PDA

View Full Version : The coming pandemic of “gay marriage”




Douglass Bartley
05-15-2012, 12:03 PM
Please see http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/the-coming-pandemic-of-gay-marriage/

Elwar
05-15-2012, 12:09 PM
If it bothers you so much. Just say that you are biblically married.

And refer to it as biblical marriage.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC2YySDXdVm80KAs0Q6Z1tBVUPmbqnG KD1Ep6NKtfFjwvcRGt_7w

Sam I am
05-15-2012, 12:15 PM
Once Gay marriage is legalized, life in America will become exactly the same as it already is.

luctor-et-emergo
05-15-2012, 12:18 PM
Once Gay marriage is legalized, life in America will become exactly the same as it already is.

Change! (sorry couldn't resist myself :D)

Anti Federalist
05-15-2012, 12:33 PM
Actually I hope it gets to the point of ridiculousness.

There is now no legal precedent or justification to prohibit polygamy, or incestuous marriage or marrying your horse, I suppose.

Then, maybe, it will become clear that the idea of government "regulating" marriage was pretty foolish from the get go.

phill4paul
05-15-2012, 12:43 PM
Actually I hope it gets to the point of ridiculousness.

There is now no legal precedent or justification to prohibit polygamy, or incestuous marriage or marrying your horse, I suppose.

Then, maybe, it will become clear that the idea of government "regulating" marriage was pretty foolish from the get go.

This.

Lishy
05-15-2012, 12:49 PM
I wish people could just stop giving a damn which sex the other person wants to fuck.

phill4paul
05-15-2012, 12:53 PM
I wish people could just stop giving a damn which sex the other person wants to fuck.

I couldn't care less what people believe. I just wish people would quit using government as the personal enforcement arm of their individual or collective beliefs.

thoughtomator
05-15-2012, 01:02 PM
If it's the government's business who is married to whom, that government is too large and intrusive.

Agorism
05-15-2012, 01:17 PM
Marriage laws and court screw over men so badly as it is, I really don't care if we make a mockery of the system. In fact, I'd rather watch gays fight over these issues as well in court just to see what will happen.

Custody almost always goes to the female with payment duties going to the male. With gays, the courts will have no idea what to do so they will likely end up with 50-50 custom arrangements. Perhaps these precedents will get expanded to male-female divorces as well.

JWZguy
05-15-2012, 01:19 PM
You put the wrong word in quotes.

jmdrake
05-15-2012, 01:20 PM
Actually I hope it gets to the point of ridiculousness.

There is now no legal precedent or justification to prohibit polygamy, or incestuous marriage or marrying your horse, I suppose.

Then, maybe, it will become clear that the idea of government "regulating" marriage was pretty foolish from the get go.

+rep!

CaptUSA
05-15-2012, 01:24 PM
You put the wrong word in quotes.Yeah, no kidding!

As long as we're parsing definitions.... "Pandemic"??? Really?!

Pro PC Tuner
05-15-2012, 01:32 PM
I'm not for it.. meaning i won't go out of my way to support it but i'm not AGAINST it.
This is being made such a big deal then it really should be.

If they wan't the miseries of divorce and obstacles then be my guest!

WhistlinDave
05-15-2012, 01:51 PM
(This is to the OP.) The whole premise of your "legal" argument seems predicated on the presumption that you know what "natural law" is and that somehow the laws of our Republic must, by necessity, be congruent with your personal views of what that "natural law" is. Both premises are erroneous.

If homosexuality is against "natural law," please someone explain to me why hundreds of animal species engage in homosexual behavior. (Google that, I'm new here so I can't post any links yet to support that statement, but it's very easy to find the data on this.)

Incidentally though, it's probably safe to say humans are the only species who make such a big deal of this subject, probably because we're the only ones who feverishly stick our noses into a collection of questionably translated desert scribblings from thousands of years ago which also proscribes such barbaric atrocities as slavery, and bloody animal sacrifices. (See Leviticus chapters 1-9... Have you sprinkled your Ox blood lately?)

In discussing the age old definition of marriage, one man, one woman, since the beginning of time, I love the story of Abraham and Sarai in Genesis chapter 16. When Sarai was infertile, she tells Abraham to impregnate her female slave Hagar. So he rapes her--well, OK to be fair it wasn't rape since they owned her--and then when she gets upset about being pregnant she runs away. Fortunately for our traditional family unit, the Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar and tells her to go back to her master and submit. And so together they have little Ishmael. And so you see, clearly the Eternal Word of God has never changed.... It's always been one man, one woman... LOL

To anyone so concerned about whether other people are doing things unnatural, I would encourage you to worry about yourself. You will be much happier. Put on your reading glasses, after driving your car home, and pop that frozen dinner into the microwave oven, before you turn on your television... Yes you are certainly not doing anything unnatural yourself, you are just as God intended, no aberrations from nature there. LOL

Judging by the likes of Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, and the divorce rate in general, I think it's safe to say heterosexuality does not inherently imply or guarantee the sanctity of anything.

Life is too short to wage a war against people who just want to enjoy the same Liberty we all do. Lighten up and worry about your own morality. That is the only morality you are legally permitted to control. Not mine, nor my wife's, nor my neighbor's, nor the two gay guys who love each other enough to seal it with the old ball and chain. Mind your own business. It's none of the government's business to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry and we should not have any laws recognizing any form of personal, private romantic union between two people or granting any special rights or privileges as a result of that contract. That is Ron Paul's position on gay marriage too, if I'm not mistaken. It's called Liberty. If you don't like it, then you do not understand the concept of Liberty to begin with and frankly I don't know what you're doing here supporting Ron Paul.

John F Kennedy III
05-15-2012, 01:59 PM
Lol pandemic as if it's a disease. What ever happened to personal liberties? Hell I want to see tri-marriages. Man-Woman-Man, Woman, Man, Woman. Or of course Woman, Woman, Woman and Man, Man, Man.

Madison320
05-15-2012, 02:03 PM
We're speeding towards a dollar collapse and politicians are worried about ... gay marriage?

Keith and stuff
05-15-2012, 02:05 PM
Here is the problem with your argument. The vast majority of younger people think government same sex marriage should be legal. Your argument is interesting but he does nothing to change the minds of the 15-45 year old people that disagree with you. Unless you can convince them, or somehow get the Supreme Court to ban government same sex marriage, the future of the US is moving towards legal government same sex marriage in every state.

Heck, even the super majority Republican House of Representatives in New Hampshire recently voted to keep government same sex marriage instead of going back to government same sex civil unions. I NH is much different than the rest of the country, but the idea is spreading.

Pro PC Tuner
05-15-2012, 02:07 PM
well yeah.. they want to be re-elected don't they? apparently doing this wins Americas heart... and not all the surrounding facts like the deterioration of our finances, homesteads, unemployed work force, federal regulations, foreign policies and warfare.

Pro PC Tuner
05-15-2012, 02:11 PM
my comment was replied to Madison and not keith. bad timing.

Danke
05-15-2012, 02:15 PM
Another gay thread.

DamianTV
05-15-2012, 02:22 PM
I support Darwinism!

Gay Marriage is also a fantastic way to kill two birds with one stone. Overpopulation and Ophans. Then something needs to be done about the 'Breeders'. You know, the ones that live on the Welfare State and have more children just to get more money from the Welfare State. Oooh oooh! I have an idea! How about we stop incentivizing Welfare Babies!

brandon
05-15-2012, 02:24 PM
Once Gay marriage is legalized, life in America will become exactly the same as it already is.


Yea but what about when a woman can marry a turtle or a dog can marry a dog???? THEN WHAT? HUH?

anaconda
05-15-2012, 02:31 PM
There is now no legal precedent or justification to prohibit marrying your horse.


Several horses have become first lady over the years.

Brian Coulter
05-15-2012, 03:45 PM
We're speeding towards a dollar collapse and politicians are worried about ... gay marriage?

It's a 'smokescreen' issue and always has been, just like abortion and (gasp!) racism. Nobody in the real world gives a fuck, but for some reason it's ALWAYS in the news.

You'd think folks frequenting RPF would know better and maybe they do and it's just the trolls who keep bringing this shit back to the front.

Brian Coulter
05-15-2012, 03:48 PM
Several horses have become first lady over the years.

http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2007-november/01aeleanor02.jpg

FDR was gay(er).

Madison320
05-15-2012, 04:15 PM
It's a 'smokescreen' issue and always has been, just like abortion and (gasp!) racism. Nobody in the real world gives a fuck, but for some reason it's ALWAYS in the news.


I get the feeling that politicians are secretly making a huge sigh of relief when they get to talk about trivial issues like gay marriage. They're glad to talk about ANYTHING other than spending and the enormous debt.

Anti Federalist
05-15-2012, 04:18 PM
http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2007-november/01aeleanor02.jpg

FDR was gay(er).

Ahhhh!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0fjbjfLiI1rqfhi2o1_500.gif

Kluge
05-15-2012, 04:22 PM
This is an awesome game called "Pandemic" where you can try to take out the world's population via various terrible diseases, transport, etc. Unfortunately, gay marriage is not one of the options to take out humanity, I have no idea why.

http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-2.html#game

For some reason I can NEVER get Madagascar. Bastards!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-15-2012, 04:32 PM
Please see http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/the-coming-pandemic-of-gay-marriage/
Qualifier: What is being presented here is the result of the teaching of a false dichotomy, a system of diseducation which has, over the years, worked to the benefit of tyranny and to the detrement of the people. Therefore, I must refrain from this discussion as I don't perceive this matter as a legitimate issue, but as nonsense. Sorry.

Anti Federalist
05-15-2012, 04:40 PM
Qualifier: What is being presented here is the result of the teaching of a false dichotomy, a system of diseducation which has, over the years, worked to the benefit of tyranny and to the detrement of the people. Therefore, I must refrain from this discussion as I don't perceive this matter as a legitimate issue, but as nonsense. Sorry.

I'll give ya a rep for that Uncle.

DamianTV
05-15-2012, 04:53 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with not wanting to pay out more benefits hiding behind the "excuse" of religion.

Oh no, we dont wanna pay out benefits (well, any benefits, ever, period, unless we've been forced to) because youre gay!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WEmPLjlJ4c
(this is SATIRE. DO NOT take it Seriously.)

