals from marrying, they can also force your church to marry them.
A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take from you everything that you have.

[KoldKut]

...

[KoldKut]

...

[torchbearer]

I have a right to opinion. I was asked in the state of California just a few months to express that opinion in the polling booth. Who are you to deny me a right to an opinion?

The community has always asserted an interest in protecting the rights of children, because they are not property of the parents, and they are not competent to defend their own rights. And so our society has family courts that every day make decisions regarding the custody and welfare of children. I assert that those decisions regarding child welfare should be in the hands of courts and juries closest to the individuals involved, and not in the hands of political activists with an agenda.

Its not an opinion when its a state law. Its a use of force against other humans.
You like violence? You like hitting people you don't agree with?

Writing you ideas on a forum, would be stating your opinion.
Passing laws to enforce your OPINIONs on other people is an act of aggression.

[KoldKut]

...

[torchbearer]

Are laws against bank robbery acts of aggression against the bank robber?

Whether you approve or not, we live in a community and we make compromises that are enforced by law. And that means some people get their fucking wishes denied. You want to call it oppression? Whatever. Call it whatever you like, and good luck with convincing anyone else that your anarchic vision for society is worth pursuing.


Think- if you can.
There are two uses of force.
One is an act of aggression- meaning, you initiate force against someone.
One is an act of self-defense- meaning, you initiate force in an attempt to preserve your life or property as a response to someone else's aggression.

Would you like to inform yourself on rights and privileges and the Christian's just use of force philosophy before we continue this conversation?

[KoldKut]

...

[torchbearer]

I could not possibly care less about christian philosophy, so no, I'm not going to spend any effort whatsoever informing myself about it.

Recognizing that marriage is an institution of one man and one woman is not an act of aggression. It is an act common sense.

You seem to think that somebody's wishes trump nature, and you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

The question is, who has the authority to decide who gets married.
DO you decide for everyone else?
or
Does the individual church and/or person decide?


You have chosen to decide for everyone else with the force of law.
You are a tyrant. A DeMOBcracy is tyranny of the majority. And with this issue, you have committed an act of aggression, not in defense of your rights, but in an action to tell others what their rights are. That is what a king/dictator does it.
It doesn't make tyranny right, just because the majority agrees to the tyranny.

[KoldKut]

...

[torchbearer]

As long as the community legally recognizes marriage it is a civil matter and thus subject to community input just as all other laws are.



You're awfully quick to throw personal insults around ain't ya? I'm a tyrant? Well you're an anarchist. So there! :rolleyes:

You know what I consider tyrannical? Tiny groups of judges overriding the wishes of the community and legislating their morality on everyone by fiat.

Its not an insult. Its a fact. You just told other people what their rights are. By definition, you are now a tyrant. Congrats on your new found power over other people's lives.
I don't want to ever see you on this forum bitching about laws people are trying to force on you. You deserve it.

[torchbearer]

Well you're an anarchist.

Oh, and you just insulted a lot of anarchist on this board. :D
They all call me a statist. lulz.

[KoldKut]

...

[torchbearer]

I'm going to repeat myself and explicitly call you out to argue against this statement since so far you have chosen to ignore it:

I posted:

"The community has always asserted an interest in protecting the rights of children, because they are not property of the parents, and they are not competent to defend their own rights. And so our society has family courts that every day make decisions regarding the custody and welfare of children. I assert that those decisions regarding child welfare should be in the hands of courts and juries closest to the individuals involved, and not in the hands of political activists with an agenda."

Are you going to disagree with position? Or are you going to assert that you, the anarchist prick with an agenda, should have the authority to demand that the court not use its judgment but instead wear a blindfold when deciding on whether the traditional family or the gay family should get custody?

If you assert by fiat that gay and traditional marriage are the same thing, then there is no room for judgement on such a matter. And I'd call that pretty tyrannical, as well as collectivist.

This is why I asked you to understand rights and privileges first before we continue to discuss. You are ignorant on these things.

There are no community rights. Only individual rights. You talk like a socialist. Are you even a Ron Paul supporter?

[KoldKut]

...

[torchbearer]

You've insulted me in practically every one of your posts directed at me. Your very first comment towards me was:

"Think - if you can."

My response to you now is: "Go fuck yourself - if you can."

I would if i could.
Now please think if you can.

[KoldKut]

...

[torchbearer]

I believe it.

Maybe then you could marry yourself.

It would be my choice in a free society, it would be your choice in a tyranny of a majority.
If given the chance, you'd prevent me from doing so just because it is your opinion. :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

But, if you ever want to get an idea of rights and privileges, and even the U.S. constitution while you are at it... here is a class by Michael Badnarik:
http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

Rights and privileges are discussed first, so you don't have to watch it all to get the most important information.

[Andrew-Austin]

Not sure how much it differs from Badnarik's, but I like Robert Lefevre's explanation of rights and privileges:

http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/108.mp3
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=529

[BuddyRey]

The FOUNDERS of our beloved STATE, those-who-wrote-the-Holy-Constitution, explicitly condemned Homosexuality, therefor it is a sin and we ought to go back to castrating these **** like we used to IN THE GOOD OLE DAYS. **** are the reason this country is going down the toilet, there is a vast liberal conspiracy to spread homosexuality in order to weaken Christian influence on AMERICA. It is immoral because GOD says so, and the founders agreed with him. Only those who hate Jesus would even think of making it legal for **** to marry. Why do you people HATE JESUS?!

