Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD
CSPAN

Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation

And so it begins.....


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: anarchy; anarchyinamerica; civilization; dirtyrottenhomos; fma; homosexualagenda; homosexualbehavior; lawlessness; marriageamendment; nambla; protectchildren; protectfamily; romans1; senate; sexualperversion; wayneallard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580581-588 next last
To: exodus
How is a libertarian's understanding of a contract any different than anyone else's understanding of a contract?

No difference in general. It is more a comment on the forest and the trees. Because while you discuss contracts, equal protection will make homosexual marriage a fait accompli in this country. And I will not have had my say in that unholy contract between the courts and thier special interests.

541 posted on 07/12/2004 6:20:18 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
exodus - We don't need the Federal government interfering in our private lives too. BR> jwalsh07 - No we don't but we sure the hell don't need unelected judges interfering in our lives and if I have to choose my poison it will be from democratically elected representatives.
***********************
I don't believe the solution to judicial corruption to be Legislative corruption.
542 posted on 07/12/2004 6:26:06 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
exodus - How is a libertarian's understanding of a contract any different than anyone else's understanding of a contract?
jwalsh07 - No difference in general. It is more a comment on the forest and the trees. Because while you discuss contracts, equal protection will make homosexual marriage a fait accompli in this country. And I will not have had my say in that unholy contract between the courts and their special interests.
***********************
We are discussing whether the Federal government should interfere with our Right of Association. I believe that proposed "power" to be prohibited by our "contract" with the Federal government, our Constitution.

I'm not off-topic.

On a side note, my discussing anything will not prevent you having your say in any way. You've been doing a fine job so far :)

543 posted on 07/12/2004 6:35:25 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Government has no business being involved in marriage at all.

Any time you have marriages, you're going to have divorces, and any time you have divorces you're going to have money and laywers involved, and when that happens it isn't long before they've got the government dragged into it. If you know how or why this happens, and what can be done to stop it, I'd sure like to find out.

544 posted on 07/12/2004 6:38:06 PM PDT by tacticalogic ( Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
They [the founders] decided that the right to life, liberty and property were inalienable rights granted by the Creator and so included that in the BOR.
There is not only a moral basis for those rights, the moral basis they drew it from was religious in nature.
499 jwalsh07

Sure, the founders decided that the right to life, liberty and property were inalienable rights. -- And all of us who support our Constitution agree with that to this day.

-- However, back then, and to this day, -- we have NEVER all agreed upon a 'Creator', nor did we include that in the BOR's.

Thus, the only moral basis for those rights we agreed upon were those based on natural rights, not those based on any particular religion.

Nothing I said is not historical fact.

Not true. -- Nothing about "inalienable rights granted by the Creator and so included that in the BOR", -- are in the Bill of Rights.

But the debate is on the FMA and whether or not the Constitution has a moral basis.

Our Constitution has a moral basis unrelated to ~your~ religious concepts, walsh. Live with that fact.

If you have something to add on that I'll respond, if not you and the rocks can keep each other company.

Your silly wordplay ploy laid an egg walsh. You brought up 'shaking' your head full of rocks.

545 posted on 07/12/2004 7:13:16 PM PDT by tpaine (A stupid person causes losses to another while himself deriving no gain, or even incurring loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: exodus
We are discussing whether the Federal government should interfere with our Right of Association.

No, thats what you are discussing. I am discussing whether courts have the power to take on the mantle of Ministry of Truth and issue newspeak edicts to the proletariat. And when they do that what is the proper response. I believe the proper response is to debate it in the public square so that all parties can have their voices heard and the public square is not poisoned for generations a la Roe v Wade.

I believe that proposed "power" to be prohibited by our "contract" with the Federal government, our Constitution.

And I believe you are mistaken. The amendment process is a constitutional process and the proper venue for debating an issue that affects every state in the union.

I'm not off-topic.

Never said you were, unless you're Paines alter ego. :-}

On a side note, my discussing anything will not prevent you having your say in any way.