Brian4Liberty
05-15-2012, 05:49 PM
Yeah, no kidding!

As long as we're parsing definitions.... "Pandemic"??? Really?!

Yep. We'll all be catching the "gay". Maybe the government will develop a vaccine before it's too late? The big question is what will be in the vaccine, and how will they inject it?

Aden
05-15-2012, 10:06 PM
Couple A = 2 guys, married by a justice of the peace, who receive a marriage license from the state.

Couple B = 1 man and 1 woman who exchange vows before family and loved ones at their church, and forgo a license from the state because they are anarcho capitalists.

When God looks down from Heaven, which couple does he considered married? Exactly. When it comes to marriage, the state is irrelevant.

DamianTV
05-15-2012, 11:25 PM
Does Heaven really make any difference to two gay atheists? They do it for each other, not to satisfy the Heavens, not to satisfy the State, not to satisfy the Family, they do it for each other. Well, that and other things I dont really wanna know about.

cstarace
05-15-2012, 11:27 PM
Couple A = 2 guys, married by a justice of the peace, who receive a marriage license from the state.

Couple B = 1 man and 1 woman who exchange vows before family and loved ones at their church, and forgo a license from the state because they are anarcho capitalists.

When God looks down from Heaven, which couple does he considered married? Exactly. When it comes to marriage, the state is irrelevant.
Right. Because two guys can't exchange vows before family/loved ones, or forgo a license from the state, or be anarcho capitalists.

anaconda
05-16-2012, 01:08 AM
http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2007-november/01aeleanor02.jpg

FDR was gay(er).

I think she had a girlfriend named Lorena Hickok.

Noble Savage
05-16-2012, 05:07 AM
How will they prove if someone is gay and not just 2 friends living together?

Spikender
05-16-2012, 05:16 AM
This is an awesome game called "Pandemic" where you can try to take out the world's population via various terrible diseases, transport, etc. Unfortunately, gay marriage is not one of the options to take out humanity, I have no idea why.

http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-2.html#game

For some reason I can NEVER get Madagascar. Bastards!

I swear to God, Madagascar must be impossible to infect. I've infected the whole world before but couldn't get those clever fools. There has to be a way...

Anyway, I'm leaning toward thinking that this is just a smokescreen issue. The Government realizes that people were getting restless with all the spending and abuses by the police, so now they have to sate our blood-thirst with an issue that doesn't need to be solved right now. Honestly, we're worrying about who or what someone can love when our entire country is falling apart due to reasons much worst than gay people getting married.

Elwar
05-16-2012, 05:44 AM
How will they prove if someone is gay and not just 2 friends living together?

Heh...before I was married, I seriously considered paying a buddy of mine to "get married" for tax purposes since he was just starting his own business and could write a lot off while I had a decent salary and good medical benefits.

No living together or anything. Where does it say that we would be legally required to live together? It would be like going to the DMV to put someone else on the car title for whatever tax reason.

speciallyblend
05-16-2012, 05:49 AM
non issue ,waste of time. If someone is forcing a gay or straight person to marry then call me.

speciallyblend
05-16-2012, 05:50 AM
Yep. We'll all be catching the "gay". Maybe the government will develop a vaccine before it's too late? The big question is what will be in the vaccine, and how will they inject it?

bottom line is all those straight anti-gay folks are scared they might be bi-sexual and since they choose to be straight. They are fearful of being gay/bi-sexual, oooo noeees Don't sneeze they could turn gay. probably an inhaler to stop the gay.

asurfaholic
05-16-2012, 06:10 AM
(This is to the OP.) The whole premise of your "legal" argument seems predicated on the presumption that you know what "natural law" is and that somehow the laws of our Republic must, by necessity, be congruent with your personal views of what that "natural law" is. Both premises are erroneous.

If homosexuality is against "natural law," please someone explain to me why hundreds of animal species engage in homosexual behavior. (Google that, I'm new here so I can't post any links yet to support that statement, but it's very easy to find the data on this.)

Incidentally though, it's probably safe to say humans are the only species who make such a big deal of this subject, probably because we're the only ones who feverishly stick our noses into a collection of questionably translated desert scribblings from thousands of years ago which also proscribes such barbaric atrocities as slavery, and bloody animal sacrifices. (See Leviticus chapters 1-9... Have you sprinkled your Ox blood lately?)

In discussing the age old definition of marriage, one man, one woman, since the beginning of time, I love the story of Abraham and Sarai in Genesis chapter 16. When Sarai was infertile, she tells Abraham to impregnate her female slave Hagar. So he rapes her--well, OK to be fair it wasn't rape since they owned her--and then when she gets upset about being pregnant she runs away. Fortunately for our traditional family unit, the Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar and tells her to go back to her master and submit. And so together they have little Ishmael. And so you see, clearly the Eternal Word of God has never changed.... It's always been one man, one woman... LOL

To anyone so concerned about whether other people are doing things unnatural, I would encourage you to worry about yourself. You will be much happier. Put on your reading glasses, after driving your car home, and pop that frozen dinner into the microwave oven, before you turn on your television... Yes you are certainly not doing anything unnatural yourself, you are just as God intended, no aberrations from nature there. LOL

Judging by the likes of Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, and the divorce rate in general, I think it's safe to say heterosexuality does not inherently imply or guarantee the sanctity of anything.

Life is too short to wage a war against people who just want to enjoy the same Liberty we all do. Lighten up and worry about your own morality. That is the only morality you are legally permitted to control. Not mine, nor my wife's, nor my neighbor's, nor the two gay guys who love each other enough to seal it with the old ball and chain. Mind your own business. It's none of the government's business to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry and we should not have any laws recognizing any form of personal, private romantic union between two people or granting any special rights or privileges as a result of that contract. That is Ron Paul's position on gay marriage too, if I'm not mistaken. It's called Liberty. If you don't like it, then you do not understand the concept of Liberty to begin with and frankly I don't know what you're doing here supporting Ron Paul.


The whole animals are gay too argument just doesn't work for me. Chimps throw their own shit around, but does that make it ok to throw your shit at somebody? Na..

But I agree with everything else you said. Worry about yourself instead of trying to manage everyone else. Pointless debate.

PaulConventionWV
05-16-2012, 06:14 AM
I wish people could just stop giving a damn which sex the other person wants to fuck.

When it involves government, it affects everyone. That's why people care.

PaulConventionWV
05-16-2012, 06:42 AM
(This is to the OP.) The whole premise of your "legal" argument seems predicated on the presumption that you know what "natural law" is and that somehow the laws of our Republic must, by necessity, be congruent with your personal views of what that "natural law" is. Both premises are erroneous.

If homosexuality is against "natural law," please someone explain to me why hundreds of animal species engage in homosexual behavior. (Google that, I'm new here so I can't post any links yet to support that statement, but it's very easy to find the data on this.)

The natural law being referred to is that only male and female can reproduce and bring forth life. The fact that it occurs at all is no object to that fact. Homosexuality is inherently and obviously in defiance of that law.

No comment on the legal matters. I, personally, don't think it should have anything to do with the law, althought I reject the idea that I'm arcane for thinking it's wrong and basing this on a solid set of morals.


Incidentally though, it's probably safe to say humans are the only species who make such a big deal of this subject, probably because we're the only ones who feverishly stick our noses into a collection of questionably translated desert scribblings from thousands of years ago which also proscribes such barbaric atrocities as slavery, and bloody animal sacrifices. (See Leviticus chapters 1-9... Have you sprinkled your Ox blood lately?)

Your presumptions about the Bible (which I assume is what you're referring to) are erroneous. The Bible is the most authentic piece of literature in human history.

What's more, you base your ideas of it on some unknown moral order in order to say the laws of the Bible are immoral in some way. If you think you cannot judge what natural law is, what makes you so sure that your idea of moral law is right? For the record, however, the Bible does not condone slavery. That is the most drummed up piece of literary crap that has been brought up simply so the non-believers can feel justified in the face of people who dare to question their ideas on morality. Then you go on to tell me that, because you have arbitrarily decided the words "bloody animal sacrifice" should strike us as something evil, or against natural law or whatever law you hold yourself to, that we should all be against that, too. Simply laughable. This goes for the rest of the ignorant drivel that you posted. Don't bother fact-checking. Just post your biased stories about how evil the Bible is according to the arbitrary morality you have decided is right.


To anyone so concerned about whether other people are doing things unnatural, I would encourage you to worry about yourself. You will be much happier. Put on your reading glasses, after driving your car home, and pop that frozen dinner into the microwave oven, before you turn on your television... Yes you are certainly not doing anything unnatural yourself, you are just as God intended, no aberrations from nature there. LOL

You clearly have a grave misunderstanding of the term 'natural law.' It doesn't mean what you think it means.


Life is too short to wage a war against people who just want to enjoy the same Liberty we all do. Lighten up and worry about your own morality. That is the only morality you are legally permitted to control. Not mine, nor my wife's, nor my neighbor's, nor the two gay guys who love each other enough to seal it with the old ball and chain. Mind your own business. It's none of the government's business to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry and we should not have any laws recognizing any form of personal, private romantic union between two people or granting any special rights or privileges as a result of that contract. That is Ron Paul's position on gay marriage too, if I'm not mistaken. It's called Liberty. If you don't like it, then you do not understand the concept of Liberty to begin with and frankly I don't know what you're doing here supporting Ron Paul.

Who's waging war? I retain the right to have my objections to homosexuality without forcing my beliefs on anyone. I never implied that I would harrass anyone who was homosexual simply for that fact, be it via government or my own actions.

Also, why make it an issue about marriage? The only reason we argue back and forth about 'gay marriage' is because the general public, including a great many on this forum, have fallen for the misconception that "marriage" and "government authorized marriage license" are one and the same. The moral argument on marriage goes much deeper than control. After all, there is absolutely no reason for a gay couple to even want to get married, except for the government goodies that are handed out to those who declare their marriage in court and give the government a piece of the marriage pie. In essence, gays only want to marry because they want to marry the government. If the government were not involved in marriage, I simply would not care what you call two gays living together because the idea of calling two gays living together "marriage" without the government would be patently absurd.

It's also quite ironic that you are talking to me about Liberty in such ferocious terms. I know what Liberty is. I don't think you are quite there yet.

PaulConventionWV
05-16-2012, 06:47 AM
We're speeding towards a dollar collapse and politicians are worried about ... gay marriage?

