Posted on 05/11/2011 5:19:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thank you for admitting you have been posting non sequiturs to distract from your appalling illiteracy.
FR is an example of "Freedom of Association" which relates to the First Amendment and has NOTHING to do with marriage. Tell me they aren't arguing for homosexual marriage.
When debating, the_conscience continues to misrepresent what others stated. When asked for quotes, they have none.
They were zotted for Post 138 in which they state If free association has nothing to do with marriage I suppose you guys would support the State setting up forced marriages. I get the feeling you guys would be comfortable in a Muslim country.
Again, try to tell me they didn't support homosexual marriage and deserve being zotted by Jim.
And WHY are you questioning that the OWNER zotted them? Jim reads more than one post before zotting ANYONE. He has said so. AND Jim has also stated that he does NOT support Ron Paul.
This from the guy that threw away his vote in 2008 on Ron Paul and gave us Obama.
I just read the whole thread in one sitting. The zottees were supporting gay marriage. There’s more than one way to support gay marriage, and they were just trying one of the more devious ways. It is fitting and proper that they were zotted.
Thank you. The poster was trying to use “freedom of association” to back homosexual marriage. I thought that was obvious also.
You did good work, DJ. Refuted them point by point. You should definitely bookmark this thread for your scrapbook.
When will he stop saying he’ll “Audit the Fed” and actually put those words into action? He’s Chairman of the Committee in charge of that.
Golly. Thanks Sam. :-)
Go pimp your scam artist elsewhere.
The unemployed dog catcher could kick Obama's ass. Means Obama is beatable and he's got a record to run on and it's not pretty. No one would run on a record he's built up for himself, from high unemployment, three wars, high gas prices, rising food prices, porous borders.
She’s at least partially correct: MANY (not most) FReepers are afraid of true liberty, of MINIMAL government. There’s NO WAY to deny that truthfully...
And I ALSO served, for well over 22 years. In many ways I STILL serve, as an oath is FOREVER. And my oath was/is to the Constitution, so my aim is to make FedGov FIT that document. Which means cutting government (defense included) greatly. Defense not so greatly as the elimination of over 90% of OTHER government spending and meddling.
How long did YOU serve?
*snort* giggle!
The Constitution explicitly protects the right to life in the Preamble, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (as does the Declaration of Independence), that means that a state CANNOT vote to take it away. Would you support a state's right to legalize murder?
As far as homosexual "marriage," the GOP was founded on the principle of protecting the sanctity of marriage.
Why, thank you so much. Nice of you to mention it. ;-)
Being Christian and libertarian is MOST compatible, because when a Christian libertarian helps his neighbor, he does it with HIS OWN RESOURCES, not YOURS. Any MORE questions?
“I get the feeling you guys would be comfortable in a Muslim country.”
With enough ammo - Yeah.
The folks that I know are libertarians first and Christians second. They still expect “the government” or “the rich” meaning someone other than themselves, to take care of the needy.
No, it’s NOT the Christian’s duty to let society go to hell, handbasket or otherwise. HOWEVER, you as with many lazy or collectivist “Christians” seem to be under the misapprehension that GOVERNMENT should do YOUR job. CHRIST was and is about INDIVIDUALS: each INDIVIDUAL must accept God’s gift PERSONALLY; each INDIVIDUAL must be a witness of God’s redeeming love; each INDIVIDUAL must chastise sinners and lead them to God. NOWHERE does Jesus tell His own that we should get GOVERNMENT TO DO OUR JOB. If you call yourself a Christian, get up off your fat butt and DO YOUR OWN WORK. There’s a-plenty of it! Leave Government OUT of it.
England also had serfs and peasants, by any other name, who could also be ordered to let the lord of their manor have his way with the bride on the wedding night. I vastly prefer to have marriage left to the churches, who will be most likely to PROPERLY define it as between a man and a woman.
Having government involvement for many centuries is NOT a recommendation that a practice continue.
Oh, and your troll-bait questions:
MARRIAGE is for anyone, homosexually—inclined or otherwise, AS LONG AS it’s understood to be between a MAN AND A WOMAN, not a man and a “half-a-man” or whatever.
I don’t care if homosexuals serve in the military. Many have served with honor. It’s just that we don’t really KNOW FOR SURE who they were, as their service was more important to them than their sexual identity... which is just as it SHOULD be. The ones now want to serve just to FLAUNT their sexual identity. THAT’S a BIG no-no.
Abortion is murder, period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.