LOL, that you can count on. I am not known for being shy in expressing my views either here or in the real world.

You've been doing a fine job so far :)

You're not bad yourself.

546 posted on 07/12/2004 7:17:05 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: exodus
I don't believe the solution to judicial corruption to be Legislative corruption.

And I don't believe your analogy is apt. Judicial tyranny is tyranny. The amendment process and the debate that accompanies are both constitutional and desirable in a constitutional republic.

547 posted on 07/12/2004 7:19:30 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Sure, the founders decided that the right to life, liberty and property were inalienable rights. -- And all of us who support our Constitution agree with that to this day.

SO far so good.

-- However, back then, and to this day, -- we have NEVER all agreed upon a 'Creator', nor did we include that in the BOR's.

Still on the money.

Thus, the only moral basis for those rights we agreed upon were those based on natural rights, not those based on any particular religion.

Now you've gone and ruined it. You crash and burn. A false staement not supported by the facts. The DOI states emphatically that those rights are granted by the Creator and thus can not be abridged by the state. No religion mentioned, just the Almighty.

Not true. -- Nothing about "inalienable rights granted by the Creator and so included that in the BOR", -- are in the Bill of Rights.

Never claimed there were and you should know by now that I know the text of the Constitution as well as you do. A dumb statement.

Our Constitution has a moral basis unrelated to ~your~ religious concepts, walsh. Live with that fact.

Thats your opinion and one not supported by the facts Paine. The overwhelming majority of the signaturees were Christians who were informed by their Christianity. And if that causes you angst, so be it.

Your silly wordplay ploy laid an egg walsh. You brought up 'shaking' your head full of rocks.

I hate to LOL at my own word games Paine but I thought that was pretty funny. Lighten up.

548 posted on 07/12/2004 7:27:58 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"I'm not off-topic."

Never said you were, unless you're Paines alter ego. 546 -walsh-

Walsh, your snide little asides, especially when you 'forget' to ping me, -- say a lot more about your lack of moral character than you will ever know. Very apropos when you are on another of your pompous moral lecture crusades.

"I'm sitting here shaking my head."
499 posted on 07/12/2004 4:17:45 PM PDT by jwalsh07

549 posted on 07/12/2004 7:36:46 PM PDT by tpaine (A stupid person causes losses to another while himself deriving no gain, or even incurring loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Kiss my ass Paine. How's that for a moral crusade?


550 posted on 07/12/2004 7:38:19 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: exodus

"I do not believe that to reach Heaven I need to put my needs last."

I do not believe you need to do this to reach Heaven But when you do get there, the least shall be greatest. If you do this and serve others before yourself you will be rewarded.


551 posted on 07/12/2004 7:44:37 PM PDT by bluecollarman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: unspun

Thanks for the ping!


552 posted on 07/12/2004 7:56:52 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
They [the founders] decided that the right to life, liberty and property were inalienable rights granted by the Creator and so included that in the BOR.
There is not only a moral basis for those rights, the moral basis they drew it from was religious in nature.
499 jwalsh07

Sure, the founders decided that the right to life, liberty and property were inalienable rights. -- And all of us who support our Constitution agree with that to this day.
-- However, back then, and to this day, -- we have NEVER all agreed upon a 'Creator', nor did we include that in the BOR's.

Thus, the only moral basis for those rights we agreed upon were those based on natural rights, not those based on any particular religion.

Now you've gone and ruined it. You crash and burn. The DOI states emphatically that those rights are granted by the Creator

You're assuming it's ~your~ vision of a "Creator" they refer to walsh. Not true.

and thus can not be abridged by the state. No religion mentioned, just the Almighty.

Exactly. You've conceded my point.

There is nothing about "inalienable rights granted by the Creator and so included that in the BOR", as you put it, -- in the Bill of Rights.

Never claimed there were

Belied by your own words, quoted boldly just above at #499.

and you should know by now that I know the text of the Constitution as well as you do.