Even if you are not a Christian believer in the holy founding fathers, and thus a liberal non-believing scoundrel, you should be able to recognize that SODOMY IS UNNATURAL!!
Butt sex has nothing to do with reproduction, it only has to do with PLEASURE! BE WARY of the SINS OF THE FLESH! Any lustful touching between two persons that has nothing to do with REPRODUCTION is sinful, and you can burn in hell for it. French kissing is unnatural, oral sex is unnatural, role playing fetishes are unnatural, ass slapping is unnatural, and foreplay in general is unnatural because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH REPRODUCTION!! When you are making a baby, you should just be thinking of GOD OR COUNTRY! THEOCRACY NOW, outlaw the sins of the flesh!

LOL!!!

I wish I could say that I knew you were being facetious from the beginning, but truth be told, this isn't much of a stretch compared to some of the leaps in logic I've heard from the anti-gay contingent here and elsewhere.

[KoldKut]

...

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, and you just insulted a lot of anarchist on this board. :D
They all call me a statist. lulz.

Indeed! I am insulted being compared to a statist such as yourself! :p:mad:

[literatim]

This is why I asked you to understand rights and privileges first before we continue to discuss. You are ignorant on these things.

There are no community rights. Only individual rights. You talk like a socialist. Are you even a Ron Paul supporter?

You are asserting positive rights: that an individual has a right to marriage or has a right to adopt a child.

Right now marriage is a contract between you, your spouse, and the state. If any three of those parties don't want to enter that contract, it cannot be initiated. It is similar with adoption since a child without a family is represented by the state.

[Danke]

Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Minnesotans for Limited Government Position Paper on Gay Marriage

The GOP in Ramsey County has a lot of challenges. Often they are of their own making and therefore capable of a rapid reversal and a better statement of Liberty under a Constitutional Government. This it is to be hoped will make the GOP more acceptable here in Ramsey County.

What follows is a position paper that I wrote for Sue Jeffers, Republican candidate for governor in Minnesota last year 2006. This is a freedom position on gay marriage and marriage licenses.

First some history: The first marriage license law in the United States was passed in 1867 in Massachusetts. This law came about because a black man wanted to marry a white woman. Before 1867 no one in America had needed or even thought to need them marriage license. They would consider the idea that they would have to get the government's permission to get married and to pay a fee for the right of getting married would be completely alien to their thinking. George and Martha Washington, Abraham and Mary Lincoln and every other couple in America who wanted to get married before 1867 only needed the permission of their families and their churches. As far as I am concerned, marriage licenses violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. So marriage licenses started as a Jim Crow law.

Now to get a marriage license, you have to pay a fee. This FEE can be considered a tax. It is interesting to note that when you buy a marriage license, they are only good for six months. If your plans change and your marriage is postponed past the date of the license, you have to buy a second license. So this Jim Crow law was soon found to be an excellent tax revenue source.

With the rise of the Welfare State many benefits and subsidies were distributed in ways that made your marriage status important in deciding if you would be receiving these benefits. I have heard that there are 1100 specific government benefits and subsidies dependent upon your marriage status. This is particularly true in the assignment of health benefits, especially employee provided health benefits. So this racist law, and tax cash cow, became an important tool for the welfare state.

Some more history: I was in college in the late 1970's, this with a time of great intellectual and social change. Gay rights became an important issue in America. The gay activists that I knew wanted nothing to do with marriage or any of the other traditional social arrangements. They wanted their right to be free to enjoy a promiscuous sex without social stigma. I for one am willing to give them this. However something happened during the party. They started getting sick. They're getting herpes simplex, hepatitis A B and C, and the big one; AIDS.

Sick people will do what they can to get well. It is their right under the pursuit of happiness clause in the Constitution. Many decided to take advantage of the health insurance benefit provided by the employers of their friends to pay for the costs of their health care. Employer provided health insurance is the unintended consequence of the wage freeze of 1945 during the Truman administration. Price freezes never work and health insurance benefits were invented as a non-cash payment for services rendered by employees. To access these benefits the idea of gay marriage was promoted I am not saying that the partners don't love each other. I am saying that we have backed ourselves into a corner by continually looking to the government to solve problems they aren't competent to solve.

So here are the Conservatives, the traditionalists fighting to “save marriage." They aren't saving marriage. They're fighting to preserve: a racist law, the tax on a religious sacrament, and the welfare state.

The true liberty and freedom answer to this dilemma is less government. Repeal all marriage licensing laws. The Sacrament of marriage belongs to the Church not the State. Churches should decide who they marry not the government. This repeal will be a tax cut, putting the employer-employee relationship back on a cash basis. A fair day's wage for a fair day's work in the worker can spend his money however he likes.

An honest government should treat you as an individual and should not consider your marital status or anything else but your individuality in dealing with you. If gay people want to get married and are unable to find a church that will marry them, they are free to start their own churches. This is an example of using Historical Analysis to identify past Constitutional abuses and by working to rectify them, forward the cause of Liberty.

If the GOP adopts this position it leaves the opposition forced to defend a TAX and a HUGE violation of the "Separation of Church and State". Meanwhile we can ask the Social Conservatives: Do you really want to give the government the right and power to license that which "that which the LORD has joined?" What happens if the government decides to license and tax other sacraments like Baptism? Do the born again have to pay twice?

Liberty!
Colin Wilkinson
Minnesotans for Limited Government
www.MNLG.org

bump

[Sola_Fide]

GOP needs to drop support of state-sanctioned marriage.



Yes.

/end thread.