Once agan anti-gay comments. Why can't you guys live and let live? Any claims of believing in the constitution, liberty, freedom or not being socialists goes rift out the window when you talk about regulating marrage. What's the difference between you and republcans then?
You can't have capitalsm without contracts. Cntracts are a formal Greement between people who choose to associate with each other. So is marriage. The right of freedom of religion and associating are guaranteed by the constitution.
Why sell out your principles over a silly prejudice?
Government at all levels have NO business being involved in the union of two individuals period. The very suggestion that they do is to put government above our creator. What the hell does this piece have to do with a dead elephant political party?
from the essay: "He also stated that Freedom and Liberty is precious and therefore must be strictly rationed."
this is precisely correct. this is what i harp on w.r.t. money. central banks settle their accounts in gold. even if the rest of the market decides scrip is money, and uses it as such, central banks decide with greater leverage to the contrary. like it or not, they exist, and so they have this same market influence as well (should be obvious).
the design of this system is to keep the market anarchy for themselves; to socialize their liabilities.
anonymous: "Cntracts are a formal Greement between people who choose to associate with each other. So is marriage."
incorrect. marriage is consummated at the individual level, but it is blessed by the family, honored by the community, recognized by the entire extended church, and in direct service to god. even the catholics maintain their entire system, on up to the pope, with donations. if you want to be married in any christian sense, then it's "when in rome," or go find another church (try the muslims?).
what you are talking about can only be at best a legal construction, such as civil union. a state created by a constitution cannot force non-participators who just want the legal tax status of "married" into the church. freedom of association is the freedom of the christian association to deny christian marriage to whoever they like.
To the first anon. poster I say this: why do so many of those who presumably believe in freedom continually look for government sanction of a religious institution (i.e.: marriage)?
Stop trying to redefined what marriage has been for millennia. Do what you want behind closed doors, but don't look for our endorsement of behaviour many of us find immoral.
Heck, I'd be happy if government got out of the business of marriage altogether and just let churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., deal with it and make the legal contract an option, without all the tax benefits. Fits well with most of our anti-income tax views, anyhow.
I posted on my blog not long ago about this with respect to open carry and the disdain with which the hoplophobes look upon it. As believers in individual freedom, we cannot in any way demand that others 'accept' us. Only that they leave us the hell alone. Ditto for homosexual behaviour.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Remember that. I don't believe we can demand certain behaviour. But don't expect a civil society to survive if its constituent parts don't follow a certain common code of conduct. Think Chicago (which is now national) politics. I don't doubt that many enmeshed in it truly believe it is normal behaviour. All the while, every goes to sh*t around them.
LGBT do not build,enrich,nor start civilizations, but they do destroy them. Ever hear the phrase, "drank the Kool-Aid?" And if it's live and let live they want, why won't they let us live without their constant whining? Answer: If we look and sound and live like them, then their self-justification is achieved. Discrimination, not prejudice is to be sought. The discrimination that tells you instinctively that something is wrong, not right. And if it's freedom and rights you want, then why can't "straights" be free to choose what THEY want, and the right to make is so? Answer: LGBT are only concerned that THEIR viewpoint is first and foremost. Which is why the Marxists live in LGBT, to destroy the family, society, and the rule of law. Interesting, you used "you can't have capitalism without contracts". Destroying ALL contracts, social, commercial, etc. is the goal of the Marxists. And then they can rule in abject thuggery to their hearts content. LGBT is just a sidebar of their depravity and degeneration.
Would make an excellent leaflet for wide distribution - outstanding. And to Anony 6:10 - I failed to see any anti-gay comments; the only things that I read which touched on the subject have been the rather undeniable assaults by gay activists on people who do not agree with them - as in California when the People voted clearly against calling a homosexual relationship a 'marriage', and the tolerant California gays reacted by threats, verbal and physical assaults, shrill cries for boycotts and so on. The simple fact is that words have meanings and definitions, and marriage is, and always has been, a word which means a covenantal and contractual bond between one man and one woman. Period. If we want, we can argue and riot and threaten and parade to insist that everyone refer to our Buick as an airplane... or to our hat, as a shoe... but if we do so, we delude ourselves that our animosity can make something into something else which it is not.
All in all, I have been fairly present on the patriotic and RKBA scene for more years than I care to think about, and I have never known anyone in my circles who had any animosity toward gays. Most people really don't care that much about what a person does with his or her genitalia, unless they insist on thrusting into public view, as in the Folsom Street parades of perversion - and that does not help gay / straight relations. So, let's not look for hostilities that aren't there and busy ourselves with the threats that apply to everyone. Remember - tyrants and dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Ahmadinejad and others, do not just deny gays the title of 'married partners' - they usually deprive them of freedom or of life itself.
There are many people who are of a Libertarian persuasion who believe what happens in someone's bedroom is private and many freedom-loving, Constitution-abiding citizens would agree. Then there are those whose religious or moral beliefs would differ, however, that isn't the issue addressed in the essay. Read it again. Read it without personal filters. Read it from the perspective of someone who sees the truth about forcing overwhelming cultural changes not to help you or anyone else achieve equality but to cause confusion, division and ultimately strip you and everyone else of their rights and privileges. Read it with the understanding that forcing divisive change against the will of the people is about control, not freedom. Read further to find out what has happens to gays in strong-arm socialist and communist governments. Read to find out who besides Jews were murdered in Germany's concentration camps. Read to find the truth. You're being used, my friend.
