Chuck Baldwin on gay marriage

[allyinoh]

Mmm... Tradition. Just think that it's funny to allow it only between man and woman, but as said it's by far a religious thing. But if a gay couple want the same "benefits" a marriage gives, then why should they be denied those based on an old religious book? That's why I think that homosexuals should be allowed to have a registered legal relationship, basically the same thing as a marriage but without the "religious" sigma. That's the system we have here in Finland, and many European countries have the same thing.
When it comes to the religious marriage, it's a church thing and the government should have no authority to tell them what they can do.

Well no offense, but just because Europe does something doesn't mean America should do it. Europe is what gets America into trouble. I mean, our Founding Fathers came here and left Europe for a reason.

Wanting to get married so you can get benefits defeats the whole purpose of marriage. It makes a mockery of marriage.

To solve the problem-stop giving benefits to married people. I would be completely fine with that.

 

[allyinoh]

I'm willing to cut some slack in this area if the candidate is with me on abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve, supporting a non-interventionist foreign policy and reducing the size and scope of the Federal government.

I agree. Gay marriage and abortion (issues like that) are really non-issues to me at this point in time.

The things you listed are the MOST important and those are the ones we should be focusing on.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Mmm... Tradition. Just think that it's funny to allow it only between man and woman, but as said it's by far a religious thing. But if a gay couple want the same "benefits" a marriage gives, then why should they be denied those based on an old religious book? That's why I think that homosexuals should be allowed to have a registered legal relationship, basically the same thing as a marriage but without the "religious" sigma.

So, more government licensure and intervention in private human relationships, equals more liberty? Introducing force (state registration) to impose legal and social acceptance of 3% of the population's immoral behavior on 95% of the population, equals more liberty? Thereby imposing a secularist stigma equals more liberty? The myth of state neutrality seems to be a background assumption of the pro-gay civil union position, but to me and others it is latently humanist-theocratic to the core.

 

[Hiki]

Well no offense, but just because Europe does something doesn't mean America should do it. Europe is what gets America into trouble. I mean, our Founding Fathers came here and left Europe for a reason.

Wanting to get married so you can get benefits defeats the whole purpose of marriage. It makes a mockery of marriage.

To solve the problem-stop giving benefits to married people. I would be completely fine with that.

Well Canada does it too, in fact they go even further and allow gay couples to have a real marriage.
Nowadays the trouble goes the other way.

Well that's true. That's why I think that if a couple loves each other deeply, why even bother with a marriage? But yeah, a lot of people want to go with tradition and also the "benefits", so why deny it for people who just happen to like the same gender?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am against ANY marrige legislation . I say that marriage is not a federal OR state issue. Before the War Of Northern Aggression, there were no "marriage licenses". We had common law. People picked their partners and generally the man approached the woman's father to ask permission. They went off to the church and got married..no paperwork whatsoever. Sheesh. That is the way it SHOULD be. After that war when interracial marriages came about...the issue of permission from the state came up and they charged the couples a fee. The greedy states decided they liked the tax and imposed it on everyone. We should END taxing the institution of marriage PERIOD! They (the wicked government) want you entered into a contract with your spouse AND the state ...for financial reasons and to gain control of your DNA. LOOK at what just happened to those families in Texas which I considered a huge infringement on those people's civil rights. TONES

 

[mrchubbs]

And actually just a few days after he GOT the nomination, Barr said during an interview (CNN?) that he "still felt it [DOMA] was a GOOD piece of legislation" and he stood by it. (or something to that tune... I don't have an exact quote, but that was the gist of it).

A day after the convention he reiterated what I just said. He's for repealing the portion of DOMA that has been used by the feds as an excuse to regulate the states sponsorship of marriage. He's for keeping the portion that explicitly protects the states right to regulate or not regulate marriage.

So he's not completely for repeal of the DOMA, just the portion that is against federalism.

Enjoy.

 

[familydog]

Well that's true. That's why I think that if a couple loves each other deeply, why even bother with a marriage? But yeah, a lot of people want to go with tradition and also the "benefits", so why deny it for people who just happen to like the same gender?

If they want the benefits, apply for a domestic partnership. One doesn't have to be "married" to have these benefits.

 

[familydog]

A day after the convention he reiterated what I just said. He's for repealing the portion of DOMA that has been used by the feds as an excuse to regulate the states sponsorship of marriage. He's for keeping the portion that explicitly protects the states right to regulate or not regulate marriage.

