Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you give government the authority to arbitrarily define marriage between a man and a woman, then you give government the same authority to change its mind and arbitrarily define marriage between a man and a man or whatever else it wants.
Government has no authority to define marriage. Individuals and their churches or whatever organization they belong to can set their own criteria for marriage. Nobody has to accept the criteria they make, but they have a right to make it and believe it nonetheless.
The solution to protect marriage is to get government out of it entirely and abolish the marriage license. Marriage is a private social matter, not a government granted privilege. Any legal benefits of marriage can be defined in private contracts just like anything else in the private sector.
As long as we have divorce, the government will be involved with legal, civil marriage. Libertarian wet dream that will NEVER come true.
Who is harmed by gay marriage?
If the gay agenda was to destroy the instituion of marriage, I have terrible news for them. YOU'RE TOO LATE!
We straight people have already destroyed it. Hell, Newt Gingrich has made a mockery of it all by himself. More than you can ever hope to.
Sorry about that!
"Who is harmed by" is a lame argument. That isn't how this works.
Who is harmed by a court ruling that gay marriage is an inalienable right? All the voters who voted otherwise. It is the suspension of democracy.
Those dang left wingers are just so damn unreasonable, aren't they. What's wrong with a government peeking in our windows and passing lots of laws to take away our rights.
No, just lots of American citizens.
They want the government small enough to fit in our bedrooms.
Mention homos and you show up.
If youre not happy unless youre married to five other people, is that O.K.? he asked.
Gee, I'm surprised he didn't throw in pedophilia and bestiality. Bigots usually do whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up.
If you give government the authority to arbitrarily define marriage between a man and a woman, then you give government the same authority to change its mind and arbitrarily define marriage between a man and a man or whatever else it wants.
Government has no authority to define marriage. Individuals and their churches or whatever organization they belong to can set their own criteria for marriage. Nobody has to accept the criteria they make, but they have a right to make it and believe it nonetheless.
The solution to protect marriage is to get government out of it entirely and abolish the marriage license. Marriage is a private social matter, not a government granted privilege. Any legal benefits of marriage can be defined in private contracts just like anything else in the private sector.
As long as we have divorce, the government will be involved with legal, civil marriage. Libertarian wet dream that will NEVER come true.
All divorce is is the legal splitting of assets. Be the assets equity or debt. That is the only reason the government should be involved, and that is just because people cannot be civil so a judge needs to oversee it.
you get the 'dependent on government' award for the day.
You don't need government marriage licenses in order for divorce to be dealt with through the justice system. It is a statist myth that marriage is a privilege granted by government. Divorce is simply the dissolution of a contract. All private contracts that involve controversial dissolutions are dealt with in the same way already, but that does not mean government should be the monopoly issuer of all contracts in the economy. Such a notion is absurd.If you give government the authority to arbitrarily define marriage between a man and a woman, then you give government the same authority to change its mind and arbitrarily define marriage between a man and a man or whatever else it wants.
Government has no authority to define marriage. Individuals and their churches or whatever organization they belong to can set their own criteria for marriage. Nobody has to accept the criteria they make, but they have a right to make it and believe it nonetheless.
The solution to protect marriage is to get government out of it entirely and abolish the marriage license. Marriage is a private social matter, not a government granted privilege. Any legal benefits of marriage can be defined in private contracts just like anything else in the private sector.
As long as we have divorce, the government will be involved with legal, civil marriage. Libertarian wet dream that will NEVER come true.
The majority of Americans say the gays should be able to marry if they want, even if gay marriage is against their personal views. So your post is bullshit, to put it honestly.Rick Santorum for President, because this guy is A-OK, and it is ashame by what the colleges have turned into now, and this in so many places in America, and especially upon how un-educated our young people really are anymore in this nation upon so many issues and such. There are so many now that are guided by their loins and their lust these days, that they can't think of anything else it seems to think about or talk about... Really college campus USA, this is all you had in the line of questioning for this future President when he visited you this day ?
Can you believe this anymore parents, I mean really, by what you thought it was that you had to send your children into, and where as you paid mega bucks to send them there, and ain't it funny how you did this all in order to get their minds totally retrained and then brainwashed, and this against all that you had taught them or your parents had taught you in the ways of values and morals in their lives over the years ? Can you believe it ?
