Posted on 03/20/2013 5:57:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
You don’t even understand the moral basis for the Constitution. If you did you wouldn’t be a Libertarian.
It’s worse than not understanding the moral basis of the Constitution,
it’s not even acknowledging that basis’ existance,
much less its NECESSITY.
(The founders understood this necessity and the inevitable failure of the Constitution if that basis ceased to exist.)
And that's the very reason the left (ie, Satan's unwitting worker bees) is pushing the homosexual agenda first and foremost.
It is a great spearpoint.
Okay I see you have run out of ideas. I know you are a good person EV, and I have thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. This topic has been debated for hundreds of years, so let’s not digress to insults. Let’s part friends and agree to disagree on this one. Have a great day and God Bless.
pd
P.S. I am not a Libertarian. I am a Constitutionalist.
But the Federal government has been making decisions based on societal value and self-preservation its entire existence. Some good things, some dumb. How can it be a slippery slope when YOU are the one talking about making the change?
There seems to be some mistaken belief that it is possible for government to NOT promote social and moral and “worldviewish” values.
It will, and those claiming some sort of “morally neutral” position of government either are unwittingly or purposefully promoting the use of government to remove the Christian foundation of our nation and society.
I’m sorry you lost me. What change am I making?
The “change” of the headline here... ending the Federal government’s involvement with marriage.
“Government has no interest in promoting a stable society?”
The person who defines the meaning of the terms gets to control the outcome of the debate. With 74% of black children being born to an unmarried mother, what is “stability” in this context? Nine out of ten young black men who are murdered die at the hands of another back man.
Indeed, one third of all black males who dropped out of high school are in prison, where society is stable.
Clearly for this demographic, they are going their own way and the fruits are horrible. They clearly don’t care about the institution of marriage. They seemingly have an inverted relationship to it compared to the homosexual demographic. But in the end the result is the same: the institution of marriage is destroyed. Maybe that is the higher goal all along.
Oh sorry - I see. Yes indeed I am advocating that change. My reasoning is that there is nothing in the constitution about marriage. And that is because the founders recognized that marriage is a religious state, not a legal one.
The real ‘change’ was enacted over the years by politicians who disregarded the constitution in favor of their own beliefs, for things like money, taxes, benefits, and their own personal beliefs.
So - my proposed ‘change’ is not really change at all - just going back to the way it was, and the way it should be (if one believes in the constitution).
Many would say that the “social safety net” has no influence on marriage,
but those who actually examine the issue know that it indeed does, as you point out with the bastardity rate among the welfare class.
Yes, their goal is pretty clear - destroying marriage.
Homos “marrying” doesn’t “expand” the freedom, it just destroys the institution as it exists and makes it meaningless.
“The homosexual movement is a threat to the very existence of the United States, of American liberty, and of Posterity.”
I completely agree. However, you cannot defeat it by passing laws pretending you have the authority of God to make or dissolve marraiges. You will only defeat it by actively trying to bring about a SPIRITUAL change in individual citizens. Passing laws does NOTHING for the character of men. In a Constitutional Republic, all the matters is the character of those who make it. Our framers knew this to be the case.
In short, you are trying to treat a symptom of the disease with voodoo law, claiming your voodoo law will force evil men to be good. Treat the disease. The disease from the very beginning was men thinking themselves to have the power of God to serve their own desires, no matter how laudable.
Thank you for your excellent posts on this thread.
If our side will fight, we will win.
The other side’s got nuthin’. The only way they can win is by default.
Thank you, my friend. You have managed to pull it all together in a way that I have tried but failed to convey.
I also have to respond to this:
“But, it is more that that.”
NOTHING is “more than” a Holy Mystery except the Holy Trinity. No law. No economic policy. If you claim your legal system is above the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, you presume something the founders did not. Your endeavor will fail, as did Cromwell’s and the Scottish Covenanters. Your nation of “laws above God” will turn us into Britain.
Your first sentence in a nutshell is correct. The government/IRS control behavior with the tax code.
Laws defending the natural family and marriage are not “voodoo” anything. Sorry.
The Republican Party, for example, was founded to defend one man, one woman marriage. They called polygamy, like slavery, a “relic of barbarism.”
Four states were only allowed into the Union if they would forever foreswear plural unions.
The right and duty of self-defense is intrinsic. Sam Adams rightfully called it the first law of nature.
You admit that the homosexuals will destroy our country, and yet your view of things makes you think that we have no choice but to stand with folded hands and die.
But it’s simply not true. We have every advantage, if we will only find the will to exercise those advantages.
So, according to you, marriage has absolutely no earthly, physical significance. Okey-dokey then.
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.