Ron Paul on Gay Marriage

[Feenix566]

...trying to strongarm the courts and society into approving of their lifestyle....

That's the problem with statism. When everyone has to be the same, then the only way to do what you want is to force everyone else to be like you.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Gravity can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. In fact, let me prove it right now. *drops pen on floor*. I believe it is fully your right to believe that there is an unprovable force that you call the Christian God. However, there is no way to prove any "divine influence" on anything.

There was Christian influence on the Constitution. It came in the form of the founding fathers seeing what was going on around them in the Christian community, violence, and outright murder, and deciding they did not want any laws regarding religion. Ever.

In order to practice your absurd and tyrannical theocracy, we would have to dispose of all that Constitutional stuff.

A response that simply confirms my post. You are absolutely certain God is unprovable, but offer no proof to back up your dogmatic certainty. Who, indeed, is being absurd and tyrannical?? Please do not put words in my mouth. I call for an America no more or less 'theocratic' than it was at its founding, where the principles of Christianity expressly guided the forming of the government, and many of its doctrines were acknowledged in its first treaties and documents. This is verifiable by any number of the writings of the founders. The strict limits placed on federal power did not prohibit the several states from establishing religion, or from having 'social conservative' type legislation (e.g., in 1786, Jefferson supported a bill calling for the castration of homosexuals).

As for your pen, the empiricist philosophers demonstrated hundreds of years ago, from a pure logical standpoint, simply observing an object does not prove the truth of anything about the real world. The accuracy of perception is an assumption based on the testimony of previous observers, which does not by itself prove their objectivity, or the truth about the accuracy of future perceived events. Our acceptance of perception is ultimately axiomatic, or based on presupposition. There is an element of circularity involved in use of any source (perception or revelation, et al) as a test for truth, thus your approach disproportionately attacking the truth claims of the Bible falls particularly flat.

 

[M House]

I just wanna give them this shallow thinking on the constitution too. Looking at the shear volume of threads on it. I personally don't think the religious view and philosophy used in our constitution is neatly summed by anything. However many of our founders were pretty Puritanical, I mean some were Puritans. If it was up to the Adams and a few of the founders that missed the point of religious freedom in the document, law today would probably be pretty much a church service with fire and brimstone for all. Cool, I guess....

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Liberty..I find a lot of people say that "the commies are coming the commies are coming" when I mention communism at work. you can call it socialism, marxism, fabianism, leninism..social democracy...it still boils down to communism. I guess they will laugh and giggle all the way to the dutch ovens.

I just spoke to Michael Badnarik on the phone today...and he said we have about 12 months to secure our liberty..or it's going to be gone. I'm working with him on coming to our town for an event. This is no game and no joke. We are in emminant danger. Tones

Did you share with the VERY Libertarian Michael Badnarik your feelings on how Gay Marriage should be illegal?

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

A response that simply confirms my post. You are absolutely certain God is unprovable, but offer no proof to back up your dogmatic certainty. Who, indeed, is being absurd and tyrannical?? Please do not put words in my mouth. I call for an America no more or less 'theocratic' than it was at its founding, where the principles of Christianity expressly guided the forming of the government, and many of its doctrines were acknowledged in its first treaties and documents. This is verifiable by any number of the writings of the founders. The strict limits placed on federal power did not prohibit the several states from establishing religion, or from having 'social conservative' type legislation (e.g., in 1786, Jefferson supported a bill calling for the castration of homosexuals).

As for your pen, the empiricist philosophers demonstrated hundreds of years ago, from a pure logical standpoint, simply observing an object does not prove the truth of anything about the real world. The accuracy of perception is an assumption based on the testimony of previous observers, which does not by itself prove their objectivity, or the truth about the accuracy of future perceived events. Our acceptance of perception is ultimately axiomatic, or based on presupposition. There is an element of circularity involved in use of any source (perception or revelation, et al) as a test for truth, thus your approach disproportionately attacking the truth claims of the Bible falls particularly flat.

Actually it doesn't confirm anything. I challenge you to through the scientific method prove the exsistence of God. Until then, your statement is basically full of bull.

thus your approach disproportionately attacking the truth claims of the Bible falls particularly flat.

Only in your mind. It's always funny to watch people who cannot prove the validity of their argument can just "declare victory" like that when they have yet to do anything but say "your wrong". The bible is as refuted as much as it is upheld. It is also fought over as much as any peace is ever gained from reading it. This is why religion does not belong in the law.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I just wanna give them this shallow thinking on the constitution too. Looking at the shear volume of threads on it. I personally don't think the religious view and philosophy used in our constitution is neatly summed by anything. However many of our founders were pretty Puritanical, I mean some were Puritans. If it was up to the Adams and a few of the founders that missed the point of religious freedom in the document, law today would probably be pretty much a church service with fire and brimstone for all. Cool, I guess....

What I always find funny is just how much work they have to go through to try and prove any intention on the part of the founders to allow laws to be passed to further a religion. If that is what they wanted all they had to do was say so. If that is what they wanted why didn't they just pen a Constitutional amendment stating that the bible would be the law of the land? Why would they phrase it in such a fashion?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I just finished speaking with him again today..and nope, we discussed the Constitution and the 4th amendment. I guarantee you , he would not argue with my right to vote my concience if it is on the ballot. Tones

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

I just finished speaking with him again today..and nope, we discussed the Constitution and the 4th amendment. I guarantee you , he would not argue with my right to vote my concience if it is on the ballot. Tones

I can also garantee you, he would prefer that the state be out of the issue altogether over your religion deciding what marriage will be in the United States.

 

[newtoforums]

Ok I'm ready to get started on the no marriage campaign! tones

There already is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94415,00.html

 

[mediahasyou]

I agree, let's start a "marriage for nobody" campaign.

We should advocate the "separation of marriage and state".