He was so right when he said go out and make the case in the public square, is what Santorum said to these young folks on the matter of Gay Marriage sought after by them, and quit trying to manipulate the court systems to see it your way against the majority whom see it as a majority still in another way in this nation, and shouldn't it be that the majority (if they are good and righteous as a majority to be the case) win out over a few opportunist when it comes to making or changing existing laws, good cultures and/or good rules that have been in place for hundreds of years now in this country for so many, otherwise just like he "Rick Santorum" said in so many words ?
Wake up America, because "Rick Santorum" is at your door awaiting to serve the majority in this nation, and this for all "Good Americans", and not for those who want to subvert the majority and their will as a majority, and this through a corruption of the courts and their bought and paid for judges on such issues now. Vote Rick Santorum for your next President, because it is the right thing to do for this nation when it comes to values and faith, in which built this nations families and strong people over the years, in which so many in the world had relied upon, to then return once again this nation as a whole.
So what would you say if the majority of the nation agreed to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment?Wake up America, because "Rick Santorum" is at your door awaiting to serve the majority in this nation, and this for all "Good Americans", and not for those who want to subvert the majority and their will as a majority, and this through a corruption of the courts and their bought and paid for judges on such issues now. Vote Rick Santorum for your next President, because it is the right thing to do for this nation when it comes to values and faith, in which built this nations families and strong people over the years, in which so many in the world had relied upon, to then return once again this nation as a whole.
Is it not the reason, that when government gets involved in anything, it is all because of the adverse affect that many issues do have or do cause in a negative way upon the government, where as it then allocates or takes the tax payers money in order to straighten a bad situation out, and then it makes rules or laws in which it does to hopefully think that it will cause a situiation to not come about again?You don't need government marriage licenses in order for divorce to be dealt with through the justice system. It is a statist myth that marriage is a privilege granted by government. Divorce is simply the dissolution of a contract. All private contracts that involve controversial dissolutions are dealt with in the same way already, but that does not mean government should be the monopoly issuer of all contracts in the economy. Such a notion is absurd.If you give government the authority to arbitrarily define marriage between a man and a woman, then you give government the same authority to change its mind and arbitrarily define marriage between a man and a man or whatever else it wants.
Government has no authority to define marriage. Individuals and their churches or whatever organization they belong to can set their own criteria for marriage. Nobody has to accept the criteria they make, but they have a right to make it and believe it nonetheless.
The solution to protect marriage is to get government out of it entirely and abolish the marriage license. Marriage is a private social matter, not a government granted privilege. Any legal benefits of marriage can be defined in private contracts just like anything else in the private sector.
As long as we have divorce, the government will be involved with legal, civil marriage. Libertarian wet dream that will NEVER come true.
The point, unsurprisingly, went over your head completely. Government claims a monopoly on defining what marriage is and issuing marriage licenses. The argument is that private individuals should be able to make those choices, rather than have government dictate them.
I don't really know what you are saying, but it sounds like you are agreeing with me. People should not be dependent on government to define marriage.Is it not the reason, that when government gets involved in anything, it is all because of the adverse affect that many issues do have or do cause in a negative way upon the government, where as it then allocates or takes the tax payers money in order to straighten a bad situation out, and then it makes rules or laws in which it does to hopefully think that it will cause a situiation to not come about again?You don't need government marriage licenses in order for divorce to be dealt with through the justice system. It is a statist myth that marriage is a privilege granted by government. Divorce is simply the dissolution of a contract. All private contracts that involve controversial dissolutions are dealt with in the same way already, but that does not mean government should be the monopoly issuer of all contracts in the economy. Such a notion is absurd.As long as we have divorce, the government will be involved with legal, civil marriage. Libertarian wet dream that will NEVER come true.
The point, unsurprisingly, went over your head completely. Government claims a monopoly on defining what marriage is and issuing marriage licenses. The argument is that private individuals should be able to make those choices, rather than have government dictate them.
Now somewhere along this path, it realized it's power to sway many things into it's way of thinking, and this by use of the taxpayers money in not so good a way it does this, but no matter anyway, because it started to use this money to empower and create voting blocks with it, where as it done this by moving large amonts of the taxpayers money into many areas and upon specific issues that it found to be very voter friendly during election time when done this, and this has been used by either party in charge at any given time when this took place. Both parties are guilty of this, and both are dirty in their hands by some of the things it has promoted and lifted up in this nation now, especially such an out of control corrupt way. This has caused our nation some serious consequences over the years now, and no one knows how to slowly reverse the trend without throwing the nation further into chaos when doing so.