You are desperate, poor fella.

Our Constitution has a moral basis unrelated to ~your~ religious concepts, walsh. Live with that fact.

Thats your opinion and one not supported by the facts Paine. The overwhelming majority of the signaturees were Christians who were informed by their Christianity. And if that causes you angst, so be it.

No angst here walsh. The plain words of our Constitution & its Amendments support my view, not yours.

553 posted on 07/12/2004 8:04:46 PM PDT by tpaine (A stupid person causes losses to another while himself deriving no gain, or even incurring loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Yes Hat-Trick, the existence of homosexuals is God's "fault," unless you're saying that there was someone else creating people, and not God alone.

I believe that there is One Creator - God, as described in the Bible. I'm not blaming Him for the "existence of homosexuals", nor the existence of any behavior that He calls sin. I have often asked Him why he had to create liberals ;-)

My point is this - He created mankind with free will - and with the ability to CHOOSE obedience or disobedience. Stating that God made mankind incapable of obedience, in regards to sexual behavior, is saying saying that we don't have a choice and that sin is God's fault. Do you believe in God, you know, the One who in the beginning created the Heavens and the Earth?

554 posted on 07/12/2004 8:07:31 PM PDT by Hat-Trick (Do you trust a government that cannot trust you with guns?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Take your "ass kissing" remarks to the back room, walsh.


555 posted on 07/12/2004 8:07:31 PM PDT by tpaine (A stupid person causes losses to another while himself deriving no gain, or even incurring loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

You can't read Paine. The "icluded that" in the sentence referred to life, liberty and property, not the Creator. But you knew that already. My last comment to you stands.


556 posted on 07/12/2004 8:09:00 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I'd like to take them to your face. Where do you live?


557 posted on 07/12/2004 8:09:39 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
They [the founders] decided that the right to life, liberty and property were inalienable rights granted by the Creator and so included that in the BOR.
There is not only a moral basis for those rights, the moral basis they drew it from was religious in nature.
499 jwalsh07

Sure, the founders decided that the right to life, liberty and property were inalienable rights. -- And all of us who support our Constitution agree with that to this day.
-- However, back then, and to this day, -- we have NEVER all agreed upon a 'Creator', nor did we include that in the BOR's.

Thus, the only moral basis for those rights we agreed upon were those based on natural rights, not those based on any particular religion.

Now you've gone and ruined it. You crash and burn. The DOI states emphatically that those rights are granted by the Creator

You're assuming it's ~your~ vision of a "Creator" they refer to walsh. Not true.

and thus can not be abridged by the state. No religion mentioned, just the Almighty.

Exactly. You've conceded my point.

There is nothing about "inalienable rights granted by the Creator and so included that in the BOR", as you put it, -- in the Bill of Rights.

Never claimed there were

Belied by your own words, quoted boldly just above at #499.

and you should know by now that I know the text of the Constitution as well as you do.

You are desperate, poor fella.

Our Constitution has a moral basis unrelated to ~your~ religious concepts, walsh. Live with that fact.

Thats your opinion and one not supported by the facts Paine. The overwhelming majority of the signaturees were Christians who were informed by their Christianity. And if that causes you angst, so be it.

No angst here walsh. The plain words of our Constitution & its Amendments support my view, not yours.

558 posted on 07/12/2004 8:10:57 PM PDT by tpaine (A stupid person causes losses to another while himself deriving no gain, or even incurring loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Your intent is as clear as your use of the English language walsh..

ALL my comments to you stand, -- without rational rebuttal.
559 posted on 07/12/2004 8:17:42 PM PDT by tpaine (A stupid person causes losses to another while himself deriving no gain, or even incurring loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
My mistake was to engage you in converstaion. I won't make it again.

My inquiry in to where you live comes from my belief that I should be willing to say to your face what I say on an internet board. That offer stands.

560 posted on 07/12/2004 8:21:17 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580581-588 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson