To settle this once and for all, Ron Paul on Gay Marriage...

[torchbearer]

Don't worry about gay sex.

Your Banks and Government are having their way with you.

Lie down and take it like a man...

reminds me if this one time at mardi gras...

 

[Ozwest]

At least we didn't run off with our tail between our legs to go live in a whiskey bottle on an island and yell back about how wrong we're doing everything.

Clever shit mate.

I earned very expensive Scotch.

I would probably knock your socks off, and date women 30 years younger than me.

I do allright for an old fart.

During the meantime... To save your Country.

What the F%*cks sake are you doing? Pussy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Clever shit mate.

I earned very expensive Scotch.

I would probably knock your socks off, and date women 30 years younger than me.

I do allright for an old fart.

During the meantime... To save your Country.

What the F%*cks sake are you doing? Pussy.

More than you.

By the way, in your drunken stupor, did you forget that I am a woman?

 

[torchbearer]

More than you.

By the way, in your drunken stupor, did you forget that I am a woman?

Now-a-days... you can never be 100% certain.... sorry. that kinda fits in this thread... i think.

 

[tremendoustie]

reminds me if this one time at mardi gras...

 

[torchbearer]

You should have seen what they were doing to that chicken...
If you are ever down in mamou...

 

[Ozwest]

More than you.

By the way, in your drunken stupor, did you forget that I am a woman?

My regret. I was single minded.

I am not in a drunken stupor, and I forgot you were a women. I'm slightly rambunctous.

Get over it.

 

[Ozwest]

More than you.

By the way, in your drunken stupor, did you forget that I am a woman?

I'll lay down like a dead dog , just for you...

 

[Ozwest]

Just for a Woman.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Why is it you refuse to answer the questions about the gay lobbies through the power of the state courts forcing businesses to accept and pay benefits to ther spouses?
You have a valid argument that many hard core christians wish to push their beliefs on others but by refusing to answer the questions about the gay lobby trying to force others to accept them is coming across as hypocritical.

I did answer that already. I don't feel that businesses should be forced to pay benefits at all, to gays or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil, get off of the CP. The election is OVER. But what I see you arguing for in this thread is no better than what you claim to hate them so much for, in that you seem to be just fine with government force, as long as it is used to carry out something that YOU want. In this case, gay marriage. This is no different than what the neocons do. They rail against what their cohorts use government force to do on the other side of the aisle, but yet they're fine with using govenrment force to carry out what THEY want. People have gotten used to this BS and now believe that government force is a given; that you just choose which things that government is going to force that you agree with most.

Weren't we the ones who said YOU HAVE ANOTHER OPTION. NO GOVERNMENT FORCE in these areas? That's what I thought anyway. So why in heck are we here arguing about whether government force should be used to force gay marriage down everyone's throats?

Um, no, I said I am ok with getting the government out of it.

As for the CP, no I am not going to get off them just because this election cycle is over. How much has their screwed up ideology that comes off the like the bastard child of the Libertarian party and the Inquisition polluted the real movement for freedom?

Oh, and Proposal 8 was an attempt by the Christian right to use government force to fulfill their own desires for the lives of everyone around them. As long as the Constitution party has this in their platform, and flat out calls for government force to force their morality on others, then we have a problem.

Asking for equal rights for gays is not forcing anything down anyone's throats. There is no cause for someone to ask for a law to prevent other people from doing something that does no harm to them.

 

[klamath]

I did answer that already. I don't feel that businesses should be forced to pay benefits at all, to gays or anyone else for that matter.

So what is the aceptable way to proceed? A; Give full status and entitlements by force to gays, B; by force deny them those entitements or option C: fight to get the state out of marriage so that every individual has the right to choose how they want to live?

 

[Josh_LA]

He doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, Neil.

does this mean you believe 3 gay men should have the equal right to adapt children than 1 straight couple?

Or should children be taught that 3 gay men are equally normal as one straight couple in school?

Also, nobody asked your opinion, the title is "Ron Paul" on it.

 

[Josh_LA]

So what is the aceptable way to proceed? A; Give full status and entitlements by force to gays, B; by force deny them those entitements or option C: fight to get the state out of marriage so that every individual has the right to choose how they want to live?

C. Get the state out of marriage, as well as legal consent, so girls at 16 can decide who to sleep with on their own.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Neil are you gay? tones

 

[Josh_LA]

Exactly. he is for one man one woman. Gays can get married. I have two lesbian friends who have been married over 20 years. they wear rings etc. They got married at a gay church..and they consider themselves just as married as anyone else. Tones

And I consider myself just as black as any black, so can I say I am black and collect welfare?

 

[Josh_LA]

"....just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else."
-Ron Paul

No social conservative I've heard of is admitting that Prop 8 supporters LIED about this in the campaign, claiming that gays will force their marriage on others. As if blacks have forced their humanity on whites.

 

[Josh_LA]

The government's job is not to define marriage. I'm in CA, and I abstained. It has nothing to do with my beliefs about a homosexual lifestyle -- the question is, what should the government do, and the answer is get their noses out.

If the statists had a vote on whether everyone would be forced to have green houses, or yellow houses, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote on whether everyone should be forced to wear jeans or khakis, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote on whether to force everyone to be hindu or christian, would you vote?

If the statists had a vote selecting which words and phrases, or thoughts, would be permitted by the federal government, would you vote?

No. Bills and politicians do not have to be perfect to be suppored, but there is a difference between being willing to take small steps in order to roll back statism and promote freedom, and being willing to participate in statism to force your own personal beliefs on others.

Using the state to prohibit gay marriage, or using the state to force recognition of it, are both statist ideas. The only moral stance is to abstain, IMO.

Luckily, ballot issues are never green house or yellow house.

Only green house or not green house (yes or no).

 

[ssdded]

This is why Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or the free excercize thereof. Legislating anything on religious grounds other then to protect freedom of religion itself is a DANGEROUS slippery slope. And that's why I called it religious fascism. You cannot impose your morality on anyone else and claim to be following the Constitution.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but 'religious' and 'fascism' are incompatible. If the state is guided by religious doctrine, it can't be fascist because in a fascist state, EVERYTHING is subordinate to the state, including spiritual values. Everything has to be, for nothing can exist outside of the state:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

And, no, hiding behind spirituality doesn't count (if that's even possible in a fascist state.) That would be like saying a person in a Grim Reaper costume is really the Grim Reaper.

Soon as we decide that the bible is a key to intrepeting the Constitution, you will have Neo-cons re-writing the Constitution around Romans 13

Only if enough states agreed to a Constitutional Convention. And I'd be more worried about the damage that liberals would do than neo-cons. (Or do I repeat myself?) In any case, we'd almost certainly be screwed no matter what, so in the end it doesn't really matter how they could screw us all over, IMO.

 

[rich34]

The defination of marriage is MAN and WOMAN period! If the gays want to call it civil union, hunky dorry or wtf ever that's fine with me, but don't call it MARRIAGE!