To many people have been made dependent, and that dependency cannot just be cut off in a day, it has to be let down ever so slowly now, where as then and only then can things get better in America for all..
Marijuana may impair coordination and memory tasks.I agree with him when it comes to gays, but disagree with him on the pot. Pot is better for you then getting drunk or smoking cigs!
So my feelings about this are kind of 50/50 on him. Still like Ron Paul better overall.
Legalizing marijuana is not condoning it. People have the right to do stupid things to themselves. Of course they must accept the consequences.Marijuana may impair coordination and memory tasks.I agree with him when it comes to gays, but disagree with him on the pot. Pot is better for you then getting drunk or smoking cigs!
So my feelings about this are kind of 50/50 on him. Still like Ron Paul better overall.
Marijuana use increases certain toxins in the bloodstream worse than cigarettes
Marijuana use decreases penis size in young males.
So you and others can die of lung cancer if you smoke, die behind the wheel of a car if you or another driver drinks, or go by cirrhosis of the pickled liver; but if you smoke pot, you will just have a lousy sex life.
Laws of mercy, Matthew. Be careful of what you teach younger males.
Unless the majority has indicated that it would want to do such a thing (in which they have not done and/or wouldnot do as you already know, and is not anywhere found in your hypothetical), then it is that I do feel at this point, that only then by their actions taken, would your question have any merit at all to be found or answered again by me in this thread, especially upon the reason that you may have asked these questions in response to my post in such a way, so why the spin or attempt to be clever if that is what you would call it when you asked ?So what would you say if the majority of the nation agreed to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment?Wake up America, because "Rick Santorum" is at your door awaiting to serve the majority in this nation, and this for all "Good Americans", and not for those who want to subvert the majority and their will as a majority, and this through a corruption of the courts and their bought and paid for judges on such issues now. Vote Rick Santorum for your next President, because it is the right thing to do for this nation when it comes to values and faith, in which built this nations families and strong people over the years, in which so many in the world had relied upon, to then return once again this nation as a whole.
Or better yet, the First Amendment?
He is using it to point out the logical flaw in your argument. What the majority wants has no bearing on what is actually right or correct. In otherwords, the majority can be wrong, so appealing the the majority in an argument is a fallacy.Unless the majority has indicated that it would want to do such a thing (in which they have not done and/or wouldnot do as you already know, and is not anywhere found in your hypothetical), then it is that I do feel at this point, that only then by their actions taken, would your question have any merit at all to be found or answered again by me in this thread, especially upon the reason that you may have asked these questions in response to my post in such a way, so why the spin or attempt to be clever if that is what you would call it when you asked ?So what would you say if the majority of the nation agreed to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment?Wake up America, because "Rick Santorum" is at your door awaiting to serve the majority in this nation, and this for all "Good Americans", and not for those who want to subvert the majority and their will as a majority, and this through a corruption of the courts and their bought and paid for judges on such issues now. Vote Rick Santorum for your next President, because it is the right thing to do for this nation when it comes to values and faith, in which built this nations families and strong people over the years, in which so many in the world had relied upon, to then return once again this nation as a whole.
Or better yet, the First Amendment?
Give me some examples of what you mean by your what if's here, and why are these hypotheticals based upon something that we are discussing in which is not a hypothetical ? What are you trying to lead to, I mean in this type of questioning? Are you one of those hopeful media gotcha type people in your clever thinking mind or something like that when asking something in this way ? Just asking !
Who is harmed by gay marriage?
If the gay agenda was to destroy the instituion of marriage, I have terrible news for them. YOU'RE TOO LATE!
We straight people have already destroyed it. Hell, Newt Gingrich has made a mockery of it all by himself. More than you can ever hope to.
Sorry about that!
"Who is harmed by" is a lame argument. That isn't how this works.
Who is harmed by a court ruling that gay marriage is an inalienable right? All the voters who voted otherwise. It is the suspension of democracy.
You can't vote on what rights others are allowed to have
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper
