Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD

CSPAN

[abnegation]

And so it begins.....

[unspun]

When you start statutoring maxims of the common law known as unarguable fact for millennia, you are clearly acknowledging that a statute has precedence over fact. This is not good, especially at the federal/national level.

Yeah... well... ;-`

I'm prone to compare this with the arguments at the Constitutional Convention over implicit vs. enumerated rights. The implicit right of the people for marriage to be simply what it is and that only (Don't you hear Creation groaning?) has become threatened and alas, we need to declare it with the enumerated.

[DLfromthedesert]

I missed it; how did he do?

[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

______________________________________


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

______________________________________


jwalsh07 wrote: I'd like to take them to your face. Where do you live?


______________________________________


Gotta love empty threats from a wannabe crusader..

I live in Menlo Park Ca. -- Want me to pick you up at SFO or SJC?

[tpaine]

jwalsh07 wrote:

My mistake was to engage you --

You post mistakes, many here correct those errors.
That's what FR is all about.

Feel free to disengage, anytime.

[jwalsh07]

I don't get to the west coast much. Will you be coming to DC for the inaugaration?

[tpaine]

I don't attend costume parties.

[Torie]

I am still trying to find something I disagreed with you about on this thread. It is almost like we have previously conversed on this issue or something. LOL.

[William Terrell]

But don't you think that if we have to code inherent truths to protect them, with a form inferior to that of the truth being a basic assumption by which people live, that codification is necessarily doomed, itself?

[unspun]

But don't you think that if we have to code inherent truths to protect them, with a form inferior to that of the truth being a basic assumption by which people live, that codification is necessarily doomed, itself?

I don't really think so. I think that the inherent truths we hold have been informed us by a God who saw that while all of Creation implicitly gives testimony of Him, even more specific information (i.e., the Word of God) was necessary for the greatest good effect upon fallen man.

The same theme occurs with our 1st Amendment, etc. rights and the same if we would have a Life Amendment.

Truth is under attack by relativism/nihilism in the name of "tolerance" and "pluralism." The antidote for this is specificity (and making the effect of truth known experientially).

Telling the truth plainly beats hinting at it, so to speak.

[unspun]

I think your argument is akin to the law of diminishing returns. However, I think we're far from that point. Further, we need whatever appropriate reinforcements and engines we can get, in order to get a better economy of scale.

[johnmorris886]

So was a woman stoned to death. But not the man. :)

Try again:

Lev 20:10 And a man who commits adultery with a man's wife, who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

[OXENinFLA]

Yeah, ,I was watching around 5ish.

I think I seen what you're talking about.

Reid was talking like they didn't want to vote on Cloture but go straight to an up or down vote.................[Wow, Judicial debate flashback with the sides swapped.]

[OXENinFLA]

Oh, and wasn't it nice for Reid to stay on the topic of the amendment.

I recall last night right after a few reps. got done talking Reid gets up and starts talking about Iraq and those being killed over there, not even mentioning the Marriage amendment.

[StriperSniper]

Excellent as usual. :)

The text or a link will be posted on this thread: SENATE COVERAGE -- (July '04) when available on THOMAS.

[saveliberty]

Agreed. It's also about coercing acceptance and forcing others to live like they want us to.

[Salvation]

As expected, the anti-marriage forces have mobilized and are
doing everything in their power to defeat the
Federal Marriage Amendment.

Our Grassfire team has just returned from Capitol Hill where we
oversaw the delivery of over a half-million petitions to the
U.S. Senate (see details below). We can report the anti-marriage
forces are aggressively attacking the Amendment. It is shameful
to see what some senators will do to stop the amendment.

+ + + URGENT ACTION ITEM

It will take a flood of thousands of phone calls from friends like
you to send the senators a strong message in support of marriage.

We need your help to show overwhelming support for marriage!

Please take a moment right now to call your two Oregon
Senators and urge them to support AFM's Marriage Amendment.

Here is their contact information:

Senator ______
Senator ______

+ + TUESDAY'S TALKING POINTS

#1 -- Identify yourself as a Oregon resident. This is very
important. Mention your support of "Alliance For Marriage's
Federal Marriage Amendment."

#2 -- Tell your Senator you oppose efforts to defeat the
marriage amendment.

#3 -- Then say: "I urge you to support the Marriage Amendment
when it comes to a floor vote."

PLEASE CALL TODAY! THIS IS VITAL TO THE CAUSE!

[Salvation]

Call you Senator!

U. S. Senate

[OXENinFLA]

Here we go again!!!


The LOUT up now..........

[votelife]

are you from Oregon? I thought NY...

[maica]

You might like to know that the Senate switchboard was flooded with calls yesterday to the point of circuit overload. Peeople are calling! Senators Brownback, Frist, Santorum, etc said that they are hearing from the people.