The issue of government gay marriage is part of the climate that leads to these economic problems. While I agree that politicians are way off base in what they are focusing on and the rhetoric they repeatedly repeat, the issue itself is still important.

PaulConventionWV
05-16-2012, 06:59 AM
Heh...before I was married, I seriously considered paying a buddy of mine to "get married" for tax purposes since he was just starting his own business and could write a lot off while I had a decent salary and good medical benefits.

No living together or anything. Where does it say that we would be legally required to live together? It would be like going to the DMV to put someone else on the car title for whatever tax reason.

That's not what "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" would have you believe.

PaulConventionWV
05-16-2012, 07:04 AM
bottom line is all those straight anti-gay folks are scared they might be bi-sexual and since they choose to be straight. They are fearful of being gay/bi-sexual, oooo noeees Don't sneeze they could turn gay. probably an inhaler to stop the gay.

How can you collectively label people like that when

1. You don't know what they are afraid of and
2. You don't know "all those straight anti-gay" folks

Please stop making collectivist judgments about straight folks who exercise their right to tell people that they believe what they are doing is morally wrong. There is no force invovled. We simply reserve our right to believe it's wrong. If it means anything to you or people who persistently make that outrageous claim as a red herring distraction from the real issue, I am not afraid of being gay. I simply am not gay, and yet I believe being gay is wrong (WHOA! SHOCKER!).

Mani
05-16-2012, 07:09 AM
Why is the bible the determing factor as a reference to if gay marriage is moral or immoral? This is the united states of America and last I checked there is the freedom to practice other religions. Some religions allow gay marriage so those individuals should be allowed to proceed and get married without any religious prejudice just because 1 religion interprets it as bad.

phill4paul
05-16-2012, 07:14 AM
Oh noes! It's a pandemic....

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkne4XaL1p7C6Yd0rfDkyiBMpq99i-m5klIjMA0b8tX55vupX-

pcosmar
05-16-2012, 07:17 AM
Why is the bible the determing factor as a reference to if gay marriage is moral or immoral? This is the united states of America and last I checked there is the freedom to practice other religions. Some religions allow gay marriage so those individuals should be allowed to proceed and get married without any religious prejudice just because 1 religion interprets it as bad.

This is the point that many have tried to make (and seems to be completely lost on many)

Marriage is a spiritual/religious thing. NOT a Governmental thing.
It should be left to churches (of any flavor) or to individuals themselves.
The government,, or other people have no business interfering at all.

simple.

specsaregood
05-16-2012, 07:26 AM
Marriage is a spiritual/religious thing.

That is part of your definition of marriage, not necessarily others. eg: for me it is a personal contract and family thing.

PaulConventionWV
05-16-2012, 07:27 AM
Why is the bible the determing factor as a reference to if gay marriage is moral or immoral? This is the united states of America and last I checked there is the freedom to practice other religions. Some religions allow gay marriage so those individuals should be allowed to proceed and get married without any religious prejudice just because 1 religion interprets it as bad.

Of course there is. I'm telling you what I believe, and why I believe it. You have the right to believe something else if you want, but if you think you can say things are bad or wrong based on your own arbitrary definitions of morality, then you're a hypocrite. Also, nobody is prohibiting gays from getting married or living together and doing all the things that other married couples can do. They just can't include the government and all its goodies in their marriage contract. The government shouldn't be involved in ANY marriages in the first place, so arguing that gays should be allowed to get married is a major false dichotomy that distracts from the real issue, which is government involvement in marriage.

PaulConventionWV
05-16-2012, 07:28 AM
That is part of your definition of marriage, not necessarily others. eg: for me it is a personal contract and family thing.

You can call a dog a cat, but that doesn't make it so.

Travlyr
05-16-2012, 07:30 AM
Actually I hope it gets to the point of ridiculousness.

There is now no legal precedent or justification to prohibit polygamy, or incestuous marriage or marrying your horse, I suppose.

Then, maybe, it will become clear that the idea of government "regulating" marriage was pretty foolish from the get go.

+rep No Doubt!

pcosmar
05-16-2012, 07:30 AM
That is part of your definition of marriage, not necessarily others. eg: for me it is a personal contract and family thing.

That also.
Still not any of the governments business.

Travlyr
05-16-2012, 07:31 AM
We're speeding towards a dollar collapse and politicians are worried about ... gay marriage?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Mani
05-16-2012, 07:37 AM
Of course there is. I'm telling you what I believe, and why I believe it. You have the right to believe something else if you want, but if you think you can say things are bad or wrong based on your own arbitrary definitions of morality, then you're a hypocrite. Also, nobody is prohibiting gays from getting married or living together and doing all the things that other married couples can do. They just can't include the government and all its goodies in their marriage contract. The government shouldn't be involved in ANY marriages in the first place, so arguing that gays should be allowed to get married is a major false dichotomy that distracts from the real issue, which is government involvement in marriage.


So regardless of the morality or immorality it seems we all pretty much agree the government should not be involved at all.

specsaregood
05-16-2012, 07:38 AM
You can call a dog a cat, but that doesn't make it so.

For ages many marriages have simply been business or political arrangements with nothing religious about it. Just so happens that what I said completely aligns with what Dr. Paul said. We are all fully capable of defining marriage for ourselves we just don't have the right to force our definition upon others.


Still not any of the governments business.
Got absolutely no disagreement with that.

TonySutton
05-16-2012, 07:39 AM
I think if all of the people in these threads who believe government should be completely out of the marriage business would stop talking "what ifs" and "until thens." We could all focus on fixing the economy, restoring personal liberty and ending the wars instead of having multiple 300+ post threads on a topic that is not in most people's top 5 list of important issues facing our country today.

A lot of good it will do me to get married to my boyfriend if our country falls apart around us and is replaced by an Orwellian police state sending everyone under the age of 40 off to fight endless wars.

Kluge
05-16-2012, 08:03 AM
I swear to God, Madagascar must be impossible to infect. I've infected the whole world before but couldn't get those clever fools. There has to be a way...

Anyway, I'm leaning toward thinking that this is just a smokescreen issue. The Government realizes that people were getting restless with all the spending and abuses by the police, so now they have to sate our blood-thirst with an issue that doesn't need to be solved right now. Honestly, we're worrying about who or what someone can love when our entire country is falling apart due to reasons much worst than gay people getting married.

It's a smokescreen issue, just like abortion often is.

Maybe I should move to Madagascar, they may know something I don't, these game programmers.

speciallyblend
05-16-2012, 08:09 AM
How can you collectively label people like that when

1. You don't know what they are afraid of and
2. You don't know "all those straight anti-gay" folks

Please stop making collectivist judgments about straight folks who exercise their right to tell people that they believe what they are doing is morally wrong. There is no force invovled. We simply reserve our right to believe it's wrong. If it means anything to you or people who persistently make that outrageous claim as a red herring distraction from the real issue, I am not afraid of being gay. I simply am not gay, and yet I believe being gay is wrong (WHOA! SHOCKER!).

the same way people on this forum collectively say being gay is a choice, i guess you missed the sarcasm meter.

I guess god was on crack when transgendered folks are born! I guess god damned them for life.

you can believe being gay is wrong but bottom line it is none of yours or mines business unless they are forcing you to marry against your will! It is a non-issue!

John F Kennedy III
05-16-2012, 12:28 PM
Several horses have become first lady over the years.

http://0.tqn.com/d/womenshistory/1/0/f/Z/2/081015_hillary_clinton_83287554a.jpg

Schifference
05-16-2012, 12:36 PM
I predict discrimination in the future after Same sex marriage is legal. I predict that one day a young person will sue the court for discrimination because the court will not allow them to get married even though they would allow the same aged opposite sex child to do so.

idiom
05-16-2012, 01:04 PM
Will wearing a pvc full body suit raise or lower my chances of getting infected with gay marriage?

anaconda
05-16-2012, 05:15 PM
How will they prove if someone is gay and not just 2 friends living together?

How about divorce settlements?

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 05:22 PM
How will they prove if someone is gay and not just 2 friends living together?

THIS HAS THE MAKINGS OF A TREMENDOUS ROMCOM!

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 05:24 PM
Your presumptions about the Bible (which I assume is what you're referring to) are erroneous. The Bible is the most authentic piece of literature in human history.

I especially like the part where it says to stone disobedient children. Nothing more authentic than that.

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 05:27 PM
I simply am not gay, and yet I believe being gay is wrong (WHOA! SHOCKER!).


Is it wrong to be 5'9"? Is it wrong to be black? Is it wrong to near-sighted?

This ugly mentality that it is up to you to judge people who are born a certain way and look down on them as if you were superior is disgusting. Who in the hell are you to say what is "wrong" and what gives you the right to determine what is moral?

jmdrake
05-16-2012, 05:33 PM
Couple A = 2 guys, married by a justice of the peace, who receive a marriage license from the state.

Couple B = 1 man and 1 woman who exchange vows before family and loved ones at their church, and forgo a license from the state because they are anarcho capitalists.

When God looks down from Heaven, which couple does he considered married? Exactly. When it comes to marriage, the state is irrelevant.

We have a thread winner! The problem ain't the gays or the fundies. The problem is the state.

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 05:38 PM
We have a thread winner! The problem ain't the gays or the fundies. The problem is the state.

True, the state should be out of the marriage business. But people should also be out of the business of judging what two consenting adults who love each other choose to do with their lives.

That principle is EXTREMELY important to the Liberty movement. Just let people be. They aren't hurting anyone. Just let them be.

DamianTV
05-16-2012, 05:58 PM
There are multiple problems to be considered.

10th Amendment - It IS up to the State.
Federal Law - Intervenes when State Laws are in Disagreement.

Obama saying it should be up to the State is a Copout. He doesnt want it to cause too much contraversy because it is an Election Year.

What I think the Federal Governments proper role should be is to ensure that the States respect and recognize each others Laws. If it is Legal for such and such State, another state that has not legalized Gay Marriage needs to recognize the Law of which the individuals got married in.

States also need to recognize DIVORCE as equally as MARRIAGE. Guess what. Gay people get DIVORCED too. But when a gay couple gets married in a State that later changes its mind and does not recognize Gay Marriage, then that couple wants to get a divorce, that also needs to be recognized under Ex Post Facto. That means at the time, it was legal for those two people to get married, thus, it is recognized by that States Law, and allow them to get a Divorce.

