Cuccinelli: We're Positioned to Shock the Political World

We disagree, I do believe the government has a role in upholding morality, you do not. I don't believe the federal government has that constitutional authority, so we agree there. I do think that states and local governments do have it.

Anyway, let's work together on the issues we do agree on.

Thats so stupid.

What difference does it make if Washington or Sacramento "uphold morality" how about the government, federal or local, should not be in the business of regulating morality.

How can I work with someone who is so fundamentally and ideologically opposed to some of the most basic concepts of freedom.
 
Thats so stupid.

What difference does it make if Washington or Sacramento "uphold morality" how about the government, federal or local, should not be in the business of regulating morality.

I was speaking constitutionally. The states have plenary police powers, the federal government does not.

How can I work with someone who is so fundamentally and ideologically opposed to some of the most basic concepts of freedom.

I wasn't speaking to you, I was speaking to Frank who I agree with very often.
 
Since this thread is all over the place...

How does "straight only marriage" violate the non-aggression principle? What gun is being held to your head if only straight marriage licenses are available in your state?
 
Since this thread is all over the place...

How does "straight only marriage" violate the non-aggression principle? What gun is being held to your head if only straight marriage licenses are available in your state?

Since you phrased it that way, I don't think it does violate the NAP. But in terms of benefits and certain property protections, you do understand the reasoning behind civil unions and/or gay marriage?
 
I was speaking constitutionally. The states have plenary police powers, the federal government does not.



I wasn't speaking to you, I was speaking to Frank who I agree with very often.

Again the problem is GOVERNMENT having that power. Its irrelevant if its Federal or state, they are both government. Everyone should be free to do whatever they want so long as they dont infringe on anybody elses right to do the same or hurt somebody. So Fraud and all acts of aggression should be illegal. But preventing people from getting divorces, or banning condoms...there is no justification for these things.
 
What the SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says are often two very different things.

And the origination of what both fail to address fully is the simple fundamental. Small caveats, like bones, are thrown.
 
Since you phrased it that way, I don't think it does violate the NAP. But in terms of benefits and certain property protections, you do understand the reasoning behind civil unions and/or gay marriage?

In a way I suppose it does violate the NAP. In that forced taxation violates NAP. Teh Gheys are taxed for supporting a system that does not allow them equal benefits.
 
Whats evil about condoms? Or 2 consenting adults divorcing?

He's saying that thanks to condoms and other contraceptives, sex becomes SOLELY AND ONLY about pleasure. It becomes a hollow experience over time. And he has a point quite honestly if you examine society and how screwed up it has become. I think there is a balance to maintain. We shouldn't be living like Puritans, but by the same token we shouldn't be the Romans before the fall.
 
You're a Jew, so obviously you won't accept my reasons.

I'm an atheist, and I don't accept them, either. ANY entity (government, whatever) that thinks it has any right to FORCE me to either abstain from sex or reproduce is WRONG and I'll fight it, Constitution be damned. We're talking individual, HUMAN rights.

To put it another way, my wife and I knew from the start that we did not want children. So I had a vasectomy. We've never been pregnant. Are we "intrinsically evil?"

If you're answer is yes, you're beyond help.
 
Back
Top