So he's not completely for repeal of the DOMA, just the portion that is against federalism.

Enjoy.

So do you believe his "conversion" is sincere? Like I said, he was told he had to change his position if he wanted to get the nomination.

 

[zach]

They're entitled to their opinions on this, but linking homosexuality with pedophilia makes me question how Baldwin and/or Barr will handle gay marriage. Are they leaving this up for the states to decide?

 

[kombayn]

I'd rather not the government be involved in religious covenants, only property ones.

But I suppose Locke's social contract theory has nothing to do with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Most people do not understand that when people want gay marriage, they're not doing it to go to the Church. That's almost suicide, they want gay marriage so they can get all the benefits as well for being married. Better tax incentives, etc. So the government does need to be involved with gay marriage. I fully support it 100%, you're alienating people's civil rights because of their sexual orientation. Plus, Chuck Baldwin doesn't get it and that shows off his true side of things. He would act as a Theocratic Fascist telling us what is moral and what isn't.

 

[zach]

He would act as a Theocratic Fascist telling us what is moral and what isn't.

Who, the Huckster?

 

[mtmedlin]

So, more government licensure and intervention in private human relationships, equals more liberty? Introducing force (state registration) to impose legal and social acceptance of 3% of the population's immoral behavior on 95% of the population, equals more liberty? Thereby imposing a secularist stigma equals more liberty? The myth of state neutrality seems to be a background assumption of the pro-gay civil union position, but to me and others it is latently humanist-theocratic to the core.

Did you just say forcing 3% of the populations immoral behavior on the 95%? Are you being serious or is this a really bad joke? The actions of those 3% in no way shape or form restrict your freedom, or damage your property, so how in the hell is it a problem for you other then your stick in the ass religious beliefs. Remember in the Constitution that Freedom of Religion has always stood for freedom FROM religion, just as much as it is freedom for religion.
The bible in no way stipulates the differences within sin. A sin is a sin neither great nor small. If someone is gay, is it worse then my eternal love of the word FUCK. I LOVE to use the word FUCK. It is amazingly offensive to some and I am certain that most christians would see it as a major sin. IS my love of this word enough for you to force me to not say it?
How about if I loved more then one women? Would it be ok if we screwed like fuzzy bunnies till the morning light came up....as long as neither girl touched each other? remember that defining marriage between a man and a women limits it to a single man and women and I do have to say that an occasional extra in the bedroom aint all bad! Are you willing to force me to never have two wives....many of the disciples did. Hell many in the middle east still do.
Gays living their life do not harm you. You forcing your moral position down their throat and having the government deny equal status DOES harm them. IS this truly the act of Christ. SHow me in the Bible where he segregated out people and turned them away. I dare say he would have had and might have had gays at many of his events.
Do the words judge not less ye be judged come to mind? How about not removing the spec from thy neighbor.... He without sin cast the first stone? ANything......Anything at all ring a bell?
If your going to attempt to create a theocracy at least follow the direction of the leader himself. Christ wasnt even as much of a bigot as the rest of you.

 

[mtmedlin]

They're entitled to their opinions on this, but linking homosexuality with pedophilia makes me question how Baldwin and/or Barr will handle gay marriage. Are they leaving this up for the states to decide?

funny thing is the rate of pedophilia amongst "out" gay males is significantly lower then the Catholic church.

 

[haigh]

Barr on DOMA video

So do you believe his "conversion" is sincere? Like I said, he was told he had to change his position if he wanted to get the nomination.

Here's Barr calling for the repeal of DOMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1zBkDqYjhU

 

[mrchubbs]

So do you believe his "conversion" is sincere? Like I said, he was told he had to change his position if he wanted to get the nomination.

Yes I believe he is sincere.

Whether he was told such a thing just to get the nomination is a total guess/conjecture on your part, yet you state it as if you know it to be true.

The truth in fact is that Barr opposed any federal control over marriage way back when he authored the DOMA. The act was abused by the feds and he'd like to overturn that portion that allows such abuse.

Rather than conjecture here is a quote from Ron Paul saying how he agree's with Barr's assessment of the DOMA. This is from 2004, so unless the Libertarians in power traveled back in time and told Barr to say this so he could get the nomination in 2008, I think your suggestion is simply wrong.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."​

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

The point is, Barr has been for federalism for a long time and Ron Paul back in 2004 praises and agrees with him for his position.

Enjoy.

 

[Mesogen]

It never ceases to amaze me how people can call themselves libertarian, then scream that it's a state's right to interfere with a person's personal life.

