Posted on 06/28/2015 10:08:50 PM PDT by z taxman
So you’re anti-Semitic, too? I think Stormfront or Chimpout would be more to your liking.
Aren't you a libertarian? Since when do the libertarians push all this religion, and how does the Mosque, church, and Mormon Temple save marriage in America?
How would atheists and libertarians get married, and what makes you think that you can get America to vote in these new to America ideas, about marriage?
We don't have a state religion.
Agree on all counts.
I’ve read Horowitz and he sounds like a neocon. You’re the one bringing race into this. I have a fondness for Israelis and their automatic gun toting girls on the beach.
Neocon is generally code for Jews, especially amongst hard-core paleocons and libertarians, which you freely admit being. Nice try at evasion, but for many of us, this isn’t our first Rontard Rodeo.
Neocon is a term coined by Irving Kristol, considered to be the father of the neocon movement. Regardless, the only thing worse than statists are statists who try to marry themselves to the right wing.
Also, your attack on paleocons shows you harbor animosity toward TRUE conservatism.
Are you a libertarian? Did you see post 22?
Keep diggin’.
Marriage is a religious institution. Government ought not to infringe on religious domain. Atheists can have some sort of bonding ceremony and apply for civil contract.
Marriage is only for Muslims and other religions?
Who told you that, is that the official libertarian position now?
What about post 13?
Keep digging? You strike me as one of those statists ‘conservatives’ that hurts the true right. You’re a poseur, a leftist masquerading as conservative and the sad thing is you don’t even realize it. I want the feds to leave us alone and get out of our business.. and yes, this overreach extends to marriage. It’s time to break this machine.
I don’t belong to the Libertarian party and could care less about its official position on this. Marriage is a religious covenant, which is why so many are rightfully up in arms against gay marriage. If it was a secular rite, then there would be no argument against it.
Get a bigger shovel.
...so once again, I have to change my way of living/thinking because left wing freaks won....
Ok, statist. ;p
This made sense before the left wing freaked.
Yeah, that’s how most of the people here would describe me, pissant,
I didn’t mention the Libertarian party or ask you about it, are you denying that you are a libertarian?
Why won’t you acknowledge post 13?
Why all this Muslim and Mormon, and Hindu marriage nonsense about marriage only being for religions, and not all Americans?
Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, CHRISTIAN, and all other relgions which practice marriage. Marriage being a religious institution is not nonsense. It’s nonsense that you believe calling marriage religious is nonsense.
Marriage CAN be religious to individuals, but marriage is a legal relationship as well, or even purely so to some Americans, and suddenly getting so deeply religious doesn’t make sense for a libertarian, but it does make sense for a libertarian seeking a way to push gay marriage and polygamy by trying to get conservatives to move off into dream land and fantasy, and cease fighting for marriage in the public arena and seeking social conservative candidates for office.
There is not going to be any sudden, effective, national political movement to end marriage in America as we know it, and you very well know that.
You keep ignoring post 13, are you going to ignore this as well?
From THE COLONIAL FAMILY IN AMERICA
“While we think of the early New England settlers as very religious, they actually viewed marriage as a civil contract, not a religious contract. Consequently, marriage was a function of the magistrates more than the clergy.”
From LEGISLATIVE GUIDE TO MARRIAGE LAW Iowa.gov
“They (Puritans founders of Massachusetts) believed that marriage was not a religious ceremony but a civil contract. They required that this covenant must be “agreed” or “executed” (not “performed” or “solemnized”) before a magistrate, and not a minister. They also insisted that if the terms of the marriage covenant were broken, then the union could be ended by divorce. These attitudes became the basis of regional marriage customs throughout New England.”
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.