Posted on 08/14/2010 11:47:13 AM PDT by Maelstorm
“Maybe not, but it wins, and your argument doesn’t. Of course this election cycle will let some of your guys slip in, because the dims suck so much.”
When has your absolutist position “won” anything? By the way, you haven’t the foggiest idea who “my guys” are.
If I know who they aren't then that narrows it down somewhat.
Unless you feel a great leader is going to rise up from the ash heap of whats left after this current administration has done it's worst. Then all bets are off.
It could be anyone. Or it could be the guy you have now, nothing I have seen yet precludes me from surmising that we may have seen our last free election. Or maybe we will see elections like Russia had in the 50's, only God knows.
Love, love, love that pic!
“Why in the world should the state get a say on whether two adults get married, “
Because the State should promote that children be raised by a mother AND a father.
“Marriages should not be the government’s business. “
I disagree. Hasn’t the function of marriage been preservation of the family unit for the continuation of the future generations of society?
If the State promotes and condones homosexual marriage, then they are promoting and condoning that children be raised without a mother or a father.
Very well said. The State should not be in the business of condoning the raising of children without a mother or a father.
The state should promote no such thing, the State is not my mother nor my priest. That said, they need to stop promoting the opposite immediately, especially with my money.
Disagree. By virtue of its existence as an entity that has an appropriate place in the lives of men, the State SHOULD promote that children be raised by a mother and father.
If the world ends and you are left totally alone and bereft, then you may deem that the State is useless. Until then, we are a community of laws, endowed by our Creator with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Glenn Beck...occasionally cogent weirdo
Glen has a method to his madness. I give him great credit. I believe he was one of the core catalysts that helped set the stage for the Tea Party movement.
Things aren’t always all or nothing. My only critique of Glen on this issue is that I believe he should spend just a small bit on the social issues because they do matter and tyranny doesn’t end with ones personal finances. You can earn more money but once someone takes your soul through intimidation and suppression tactics then what makes you think they won’t take your money too? Already gays are causing increased costs to school districts to implement special “anti bullying” LGBTQ friendly programs. They are integrating pro-gay discrimination into universities, corporate hiring, and every area of society. You’d better believe if some liberal got fired from a university for pro-gay rhetoric the media and Glen would cover it. That’s what I mean when I point this out. I just want conservatives to do their part because CNN, MSNBC, and most of the media isn’t afraid to do so from their perspective.
I didn’t say the State was worthless. I said it wasn’t my mother or my priest. And believe me, 95% of this country does not want my religion enforced on them through the power of the State.
I don’t need to State to promote two parents, nature and God have done that. I need the State to stop promoting single mothers and dirt bag baby-daddy’s, which the State has done by stepping in as Daddy.
Get the State the hell out of the family and nature and God will do just fine.
The State, in enacting laws is not being your mother or priest.
The State currently recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman. If the State recognized homosexual marriage, it would be endorsing that children be raised without a mother or a father. Doesn’t matter if you like that the State recognizes marriages or not.
Of course they are. I barely have a moments existence during the day, when the legal authority of the State is not telling me how to live my life.
The State currently recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman. If the State recognized homosexual marriage, it would be endorsing that children be raised without a mother or a father. Doesn’t matter if you like that the State recognizes marriages or not.
For the last 45 years the State has given women a financial reward to raise babies by themselves. You are focused on a tiny sapling and can't see the giant forest all about you.
The breakdown of the family was caused by government intervention, not from a lack of it.
And if you are going to enforce a marriage law, will you be throwing adulters and homosexuals in prison? If not, then marriage laws have no meaning.
I don't want to be told by the state that I have to give anyone a special status because of their cohabitation habits.
The problem is that you accept the State's authority in these matters to begin with.
Women being given a financial reward by the State for raising babies by themselves has nothing to do with a society that establishes marriage as between a man and a woman so that children will have a mother and a father.
You have your eyes shut pretty tight on reality. For the last 50 years, marriage licenses have only been between a man and a woman. Out of wedlock births have gone to over 50% from single digits. For those who do bother getting married, divorce rates are also over 50%. And you say the welfare state that brought that on isn't the problem, and that getting the state completely out of the marriage business will somehow "really" encourage anti-family behavior??? No the problems monetarily based, not esoteric.
Any two adults are currently allowed to live together and tell anyone they wish that they are married, without the threat of a criminal charge, ergo its legal. Well, I would throw more facts at you, but you appear to be immune.
(Total divorce rates are over 50% because they include multiple remarriages.... divorce rates for first marriages is much lower.)
I am not interested in discussing how the State currently subsidizes welfare moms because that was not the topic of this thread.
I am saying that the State should not recognize homosexual marriage because then it would be condoning that children be raised without a mother or father.
Homosexuals cannot have children unless they adopt, so you are actually concerned about adoption laws.
You are free to be horribly concerned about this, but its like trying to solve the problem of fat kids by ensuring that the State puts a food pyramid chart on each bag of free Big Macs that it giving out to preschoolers.
The State hasn't just condoned raising children outside of the traditional/natural family; the state has promoted it in every way possible.
The barbarians have already burned the city, you can stop working on the gate hinges.
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.