Federal Employees and Social Security

I'll also try to exrpess my opinion to be as Constitutional as possible. The purpose of the 10 Amendment is to ensure that the Federal Govt recognizes a States Authority. Thus, Social Security and Federal Benefits need to be recognized by the State in which a couple has been recognized as married, according to the time and legal status of gay marriage in which they were married. They got married in a state that recognizes Gay Marriage, and even though that state may have changed its laws since then, the Federal Govt needs to respect the Law of that state when Gay Marriage was recognized. Thus, a couple got married when it was recognized, the spouces should be (and I hate this word, but people do pay into Social Security) *entitled* to receive those benefits. I believe that recognizing the Law of the State at the time that a Marriage had taken place puts the Federal Govt in the correct position of leaving decisions up to the state and only intervening when there is a disagreement between States.

What I do NOT want is the Federal Govt to have the power to EITHER ALLOW OR DENY Gay Marriage. A Federal Law that does either exceeds the Powers granted to the Federal Govt in the Constitution.

Now, trying to put aside my Personal Beliefs and think of this as Constitutionally as possible, are there any major issues with my interpretation of what should happen? I do believe that I am probably not 100% Constitutional in my interpretation, so please feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting something. Again, trying to put my Personal Opinions of this aside and look at it from the "does this follow the constitution" perspective, so if Gay Marriage not something that you support, lets not even address Gay Marriage period and think of this as something completely different, such as, should smoking pot be a Federal Law, or some other topic that could be considered contraversial between States and Federal Govt, then work with it from there, as to not try to offend anyones Personal Beliefs.

Opinions?

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 06:18 PM
Personally this is one of the issues I break away libertarianism from. I'm not a liberterian, never will be, but I agree with libertarianism on most economic positions.

I believe that gay marriage, and even homosexuality, should be illegal. I'm not a theocrat, but I do believe that government cannot go against God's law and Biblical morality. Therefore things such as homosexuality and abortion must be illegal.

Kluge
05-16-2012, 06:33 PM
Will wearing a pvc full body suit raise or lower my chances of getting infected with gay marriage?

Raise.

There's probably a PVC fetish out there, and it's mostly men who have fetishes.

Kluge
05-16-2012, 06:35 PM
Personally this is one of the issues I break away libertarianism from. I'm not a liberterian, never will be, but I agree with libertarianism on most economic positions.

I believe that gay marriage, and even homosexuality, should be illegal. I'm not a theocrat, but I do believe that government cannot go against God's law and Biblical morality. Therefore things such as homosexuality and abortion must be illegal.

And you can't imagine the immoral ways the government would enforce those laws? Would it not be more Christian to educate people?

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 06:39 PM
And you can't imagine the immoral ways the government would enforce those laws? Would it not be more Christian to educate people?

That's why I believe in a very limited government and in local control. That said, I do believe that if a community wants to ban homosexual behavior it has that right (and ought to use it!). However, that doesn't change that I think that such immoral and disgusting behavior such as homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated by government or private citizens. I do believe the government has a role to play in enforcing morality and I don't believe the government has the right to legalize or promote immoral activities.

Of course a law will never change the morality of a people, you can't change someone's heart. But that doesn't mean that the government has the right to permit (and condone/encourage as it does now) certain immoral behavior such as homosexuality. I think Lawrence v Texas was a horrible ruling.

VoluntaryAmerican
05-16-2012, 06:40 PM
We're speeding towards a dollar collapse and politicians are worried about ... gay marriage?

The two parties have to pretend they disagree on something.

VoluntaryAmerican
05-16-2012, 06:45 PM
That's why I believe in a very limited government and in local control. That said, I do believe that if a community wants to ban homosexual behavior it has that right (and ought to use it!). However, that doesn't change that I think that such immoral and disgusting behavior such as homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated by government or private citizens. I do believe the government has a role to play in enforcing morality and I don't believe the government has the right to legalize or promote immoral activities.

Of course a law will never change the morality of a people, you can't change someone's heart. But that doesn't mean that the government has the right to permit (and condone/encourage as it does now) certain immoral behavior such as homosexuality. I think Lawrence v Texas was a horrible ruling.

Fail.

Tolerance my friend.

Vessol
05-16-2012, 07:08 PM
I do believe the government has a role to play in enforcing morality and I don't believe the government has the right to legalize or promote immoral activities.

So is arresting and kidnapping people if they do not pay their taxes(aka: theft) moral? What about murdering them if they object to being arrested?

I know many people of faith who would find the idea that the government is supposed to enforce morality, morally detestable. Because in order to even exist, said government must break three near universal moral laws: theft, kidnapping, and potentially murder.

Kluge
05-16-2012, 07:15 PM
That's why I believe in a very limited government and in local control. That said, I do believe that if a community wants to ban homosexual behavior it has that right (and ought to use it!). However, that doesn't change that I think that such immoral and disgusting behavior such as homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated by government or private citizens. I do believe the government has a role to play in enforcing morality and I don't believe the government has the right to legalize or promote immoral activities.

Of course a law will never change the morality of a people, you can't change someone's heart. But that doesn't mean that the government has the right to permit (and condone/encourage as it does now) certain immoral behavior such as homosexuality. I think Lawrence v Texas was a horrible ruling.

When you say that a gov't has a role to play in morality, whose morality? And when you say that such behavior shouldn't be tolerated by gov't and citizens, what do you see as the ideal response to it? And how do you give them the tools to make sure that no citizens are violating these laws without breaking privacy laws?

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 07:18 PM
Fail.

Tolerance my friend.

I do tolerate everyone, as long as they are respecting the rights of others and not engaging in immoral behavior. I do not, however, tolerate homosexuality.

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 07:24 PM
When you say that a gov't has a role to play in morality, whose morality?

Biblical morality, divine and natural law.


And when you say that such behavior shouldn't be tolerated by gov't and citizens, what do you see as the ideal response to it?

Things such as murder (including abortion), rape, theft, fraud, indecent exposure, selling drugs to kids, selling pornography, publicly engaging in homosexuality, etc should be dealt with with incarceration, community service, and in extreme cases the death penalty (for crimes such as murder and rape of a child). Citizens should ostracize immoral and repulsive behavior such as premarital sex, cohabitation, atheism, dishonestly, etc.


And how do you give them the tools to make sure that no citizens are violating these laws without breaking privacy laws?

The Constitution does not guarantee a "right to privacy" as spelled out in ruling such as Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade, so homosexuality can and should be criminalizes. For investigation of all crimes the 4th amendment shoud be followed. If there is probable cause, then a search warrant should be asked for from a judge if the police wishes to violate the privacy of someone's home, car, or papers.

VoluntaryAmerican
05-16-2012, 07:26 PM
I do tolerate everyone, as long as they are respecting the rights of others and not engaging in immoral behavior. I do not, however, tolerate homosexuality.

tol·er·ance   

noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

So if two men or two women consent to getting married; who are they hurting? Why do they deserve to be locked in a cage?

How is their union immoral?

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 07:28 PM
tol·er·ance   

noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

So if two men or two women consent to getting married; who are they hurting? Why do they deserve to be locked in a cage?

How is their union immoral?

Two men or two women cannot get married. That just doesn't make sense. Marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

jmdrake
05-16-2012, 07:29 PM
I'm glad to know that if Obama wins gays will be able to marry in our national FEMA camp and if Romney wins they'll still be in the camp but unable to marry.

VoluntaryAmerican
05-16-2012, 07:31 PM
Two men or two women cannot get married. That just doesn't make sense. Marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

You didn't answer my question.

What if they don't believe in God?

Oh right, lock the atheists up next?

PierzStyx
05-16-2012, 07:32 PM
If it bothers you so much. Just say that you are biblically married.

And refer to it as biblical marriage.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC2YySDXdVm80KAs0Q6Z1tBVUPmbqnG KD1Ep6NKtfFjwvcRGt_7w

Biblical marriage? You mean like Abraham, Israel, Moses, Solomon, David, Samuel's mothers, and others? Well then....

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5011/5547461197_25582410e0.jpg

:P

Austrian Econ Disciple
05-16-2012, 07:34 PM
Two men or two women cannot get married. That just doesn't make sense. Marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

Then let God be the judge, not you, nor the State. Thus, we come to the fact that Christians have little faith in their own edicts and commandments, and in the omniscience of God. It is not for you to judge, that is God's job, and this is your own damn religion which apparently you know little of. As far as 'marriage' most arguments boil down to language or linguistics. Let's discuss the aspects of this arrangement which are disbarred from contractual agreements between two or more parties.

How about we start with Next of Kin arrangements which gay couples are banned from entering into? Should the Government restrict two or more voluntary parties entering into such a contract as to give each other Next of Kin privileges?

zach
05-16-2012, 07:35 PM
again....

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 07:36 PM
Biblical marriage? You mean like Abraham, Israel, Moses, Solomon, David, Samuel's mothers, and others? Well then...
:P

No, I'm not a fundamentalist Mormon and I don't consider Mormonism to be true Christianity. But that's besides the point, I do consider practicing Mormons, for the most part, to be good, honest, moral people, even if I don't see eye to eye with them theologically.

I believe in the Biblical marriage presented in the New Testament and in th story of Adam and Eve. One man and one woman joined for life.

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 07:38 PM
You didn't answer my question.

What if they don't believe in God?

Oh right, lock the atheists up next?

That's up to them. There is no law in the world that will make someone give their life to Jesus Christ. That comes from the heart. If someone wants to be an atheist but live an honest, moral life I have no right to interfere with that, nor can I really.

That doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the government has the right to legalize, condone or endorse unnatural, immoral and unethical behavior.

Austrian Econ Disciple
05-16-2012, 07:41 PM
No, I'm not a fundamentalist Mormon and I don't consider Mormonism to be true Christianity. But that's besides the point, I do consider practicing Mormons, for the most part, to be good, honest, moral people, even if I don't see eye to eye with them theologically.

I believe in the Biblical marriage presented in the New Testament and in th story of Adam and Eve. One man and one woman joined for life.

