Baldwin: "Only between a Man and a Woman Only"

[Magsec]

Losing a vote all because of what you think "marriage" ought to be when there are issues that are tenfold more important? Very mature.

 

[Original_Intent]

Imo, government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever.

Exactly.

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

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

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

 

[StateofTrance]

Hey, bottom-line is -

God loves all.

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

 

[nate895]

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

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

 

[nate895]

Hey, bottom-line is -

God loves all.

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

+1,

He just is really displeased with all of our sin.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."

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

 

[torchbearer]

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

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

 

[SeanEdwards]

But its the roles that are most important, and gender doesn't preclude those roles.

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

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

 

[torchbearer]

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

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

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

 

[ghengis86]

Losing a vote all because of what you think "marriage" ought to be when there are issues that are tenfold more important? Very mature.

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

 

[Dorfsmith]

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

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

 

[SeanEdwards]

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

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

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

 

[torchbearer]

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

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

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

 

[OferNave]

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

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

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

Why are you non-Christians always so hostile?

 

[SeanEdwards]

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

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

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

 

[nate895]

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

Respectable. Welcome to the realm of the permanent minority.

 

[nate895]

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

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

 

[freelance]

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

 

[FindLiberty]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[torchbearer]

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

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

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

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