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

[Libertarian_Rebel]

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

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

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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

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

 

[V4Vendetta]

Ah, you see. Those anti-barr guys were really just anti-LP, CP subservients. I knew it. Damn theocrats, they're coniving liars.

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

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

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

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

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin.

 

[TurtleBurger]

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

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

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

 

[Brassmouth]

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

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

Watch now, your bigotry is showing...

 

[Brassmouth]

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he the one guy I trust, and has the closest policy to Ron Paul's'.

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

 

[TurtleBurger]

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

Watch now, your bigotry is showing...

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

 

[TurtleBurger]

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

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

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

 

[Libertarian_Rebel]

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

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

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

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

 

[TurtleBurger]

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

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

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

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

 

[hillbilly123069]

I could have told you that much.
I don't diss on baldwin, but he won't get my vote.
Of course, I have Ron Paul to vote for on the ballot.

Your vote will not be counted if Dr Paul does not have the proper paperwork turned in for the individual states.

 

[torchbearer]

Your vote will not be counted if Dr Paul does not have the proper paperwork turned in for the individual states.

http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbc...=Vca96WgRD3ATfLEhMTi8foemBWU8AxmMO3p4qqD8XoE=
That is me they are talking about in this article- Brent Sanders.
We got him on the ballot.

 

[Brassmouth]

Why do you suppose that gays want government marriage licenses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TurtleBurger]

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

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

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

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

 

[Brassmouth]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DRV45N05]

Dr. Paul believes in marriage between a man and a woman.

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

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

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

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

Dr. Paul supports domestic contractual rights for gays.

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

Ron Paul is not a homophobe.

 

[DRV45N05]

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

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

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

 

[DRV45N05]

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

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

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

 

[TurtleBurger]

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

Does that "everyone" include me?

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

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

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

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

 

[TurtleBurger]

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

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

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