Thus is your prerogative, but I don't see the jump from there to outlawing voluntary contractual privileges and rights. No one says you have to condone the use of one's rights in their personal lives, but there absolutely must be respect and an understanding of the nature of our rights (first axioms -- self-ownership (property right as source of all our rights)). You have no right to restrict or ban the voluntary non-coercive contracts people enter into as long as they do not violate a non-contractual parties rights (e.g. a murder contract is invalid and wrong).

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 07:43 PM
Then let God be the judge, not you, nor the State. Thus, we come to the fact that Christians have little faith in their own edicts and commandments, and in the omniscience of God. It is not for you to judge, that is God's job, and this is your own damn religion which apparently you know little of. As far as 'marriage' most arguments boil down to language or linguistics. Let's discuss the aspects of this arrangement which are disbarred from contractual agreements between two or more parties.

How about we start with Next of Kin arrangements which gay couples are banned from entering into? Should the Government restrict two or more voluntary parties entering into such a contract as to give each other Next of Kin privileges?
There is a difference between judging and condemning someone, and judging and condemning a sin. St. Paul many times condemns sexual immorality such as homosexuality. I believe it is our role as Christians to condemn sins, to educate people against sinning and the Bible clearly gives civil authorities the right to punish against immoral behavior.

Two homosexuals can enter into any contact they want. But I don't ever have to recognize them as marriage because marriage between people of the same sex cannot exist. They can make their own contracts between each other calling themselves husband and he-wife, but if they think I'll recognize that contract, they're sorely mistaken.

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 07:44 PM
Thus is your prerogative, but I don't see the jump from there to outlawing voluntary contractual privileges and rights. No one says you have to condone the use of one's rights in their personal lives, but there absolutely must be respect and an understanding of the nature of our rights (first axioms -- self-ownership (property right as source of all our rights)). You have no right to restrict or ban the voluntary non-coercive contracts people enter into as long as they do not violate a non-contractual parties rights (e.g. a murder contract is invalid and wrong).

I won't restrict anyone from entering into any contract they want. However, I would not and I don't want the state to recognize such contracts. I would bar the state from recognizing any contract related to marriage, as marriage is solely a religious matter.

Vessol
05-16-2012, 07:46 PM
There is a difference between judging and condemning someone, and judging and condemning a sin. St. Paul many times condemns sexual immorality such as homosexuality. I believe it is our role as Christians to condemn sins, to educate people against sinning and the Bible clearly gives civil authorities the right to punish against immoral behavior.

Two homosexuals can enter into any contact they want. But I don't ever have to recognize them as marriage because marriage between people of the same sex cannot exist. They can make their own contracts between each other calling themselves husband and he-wife, but if they think I'll recognize that contract, they're sorely mistaken.

Why would you ever be called to recognize someone elses contract? Unless you are an adjudicator or something?

I think you misunderstand the Libertarian stance on marriage. There is no stance on marriage. We are for Stateless marriages. Marriage licenses are a recent thing and were created by the government in order to stop mixed race marriages. The Libertarian generally doesn't want the State involved in marriage at all. Whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.


I won't restrict anyone from entering into any contract they want. However, I would not and I don't want the state to recognize such contracts. I would bar the state from recognizing any contract related to marriage, as marriage is solely a religious matter.

You just contradicted yourself there. How is marriage solely a religious matter when you also want the State involved in marriage? Thus, it's a government and religious matter by definition.

ProIndividual
05-16-2012, 07:47 PM
For God's Sake, just admit the history of marriage is dominated by non-consentual property aggreements where women were property, and where polygamy was the norm.

Marriage is not historically dominated by voluntary or monogamous relationships.

This whole myth of the moral marriage is BS.

If you want to be married, have at it. And if others want to be married, that's fine to. But please stop repeating the nonsense meme "for thousands of years marriage has been one man and one woman"...this is factually untrue. Also stop asserting the state has any right whatsoever to ban or sanction any type of marriage (beyond banning historical marriage which amounts to feminine slavery, because it was against the female(s) will).

Is this really an issue where libertarians should be promoting discrimination and tyranny? Is there EVER an issue we should be promoting discrimination and tyranny?

I swear, sometimes I want to support gay marriage just to piss off religious bigots and homophobes!

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 07:47 PM
Why would you ever be called to recognize someone elses contract? Unless you are an adjudicator or something?

I think you misunderstand the Libertarian stance on marriage. There is no stance on marriage. We are for Stateless marriages. Marriage licenses are a recent thing and were created by the government in order to stop mixed race marriages. The Libertarian generally doesn't want the State involved in marriage at all. Whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.
State laws dictate that hospitals, employers, the state, etc have to recognize certain contracts.

I agree with the liberterian perspective that government shouldn't be involved in marriage. I don't agree with libertarians that government has no role enforcing morality.

Kluge
05-16-2012, 07:48 PM
Biblical morality, divine and natural law.



Things such as murder (including abortion), rape, theft, fraud, indecent exposure, selling drugs to kids, selling pornography, publicly engaging in homosexuality, etc should be dealt with with incarceration, community service, and in extreme cases the death penalty (for crimes such as murder and rape of a child). Citizens should ostracize immoral and repulsive behavior such as premarital sex, cohabitation, atheism, dishonestly, etc.



The Constitution does not guarantee a "right to privacy" as spelled out in ruling such as Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade, so homosexuality can and should be criminalizes. For investigation of all crimes the 4th amendment shoud be followed. If there is probable cause, then a search warrant should be asked for from a judge if the police wishes to violate the privacy of someone's home, car, or papers.

A camera in everyone's bedroom. Yours first, and we all get to watch, since you're suspect.

What if your fellow citizens choose not to ostracize premarital sex, cohabitation, atheism, etc? And is every woman who miscarries suspect? Do you and the gov't investigate her uterus when she miscarries? How do you and the gov't know she's pregnant?

And whose bible do you use? Koran? Talmud? New Testament? The Book of Mormon? The Principia Discordia?

Vessol
05-16-2012, 07:53 PM
I don't agree with libertarians that government has no role enforcing morality.

Is the government, by definition, a moral institute? I'd hope that if you feel that a institute should be enforcing morality, that it is moral itself.

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 07:53 PM
That doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the government has the right to legalize, condone or endorse unnatural, immoral and unethical behavior.

And yet you like Burrows.

:p

row333au
05-16-2012, 07:55 PM
Pres. B O "This is a very courageous and heroic thing we are all doing for America making gay marriages solve all America's problem..... so lets all concentrate and just pour in all the effort into here....the economy is never been better for the last 4 years compare to any previous years, our wars are creating peace and global prosperity.... never mind the false reality those realist gives ya, cause our figures are the only ones you look at..... never mind or just ignore the tyranical police state laws happening, just let it pass, its all to keep you all safe........ never mind the critiques and haters....cause their just jealous of me being the first black and cool, as players gets the goods"

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 07:56 PM
The Constitution does not guarantee a "right to privacy" as spelled out in ruling such as Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade, so homosexuality can and should be criminalizes. For investigation of all crimes the 4th amendment shoud be followed. If there is probable cause, then a search warrant should be asked for from a judge if the police wishes to violate the privacy of someone's home, car, or papers.


What sort of cognitive dissonance does it take to be in the Liberty Movement while believing that?

Kluge
05-16-2012, 07:56 PM
...

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 07:58 PM
State laws dictate that hospitals, employers, the state, etc have to recognize certain contracts.

I agree with the liberterian perspective that government shouldn't be involved in marriage. I don't agree with libertarians that government has no role enforcing morality.

So as long as it is enforcing your brand of morality, you're cool with it.

You realize that makes you.... EXACTLY the same as every Democrat and EVERY non-Paul Republican?

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 07:59 PM
I'm not a theocrat, but I do believe that government cannot go against God's law and Biblical morality.

...Oh.

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 08:00 PM
And yet you like Burrows.

:p

There's nothing in the Bible against biting fingers

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 08:03 PM
So as long as it is enforcing your brand of morality, you're cool with it.
It's not my morality, it's God's.


You realize that makes you.... EXACTLY the same as every Democrat and EVERY non-Paul Republican?
That's a very collectivist statement.

ProIndividual
05-16-2012, 08:16 PM
It's not my morality, it's God's.


That's a very collectivist statement.

God's law...lol. My God says your God's law is tyranny. What do you want to do about it? Make a LAW? Holy crap...literally. Is this whom I share the "liberty" movement with? Calgon, take me away!

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 08:16 PM
It's not my morality, it's God's.


It's the same thing.



That's a very collectivist statement.

No, by definition you're enforcing a morality that you endorse onto others by using violence. That's the domain of democrats and republicans, not us. We've got to realize that we do NOT have a right to enforce a set of subjective morals on those who are doing no harm to anyone else. Allowing others their freedom is the only way make ours a reality.

KingNothing
05-16-2012, 08:18 PM
My God could kick your God's ass.

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 08:19 PM
My God could kick your God's ass.

Yours doesn't exist :)

Jingles
05-16-2012, 08:39 PM
Why are people against gay marriage? I still don't get this. I know it has something to do with religion, but could someone explain it to me in a non-"Those homoxexuals practice sin so it must be illegal!" way that I get from about every social conservative I talk to. It always seems more emotional than any logical reason.

Vessol
05-16-2012, 08:45 PM
I don't agree with libertarians that government has no role enforcing morality.

Is the government, by definition, a moral institute? I'd hope that if you feel that a institute should be enforcing morality, that it is moral itself.

Krzysztof Lesiak
05-16-2012, 09:23 PM
Marriage should be between one man and one woman. But it should be left to the states. And when the states do vote, the vote against gay marriage. 32 have already done so.

Jingles
05-16-2012, 09:41 PM
Is the government, by definition, a moral institute? I'd hope that if you feel that a institute should be enforcing morality, that it is moral itself.

I say this to every social conservative I encounter and then they just throw a hissy fit. Probably my favorite statement ever.

mport1
05-16-2012, 09:45 PM
I wish humans would just stop trying to control the peaceful actions of other humans. That is the primary reason why the world is so messed up.

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 09:49 PM
Is the government, by definition, a moral institute? I'd hope that if you feel that a institute should be enforcing morality, that it is moral itself.

Yes, because God insituted human government. That humans have perverted this institution is another matter and it is every man's obligation to resist tyranny, but no government has the moral authority to disobey God's laws.

thoughtomator
05-16-2012, 09:54 PM
Yes, because God insituted human government. That humans have perverted this institution is another matter and it is every man's obligation to resist tyranny, but no government has the moral authority to disobey God's laws.