It's so dishonest.

 

[Theocrat]

Libertines In Sheep's Clothing

It never ceases to amaze me how people can call themselves libertarian, then scream that it's a state's right to interfere with a person's personal life.

It's so dishonest.

I think it's because you confuse being a libertarian with being a libertine. A true libertarian believes that people have the freedom to do what's right, not what necessarily feels good to them, which is essentially hedonism. I would venture to say that most libertarians on these forums are really libertines and just don't know it.

Though I would agree with you that marriage should not be a function of civil government, it still, nonetheless, is a ministry of God's Church. It is God Who defines marriage, not man, and therefore, man cannot just arbitrarily decide to marry someone of the same sex because that is sin in God's eyes.

True liberty comes from deliverance from sin, and that is by a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. How can a man who is enslaved to sin thereby be free? It's impossible. Those who find pleasure in their sin (like homosexuals) cannot be libertarian by nature, but in truth, they are libertines who have no moral restraints upon their own sexual perversion. As I've said before, if we lose our standards of morality, we cannot have justice. If we lack justice, then there will be no peace. If there is no peace, there is no prosperity, and therefore, a society will eventually crumble into the dust of other fallen and depraved civilizations in history past.

 

[amy31416]

I think it's because you confuse being a libertarian with being a libertine. A true libertarian believes that people have the freedom to do what's right, not what necessarily feels good to them, which is essentially hedonism. I would venture to say that most libertarians on these forums are really libertines and just don't know it.

Though I would agree with you that marriage should not be a function of civil government, it still, nonetheless, is a ministry of God's Church. It is God Who defines marriage, not man, and therefore, man cannot just arbitrarily decide to marry someone of the same sex because that is sin in God's eyes.

True liberty comes from deliverance from sin, and that is by a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. How can a man who is enslaved to sin thereby be free? It's impossible. Those who find pleasure in their sin (like homosexuals) cannot be libertarian by nature, but in truth, they are libertines who have no moral restraints upon their own sexual perversion. As I've said before, if we lose our standards of morality, we cannot have justice. If we lack justice, then there will be no peace. If there is no peace, there is no prosperity, and therefore, a society will eventually crumble into the dust of other fallen and depraved civilizations in history past.

I certainly don't want to get enmeshed in this debate, but, as a female, I have a vested interest in homosexuality being something that society can be open about.

Homosexuality has existed since written history and likely prior, and it's not going to go away. Animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior. In a repressed society where gay men try to force themselves into a socially acceptable role of heterosexual male--they end up marrying women and hurting them profoundly. There are so many instances of closeted males destroying women's self-esteem and essentially wasting their time, making vows that they can't keep.

Living a lie is never the answer.

 

[kombayn]

I certainly don't want to get enmeshed in this debate, but, as a female, I have a vested interest in homosexuality being something that society can be open about.

Homosexuality has existed since written history and likely prior, and it's not going to go away. Animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior. In a repressed society where gay men try to force themselves into a socially acceptable role of heterosexual male--they end up marrying women and hurting them profoundly. There are so many instances of closeted males destroying women's self-esteem and essentially wasting their time, making vows that they can't keep.

Living a lie is never the answer.

+1, good post. Theocrat, you don't have the right to tell people how to live their lives. You can have your opinion by subjecting people to morals they don't follow is wrong.

 

[Theocrat]

Going Against God's Nature is Never the Answer

I certainly don't want to get enmeshed in this debate, but, as a female, I have a vested interest in homosexuality being something that society can be open about.

Homosexuality has existed since written history and likely prior, and it's not going to go away. Animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior. In a repressed society where gay men try to force themselves into a socially acceptable role of heterosexual male--they end up marrying women and hurting them profoundly. There are so many instances of closeted males destroying women's self-esteem and essentially wasting their time, making vows that they can't keep.

Living a lie is never the answer.

First of all, we're not animals, so trying to compare human sexual behavior to animals is simply irrelevant. We find animals in the wild which perform cannibalism, too, but that's not a moral behavior that humans should emulate, either, just like homosexuality.

Second of all, I disagree with your premise that heterosexuality is a "socially acceptable role." Heterosexuality is simply a natural behavior (as evidenced by our inherent sexual organs and reproductive systems), and that's how God created us. Man were created to enjoy women, and vice versa. The only repression which correlates with homosexuality comes from within the person who chooses to act contrary to his or her own sexual nature. Homosexuality is a choice, not a chromosome.