That's not quite how the story goes... God only instituted human government after warning of the evils that a king would rain upon the people, and that warning was rebuffed. The institution of human government was a curse on the Israelites for their refusal to be directly governed by God and His laws.

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 09:59 PM
That's not quite how the story goes... God only instituted human government after warning of the evils that a king would rain upon the people, and that warning was rebuffed. The institution of human government was a curse on the Israelites for their refusal to be directly governed by God and His laws.

Chuck Baldwin wrote a very good article on Romans 13 and government
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin521.htm

Vessol
05-16-2012, 10:05 PM
Yes, because God insituted human government. That humans have perverted this institution is another matter and it is every man's obligation to resist tyranny, but no government has the moral authority to disobey God's laws.

So is theft, kidnapping, and murder moral when done by a government?

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 10:06 PM
So is theft, kidnapping, and murder moral when done by a government?

I do believe in capital punishment, prison and I'm not an anarchist so as much as I hate taxation, I do see it as necessary.

I do, however, think the income tax is immoral and should be abolished.

Vessol
05-16-2012, 10:07 PM
I do believe in capital punishment, prison and I'm not an anarchist so as much as I hate taxation, I do see it as necessary.

So when is theft immoral?

When is kidnapping immoral?

When is murder immoral?

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 10:12 PM
So when is theft immoral?

When is kidnapping immoral?

When is murder immoral?

Murder is always immoral. I don't see capital punishment or things such as killing in self defense as murder, so they are not immoral.

I don't consider prison to be kidnapping, especially when it is necessary to keep a community safe.

I consider income and property taxes theft and immoral, but I don't necessarily have a problem with excise and sales taxes to fund government services (roads that aren't private, courts, military, customs, etc)

Vessol
05-16-2012, 10:20 PM
Murder is always immoral. I don't see capital punishment or things such as killing in self defense as murder, so they are not immoral.

I don't consider prison to be kidnapping, especially when it is necessary to keep a community safe.

I consider income and property taxes theft and immoral, but I don't necessarily have a problem with excise and sales taxes to fund government services (roads that aren't private, courts, military, customs, etc)

I'm glad that you see income taxes and property taxes as immoral, because they are, however excise and sales taxes are too. If I, as a business owner or perhaps someone who owns a private dock, do not wish to enforce a tax on my customers, I will be threatened and possibly arrested or murdered if I resist arrest.

I am not against self-defense either. What I'm referring to when I talk about kidnapping and murder is when someone disagrees with being taxed(having someone steal from you), you will be arrested(kidnapped) and if you resist being kidnapped, you will potentially be murdered.

Why I argue this is that the whole basis of government throughout history has depended on this system of theft backed up with the threat of murder. It cannot exist without theft and murder. Thus, one could argue, that the government depending on such immoral actions, is an immoral institute in itself.

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 10:28 PM
I'm glad that you see income taxes and property taxes as immoral, because they are, however excise and sales taxes are too. If I, as a business owner or perhaps someone who owns a private dock, do not wish to enforce a tax on my customers, I will be threatened and possibly arrested or murdered if I resist arrest.

I am not against self-defense either. What I'm referring to when I talk about kidnapping and murder is when someone disagrees with being taxed(having someone steal from you), you will be arrested(kidnapped) and if you resist being kidnapped, you will potentially be murdered.

Why I argue this is that the whole basis of government throughout history has depended on this system of theft backed up with the threat of murder. It cannot exist without theft and murder. Thus, one could argue, that the government depending on such immoral actions, is an immoral institute in itself.

One way to look at things is if you're going to enter into a sales contract with someone, you should pay for the government to guarantee that contract. If you don't want to pay, you get no government guarantee and you can sue in court if there is a breach. You should be able to opt out of certain taxes, but then you will not be entitled to use those government functions such as the court system, public roads, etc. One thing that you really can't opt out of, however, is national defense.

As much as I don't like taxation, it is necessary. Anarchism doesn't and won't work. I do, however, believe that taxes should only cover the bare minimum government functions and should be locally collected and spent.

Vessol
05-16-2012, 10:37 PM
One way to look at things is if you're going to enter into a sales contract with someone, you should pay for the government to guarantee that contract. If you don't want to pay, you get no government guarantee and you can sue in court if there is a breach. You should be able to opt out of certain taxes, but then you will not be entitled to use those government functions such as the court system, public roads, etc. One thing that you really can't opt out of, however, is national defense.

As much as I don't like taxation, it is necessary. Anarchism doesn't and won't work. I do, however, believe that taxes should only cover the bare minimum government functions and should be locally collected and spent.

What if I was to pay another agency to guarantee my contracts with others?

Burrows14
05-16-2012, 10:40 PM
What if I was to pay another agency to guarantee my contracts with others?

And how exactly would that work? Insurance? Or would you like to set up a private court system?

Vessol
05-16-2012, 10:45 PM
And how exactly would that work? Insurance? Or would you like to set up a private court system?

Either are two examples of such. Basically a private agency that is set up to guarantee contracts between individuals.

idiom
05-16-2012, 10:52 PM
So when is theft immoral?

When is kidnapping immoral?

When is murder immoral?

These are all always immoral by definition.

However killing is not always murder.

Removing someones money from their person is not always theft.

Controlling a persons physical location is not always kidnapping.

ProIndividual
05-16-2012, 10:58 PM
Yes, because God insituted human government.

LOL!!!!! Now we're back to Divine Right of Kings! Oh Joy!

Dude, not only am I going to support gay marriage from now on because of you...I'm supporting gay adoption! Keep spreading tyranny and I'll support "worse" too! Keep it up 'tyrant of da Lord'.


The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli reads:


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[3]


This is still law, BTW.

Now for the cinflicts of religion and liberty (as if they needed spelled out):


"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23


1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."


Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Holy tyrant love fest!


The Declaration of Independence: "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

I think the conflict here is "self-evident".

Do you want me start quoting the important Founders about the subject? I don't think you do...

Stop being a religious bigot, a homophobe, and a tyrant statist who wants to enforce morality at the point of a government gun. You're wrong and immoral for doing so, despite what that myth book says. God wil love you for using reason he gave you, not for being a sheep to tyranny because some dude wrote you should 2,000 years ago.

Good luck you guys trying to reason with him. I hope it goes well.

alucard13mmfmj
05-16-2012, 11:01 PM
distraction from real issues... this is a way for them to avoid talking about NDAA or being butt buddies with banksters or CISPA.

PaulConventionWV
05-17-2012, 05:37 AM
For ages many marriages have simply been business or political arrangements with nothing religious about it. Just so happens that what I said completely aligns with what Dr. Paul said. We are all fully capable of defining marriage for ourselves we just don't have the right to force our definition upon others.


Got absolutely no disagreement with that.

Nobody's forcing their definition on others. Like I said, you can call something something it's not, but when you try to act like that reflects reality, you just lose credibility. I don't care what other people's definitions are because they are just wrong. It's not an issue of respect or being open-minded. They're just wrong.

PaulConventionWV
05-17-2012, 05:44 AM
the same way people on this forum collectively say being gay is a choice, i guess you missed the sarcasm meter.

I guess god was on crack when transgendered folks are born! I guess god damned them for life.

you can believe being gay is wrong but bottom line it is none of yours or mines business unless they are forcing you to marry against your will! It is a non-issue!

You're right on your last point. A non-issue that seems to bring a lot of flac on the Christian community for no reason. As to your second point... what?

As to your first point, there may be certain factors, be it environment or the existence of some genetic tendency, that give someone a tendency toward that lifestyle, but it's not collectivist to say it's not a downright, absolutely pre-determined fact that, if you are gay, you were born that way. You always have choices. Saying being gay can be changed is not collectivist because it's a point about the nature of all human beings, not on a group of human beings' collective behavior.

Also, you must be aware that sarcasm doesn't really show on the internet. You said it in a way that suggested to me like you were serious, so I assumed you were serious. Many people are completely serious when they say that.

PaulConventionWV
05-17-2012, 05:47 AM
I especially like the part where it says to stone disobedient children. Nothing more authentic than that.

First of all, that has nothing to do with authenticity. Do you even know what that word means? Also, that was the Old Testament death penalty. These weren't petty crimes they were talking about. I don't see anything wrong with that.

PaulConventionWV
05-17-2012, 05:54 AM
Is it wrong to be 5'9"? Is it wrong to be black? Is it wrong to near-sighted?

This ugly mentality that it is up to you to judge people who are born a certain way and look down on them as if you were superior is disgusting. Who in the hell are you to say what is "wrong" and what gives you the right to determine what is moral?

It doesn't matter. The point is that I'm not forcing anyone to bend to my will, so your rampage against me as some sort of "superior being" is erroneous. I never claimed to be better or more moral than a gay person. I sin, too. Everyone does. I don't judge people, but I can respectfully point out what I believe based on my moral code. If I didn't have a moral code, then I wouldn't be able to criticize rape or murder either, because it's all relative.

Also, being gay is NOTHING like being 5'9" or black. That is just silly to even suggest. You have a choice what lifestyle you want to live, no matter how hard it may be to resist those urges, but you don't have a choice what color your skin is. You can always change even the most ingrained tendencies, like alcoholism, or the incontrollable desire to masturbate constantly. Being gay-curious isn't wrong unless you start to act out those tendencies. Being gay isn't something you just have to live with. Many have overcome that. Of course people will say they are faking it and "being something they're not", but that's just because it supports their agenda to do so.

LibertyEagle
05-17-2012, 06:01 AM
I wish people could just stop giving a damn which sex the other person wants to fuck.

What makes you think people care? That is not what this legislation is all about. It is about forcing the states and the churches to abide by the federal government's dictate to marry gays.

I find it so strange that supposed liberty people would go along with this. I guess some aren't that different than the social cons that they hate so much. All it takes is something they REALLY want and then they are fine with using big government force to cram it down everyone's throats.

PaulConventionWV
05-17-2012, 06:01 AM
Personally this is one of the issues I break away libertarianism from. I'm not a liberterian, never will be, but I agree with libertarianism on most economic positions.

I believe that gay marriage, and even homosexuality, should be illegal. I'm not a theocrat, but I do believe that government cannot go against God's law and Biblical morality. Therefore things such as homosexuality and abortion must be illegal.

Although I agree with your view on Biblical morality, I don't see why it's necessary to have the state enforce that morality, as if the state were authorized to carry out God's good will. Why would you ever think they should have the power to play God?

PaulConventionWV
05-17-2012, 06:07 AM
That's up to them. There is no law in the world that will make someone give their life to Jesus Christ. That comes from the heart. If someone wants to be an atheist but live an honest, moral life I have no right to interfere with that, nor can I really.

That doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the government has the right to legalize, condone or endorse unnatural, immoral and unethical behavior.

The question isn't what the government should be allowed to legalize. The question is what they should have the power to outlaw. You have it backwards.

Jingles
05-17-2012, 06:45 AM
I agree with everything Vessol said. It's like I have a second me posting while I'm asleep.

gb13
05-17-2012, 07:16 AM
This guy just read your article:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Douglass Bartley
05-17-2012, 09:11 AM
If I read right, Liberty Eagle is saying that the militant, "gay rights" advocates are seeking to force the universalization of "gay marriage. One way that could happen is through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

There is reason to fear that, by the clause, all states will be whipsawed into a recognition of homosexual marriage. The italicized portion, however, allows Congress to determine the effect of "legalized" gay marriage in one state in other states in which the "marriage" is prohibited. Thus congress could, (and I believe has under the Defense of Marriage Act), said that the second state is free to disregard the first. I have read somewhere that Obama is claiming the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

The Defense of Marriage Act provides:

"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

In any case, homosexual marriage violates natural law, and thus also Divine Law from which natural law proceeds, and which always supersedes mere human law. Therefore to the extent he so argues, Burrows 14 is right on that point.

jmdrake
05-17-2012, 04:37 PM
You know, I just had a crazy thought about this whole "full faith and credit" thing. Some states allow 16 year old's to have unrestricted drivers licenses. Some states do not. When you move to a new state you have a certain period of time before you have to change your drivers license. There is nothing that prevents a state from offering an unrestricted drivers license to a 12 year old. So what happens when someone gets a license in state A, and moves to state B where their license is restricted? Note I'm not talking about what happens if someone merely drives through. But when someone moves to a new state, has to get a new license, what happens? Now of course this is different from marriage since no state requires people to get new marriage licenses when the move in. (Someone is reading this and saying "Shut up! Don't give them any idea!") But constitutionally, if the full faith and credit clause was deemed to require states to recognize gay marriage from other states, what's to stop a state from saying "Okay. Every time someone move here their marriage license must be renewed in this state if they are going to avail themselves of the courts in this state." and then just refuse renewal to gay couples? Yeah, the consequences of that could really suck (some state have different requirements for marriage for people under 18 for example) but I don't see a constitutional problem.

Burrows14
05-17-2012, 04:41 PM
You know, I just had a crazy thought about this whole "full faith and credit" thing. Some states allow 16 year old's to have unrestricted drivers licenses. Some states do not. When you move to a new state you have a certain period of time before you have to change your drivers license. There is nothing that prevents a state from offering an unrestricted drivers license to a 12 year old. So what happens when someone gets a license in state A, and moves to state B where their license is restricted? Note I'm not talking about what happens if someone merely drives through. But when someone moves to a new state, has to get a new license, what happens? Now of course this is different from marriage since no state requires people to get new marriage licenses when the move in. (Someone is reading this and saying "Shut up! Don't give them any idea!") But constitutionally, if the full faith and credit clause was deemed to require states to recognize gay marriage from other states, what's to stop a state from saying "Okay. Every time someone move here their marriage license must be renewed in this state if they are going to avail themselves of the courts in this state." and then just refuse renewal to gay couples? Yeah, the consequences of that could really suck (some state have different requirements for marriage for people under 18 for example) but I don't see a constitutional problem.

Wouldn't the same then apply to CCW licenses?

Burrows14
05-17-2012, 04:42 PM
The question isn't what the government should be allowed to legalize. The question is what they should have the power to outlaw. You have it backwards.

You're right, I phrased it wrong. But that doesn't change my position that the government has the power to outlaw immoral acts such as murder, rape, and homosexuality.

DamianTV
05-17-2012, 05:04 PM
Personally this is one of the issues I break away libertarianism from. I'm not a liberterian, never will be, but I agree with libertarianism on most economic positions.

I believe that gay marriage, and even homosexuality, should be illegal. I'm not a theocrat, but I do believe that government cannot go against God's law and Biblical morality. Therefore things such as homosexuality and abortion must be illegal.

Why do I have obey YOUR gods laws? Its called 1st Amendment, and you dont have the right to impose YOUR religious beliefs on me or anyone else for ANY reason.

Burrows14
05-17-2012, 05:09 PM
Why do I have obey YOUR gods laws? Its called 1st Amendment, and you dont have the right to impose YOUR religious beliefs on me or anyone else for ANY reason.

The 1st Amendment prevents the establishment of a state church or official religion, which I completely agree with. I do support the separation of church and state. However, I believe the state is under God and therefore commanded to enforce God's law. I believe in decentralized political order resulting in laissez-faire capitalism and minimal state power, but only with respect to economics. Social policy, however, must be dictated by and follow the Law of Christ.

jmdrake
05-17-2012, 05:12 PM
Wouldn't the same then apply to CCW licenses?

Probably so. I'm ashamed to admit that I don't have a CCW. (One of my "bucket list" items as in "before the republic kicks the bucket").

Since you brought this up, I looked up CCW requirements by state. Illinois is the only state without CCW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

So is Obama going to make the argument that constitutionally Illinois must allow CCW from other states? Somehow I doubt that. This despite the fact that the right to bear arms, unlike marriage, is enumerated in the constitution.

KingNothing
05-17-2012, 05:25 PM
It doesn't matter. The point is that I'm not forcing anyone to bend to my will, so your rampage against me as some sort of "superior being" is erroneous. I never claimed to be better or more moral than a gay person. I sin, too. Everyone does. I don't judge people, but I can respectfully point out what I believe based on my moral code. If I didn't have a moral code, then I wouldn't be able to criticize rape or murder either, because it's all relative.

Also, being gay is NOTHING like being 5'9" or black. That is just silly to even suggest. You have a choice what lifestyle you want to live, no matter how hard it may be to resist those urges, but you don't have a choice what color your skin is. You can always change even the most ingrained tendencies, like alcoholism, or the incontrollable desire to masturbate constantly. Being gay-curious isn't wrong unless you start to act out those tendencies. Being gay isn't something you just have to live with. Many have overcome that. Of course people will say they are faking it and "being something they're not", but that's just because it supports their agenda to do so.

Yes, people choose to be gay. Who wouldn't want to live such a FAAAABULAS lifestyle, what with the violent and deranged hatred from religious conservatives and general alienation from society?

KingNothing
05-17-2012, 05:27 PM
What makes you think people care? That is not what this legislation is all about. It is about forcing the states and the churches to abide by the federal government's dictate to marry gays.

I find it so strange that supposed liberty people would go along with this. I guess some aren't that different than the social cons that they hate so much. All it takes is something they REALLY want and then they are fine with using big government force to cram it down everyone's throats.


The federal government has the responsibility to tell states that they can't limit basic rights, like the decision to marry who a person wishes.

KingNothing
05-17-2012, 05:28 PM
Conversations like this make me sincerely lose respect for many religious people.

dannno
05-17-2012, 05:38 PM
No, I'm not a fundamentalist Mormon and I don't consider Mormonism to be true Christianity. But that's besides the point, I do consider practicing Mormons, for the most part, to be good, honest, moral people, even if I don't see eye to eye with them theologically.

I believe in the Biblical marriage presented in the New Testament and in th story of Adam and Eve. One man and one woman joined for life.

Lol, I see you're banned, but it's funny that you consider Old Testament = Mormonism

RestoreTheRepublic
05-17-2012, 05:42 PM
The 1st Amendment prevents the establishment of a state church or official religion, which I completely agree with. I do support the separation of church and state. However, I believe the state is under God and therefore commanded to enforce God's law. I believe in decentralized political order resulting in laissez-faire capitalism and minimal state power, but only with respect to economics. Social policy, however, must be dictated by and follow the Law of Christ.

I'm a practicing Christian, and I don't want social policy dictated by the Bible. I will live my life according to the doctrines of Christianity, I will not proselytize the public and if I was a lawmaker I would vote on the constitutionality of a bill, not what my God would dictate. There needs to be complete separation.

Feeding the Abscess
05-17-2012, 06:13 PM
No, I'm not a fundamentalist Mormon and I don't consider Mormonism to be true Christianity. But that's besides the point, I do consider practicing Mormons, for the most part, to be good, honest, moral people, even if I don't see eye to eye with them theologically.

I believe in the Biblical marriage presented in the New Testament and in th story of Adam and Eve. One man and one woman joined for life.

I just want to say that it's pretty funny that dude says he wants things run under God's Law, and doesn't know the Old Testament, ie God's Law.

jmdrake
05-17-2012, 06:17 PM
Yes, people choose to be gay. Who wouldn't want to live such a FAAAABULAS lifestyle, what with the violent and deranged hatred from religious conservatives and general alienation from society?

Why don't you ask these people? http://*****bychoice.com/

DamianTV
05-17-2012, 06:19 PM
The 1st Amendment prevents the establishment of a state church or official religion, which I completely agree with. I do support the separation of church and state. However, I believe the state is under God and therefore commanded to enforce God's law. I believe in decentralized political order resulting in laissez-faire capitalism and minimal state power, but only with respect to economics. Social policy, however, must be dictated by and follow the Law of Christ.

I think you are and should be entitled to tyour beliefs. But again, if you dont want me to impose my religious beliefs on you, dont try to impose your religious beliefs on me. I have no intention of trying to change you, who you are, or what you believe in. I have EVERY intent of stopping you ANY time you try to enforce your religous beliefs on to someone else.

See here is the thing. Im willing to defend your right to believe what ever you want. But when it comes down to many religous people (not necessarily just christians), they wont do a damn thing for those that believe differently than they do. This is the thing that personally offends me more than anything else about any self propogating religion.

Edit: Nevermind, just saw that you're banned.

jmdrake
05-17-2012, 06:19 PM
Lol, I see you're banned, but it's funny that you consider Old Testament = Mormonism

Yeah. But why was he banned? :confused: This place is getting ban crazy.

Feeding the Abscess
05-17-2012, 06:21 PM
Yeah. But why was he banned? :confused: This place is getting ban crazy.

Might be a troll.

Kluge
05-17-2012, 06:41 PM
Yeah. But why was he banned? :confused: This place is getting ban crazy.

It was Eduardo's 3rd(?) sock, and he just could help but insult Nirvikalpa...again. He implied that she was a slut.

I like the guy, but he needs to get a grip on his "holier than thou" theocratic nonsense.

Danke
05-17-2012, 08:02 PM
It was Eduardo's 3rd(?) sock, and he just could help but insult Nirvikalpa...again. He implied that she was a slut.

I like the guy, but he needs to get a grip on his "holier than thou" theocratic nonsense.

What IS wrong with being a slut?

Danke
05-17-2012, 08:02 PM
It was Eduardo's 3rd(?) sock, and he just could help but insult Nirvikalpa...again. He implied that she was a slut.

I like the guy, but he needs to get a grip on his "holier than thou" theocratic nonsense.

What IS wrong with being a slut?

Kluge
05-17-2012, 08:13 PM
What IS wrong with being a slut?


What IS wrong with being a slut?

So nice you had to say it twice?

I once said to a co-worker who was lamenting her latest one-night stand: "A slut is just someone who likes a whole lot of a good thing. But please, do try to use some moderation." (She really was out of control.)

Danke
05-17-2012, 08:32 PM
So nice you had to say it twice?

I once said to a co-worker who was lamenting her latest one-night stand: "A slut is just someone who likes a whole lot of a good thing. But please, do try to use some moderation." (She really was out of control.) do u still keep in touch?

Danke
05-17-2012, 08:34 PM
So nice you had to say it twice?

I once said to a co-worker who was lamenting her latest one-night stand: "A slut is just someone who likes a whole lot of a good thing. But please, do try to use some moderation." (She really was out of control.) do u still keep in touch?

GunnyFreedom
05-17-2012, 08:36 PM
We're speeding towards a dollar collapse and politicians are worried about ... gay marriage?

It's a distraction. "Look over there while I put my hand n the cookie jar."

GunnyFreedom
05-17-2012, 08:39 PM
It's a 'smokescreen' issue and always has been, just like abortion and (gasp!) racism. Nobody in the real world gives a fuck, but for some reason it's ALWAYS in the news.

You'd think folks frequenting RPF would know better and maybe they do and it's just the trolls who keep bringing this shit back to the front.

Oh people in the real world certainly do give a fk. That's the problem. That's why it's used as a diversion. I'm going unemployed in November because I said the NC Marriage Amendment was dangerous.

phill4paul
05-17-2012, 08:49 PM
Oh people in the real world certainly do give a fk. That's the problem. That's why it's used as a diversion. I'm going unemployed in November because I said the NC Marriage Amendment was dangerous.

That was very brave Glen. I wouldn't expect any less. You stick by your convictions just like RP. Another battle to be fought another day. If you so chose.

Kluge
05-17-2012, 08:51 PM
do u still keep in touch?


do u still keep in touch?

Naw. She was pretty bitchy most of the time.

Inny Binny
05-17-2012, 09:10 PM
I wish I was a slut. Sounds pretty fun tbh. :p

heavenlyboy34
05-17-2012, 09:27 PM
I wish I was a slut. Sounds pretty fun tbh. :pEver try selling your services on teh interwebs?

Indy Vidual
05-17-2012, 09:45 PM
Oh people in the real world certainly do give a fk. That's the problem....

+1984
The most important issue of the Century?

WhistlinDave
05-24-2012, 02:40 PM
The natural law being referred to is that only male and female can reproduce and bring forth life.... Homosexuality is inherently and obviously in defiance of that law.... You clearly have a grave misunderstanding of the term 'natural law.' It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Well, I know what Bible-humpers mean when they use it, but you are the one with a grave misunderstanding. NOTHING can violate natural law. It is impossible. If the laws of nature do not permit something to occur, then that thing cannot occur. I was actually being facetious when I mentioned frozen dinners, microwaves, reading glasses, etc., because they are all natural or they would not exist. Nuclear weapons are in perfect harmony with natural law. If the laws of nature did not permit them to exist or to function, then they would not. The fact that they do, makes them compliant with natural law. Same thing with homosexuals and homosexual behavior. Now if you think "natural law" says sex is only for procreation, then why are all the anti-gay forces ignoring the issue of people who get married with no intention of having children? Or elderly folks who get married without the ability to procreate? It's ridiculous. There is no law, natural or otherwise, that states you can't commit yourselves to one another for life if you aren't able, or intending, to have children. THAT in and of itself is unnatural and an insult to the very notion of Liberty.


Your presumptions about the Bible (which I assume is what you're referring to) are erroneous... What's more, you base your ideas of it on some unknown moral order in order to say the laws of the Bible are immoral in some way. For the record, however, the Bible does not condone slavery. That is the most drummed up piece of literary crap that has been brought up simply so the non-believers can feel justified in the face of people who dare to question their ideas on morality. Then you go on to tell me that, because you have arbitrarily decided the words "bloody animal sacrifice" should strike us as something evil, or against natural law or whatever law you hold yourself to, that we should all be against that, too. Simply laughable. This goes for the rest of the ignorant drivel that you posted. Don't bother fact-checking. Just post your biased stories about how evil the Bible is according to the arbitrary morality you have decided is right...

Actually your presumptions are the ones that are laughable. I spent the first 18 years of my life being force-fed the nonsense you call the Word of God, and I am quite familiar with it. I'll tell you what my idea of morality is. It's the golden rule. Everything else is covered under that, according to Jesus. Also, you are assuming I'm a "non-believer," which I am not. I believe in a creative, omnipresent consciousness underlying the fabric of the Universe; I simply don't believe Biblical mythology because it is just that. Mythology.

Since you seem to be such an expert on the Bible, please tell me, when did Jesus say homosexuality is a sin? (Hint: He didn't.) Jesus--God Incarnate according to your mythology -- NEVER SAID ONE WORD about homosexuality. Pretty big omission for something that's supposedly this huge abomination, don't you think? He certainly talked about a lot of things, including things involving sex (i.e. adultery), and yet in the thirty-some years he walked the earth, he didn't take thirty seconds to utter a measly half sentence about this huge evil thing. You know what that tells me? It means he didn't give a damn about it. Pun intended.

Regarding slavery, yes the Bible does endorse it. See Genesis chapter 16, which by the way also clearly refutes the "one man, one woman" model that was supposedly since the beginning of time. When the Angel of the Lord appeared to the female slave Hagar--whom Abraham had raped in order to have children since his wife Sarai was infertile--and the Angel told the distraught Hagar to return to her master and submit, explain to me how that is not an endorsement of slavery?


Who's waging war? I retain the right to have my objections to homosexuality without forcing my beliefs on anyone. I never implied that I would harrass anyone who was homosexual simply for that fact, be it via government or my own actions.

If that's true, and you are not trying to change laws that limit other people's lives, then good for you. I'm not suggesting everyone should believe the same way I do, either. I'm just saying keep your grubby mitts off the law.

If people want to ignore the instructions in the Bible that we need to publicly stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and stone adulterers to death (Leviticus 20:10), and eating shrimp is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), along with wearing two blended fibers (cotton/polyester, anyone? That's Leviticus 19:19), and you want to pick and choose, and say "The Bible says homosexuality is unnatural and immoral" while ignoring all these other Biblical mandates of morality and behavior, that's fine. I support your freedom to believe whatever you want, no matter how idiotic, and you can pick and choose the verses that suit you--although I will certainly exercise my freedom of speech and point out how inconsistent and hypocritical that approach is. If you are going to pick and choose verses and ignore some, but keep some others, then why not focus on the words and teachings of Christ? Seems to me if the goal is to be a follower of Christ, that would be the most logical way to go. Just my opinion. Of course that would be a problem, because (sorry to be redundant, but) Jesus never spoke one word about homosexuality.

As for "Who's waging war?" You've got to be kidding me. Anyone and everyone who attempts to make laws claiming some monopoly on a word (marriage) and trying to restrict some people from being allowed to enter into a voluntary association in order to enjoy the same legal and tax benefits that others are granted, is waging war. To change laws for no other reason than because some ancient book says so, well I'm sorry but that violates the equal protection clause of our Constitution, and it also violates people's freedom to adopt whatever morality they want to. As long as someone is not hurting anyone else, and they're not violating anyone else's freedom, their morality is up to them to decide, not anyone else. That's Liberty. If you want to live in a theocracy, I suggest you move to Iran.


Also, why make it an issue about marriage? The only reason we argue back and forth about 'gay marriage' is because the general public, including a great many on this forum, have fallen for the misconception that "marriage" and "government authorized marriage license" are one and the same. The moral argument on marriage goes much deeper than control. After all, there is absolutely no reason for a gay couple to even want to get married, except for the government goodies that are handed out to those who declare their marriage in court and give the government a piece of the marriage pie. In essence, gays only want to marry because they want to marry the government. If the government were not involved in marriage, I simply would not care what you call two gays living together because the idea of calling two gays living together "marriage" without the government would be patently absurd... I know what Liberty is. I don't think you are quite there yet.
Well you're wrong about gays only wanting to marry for the government goodies. Many of them simply want to marry because they love each other. But I agree with you, the government should not have any hand in marriage. But that's exactly the problem--it does. So as long as the government recognizes marriage as a legal contract and confers upon married people certain financial benefits and other rights that are not available to others, then denying some people the right to get married is wrong. Until we get to a place in this republic where marriage has nothing to do with the law, I'm sorry, but your Bible cannot be the basis for laws that impact everyone. Nor the Qu'Ran, nor the Bhagavad Gita, nor anyone else's "holy" book of the "one and only truth."

If you don't want to call two married gay guys "married", then don't. Your refusal to call it what it is won't change their love for one another, or their committment, or anything. So call it whatever you want. But by the same token, you cannot tell those two people they can't call it whatever they want, and neither can the government. If you don't understand this, then you're the one who "isn't quite there yet."

My wife and I are taking a trip back East later this year to attend the wedding of our friends, two gay guys, and we couldn't be happier for them. They've been together for years and now they are getting married. Oh, no! The pandemic is spreading.... LOL