Societal divisiveness = societal weakness; which leads to what we have today. Ergo, the limey's point.
Its not about the Constitution, or law, its about biblical tradition, American tradition(male/female).
I do agree with you -- The Constitution has no bearing on who you shack up with, and IMO- the state law shouldn't either. But the Bible does.
Our society is made up of primarily Christians. Given that, why do you care so little about offending them? Would you go to Meca and walk backwards around the temple just to spite them? Just because you could? I don't understand why you don't use another word. Just call it contracted, or unioned, joined, partnered, etc. Make up your own word. If its not about the word, but about employee spousal gains, then you'll have to take that up with your employer, not me, anyone on this blog, or the law. Its the employers right to hire you, fire you, give your partner more benefits, less benefits or none at all.
That decision should NOT be in the hands of the government, or the people, it should lie solely with you and your employer. As for the IRS, lets get government out of EVERYONE'S life. Especially the IRS.
And remember, Christians didn't start this turf war of words. Your collectivist, group rights, gay rights, movement did.
The essay is worth reading for an exposition of how the "Left" wins. Some of the comments here are good examples of why.
Regulating the rights and privileges of an individual by his membership in a group is the very essence of collectivism. You will not win by embracing the fundamental principle of your enemy.
Hi Mike, The 4th paragraph down describing communism,"A group of Professional Revolutionaries..." and the 5th paragraph.."Briefly the left wing is intent to destroy the exixting society and replace it with one of its own design!!" Isn't that what the triumverate,"'Bama,Pull-losey and Reed" are doing as we speak?!!...Only thing I gotta say is..."Whenever the legislators endeavour to takeaway and destroy the property of the people, or reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon 'absolved' from any further obedience."..John Locke.
MarkOfAFreeman sez: "...and make the legal contract an option, without all the tax benefits."
Bingo! Give the man a cigar!
There should be no such thing as "a joint (tax) return". There shouldn't be a tax return, period, but let's not go there yet.)
I'd like to say that THIS is what the fight against so-called gay marriage is all about, but I doubt most Christians (sic) have thought about it that fully. They just know in their hearts that gays are not "real" people.
Gay? Be gay, I don't care. I don't want to see it in public. And if gays want to be in 'legal' union call it something other than marriage. The definition of that word is already taken. I suggest 'kinkered.' "Hi, this is my kink. I'm the kinkee and we're kinkered."
rexxhead sez: Bingo! Give the man a cigar! Heh. Never used a tobacco product in my life, but will gladly light up a stoggie to celebrate the day we restore this repubilc, God willing. Especially if our current tyrannts outlaw them.
We used to all be gay until recent years. Life used to be gay. Now decent folk don't have anything to be gay about because the perverts have taken over.
17 comments:
Once agan anti-gay comments. Why can't you guys live and let live? Any claims of believing in the constitution, liberty, freedom or not being socialists goes rift out the window when you talk about regulating marrage. What's the difference between you and republcans then?
You can't have capitalsm without contracts. Cntracts are a formal Greement between people who choose to associate with each other. So is marriage. The right of freedom of religion and associating are guaranteed by the constitution.
Why sell out your principles over a silly prejudice?
Government at all levels have NO business being involved in the union of two individuals period. The very suggestion that they do is to put government above our creator. What the hell does this piece have to do with a dead elephant political party?
Renegade
III
from the essay: "He also stated that Freedom and Liberty is precious and therefore must be strictly rationed."
this is precisely correct. this is what i harp on w.r.t. money. central banks settle their accounts in gold. even if the rest of the market decides scrip is money, and uses it as such, central banks decide with greater leverage to the contrary. like it or not, they exist, and so they have this same market influence as well (should be obvious).
the design of this system is to keep the market anarchy for themselves; to socialize their liabilities.
anonymous: "Cntracts are a formal Greement between people who choose to associate with each other. So is marriage."
incorrect. marriage is consummated at the individual level, but it is blessed by the family, honored by the community, recognized by the entire extended church, and in direct service to god. even the catholics maintain their entire system, on up to the pope, with donations. if you want to be married in any christian sense, then it's "when in rome," or go find another church (try the muslims?).
what you are talking about can only be at best a legal construction, such as civil union. a state created by a constitution cannot force non-participators who just want the legal tax status of "married" into the church. freedom of association is the freedom of the christian association to deny christian marriage to whoever they like.
The man said the UK is a commie country. Just like this place.
To the first anon. poster I say this: why do so many of those who presumably believe in freedom continually look for government sanction of a religious institution (i.e.: marriage)?
Stop trying to redefined what marriage has been for millennia. Do what you want behind closed doors, but don't look for our endorsement of behaviour many of us find immoral.
Heck, I'd be happy if government got out of the business of marriage altogether and just let churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., deal with it and make the legal contract an option, without all the tax benefits. Fits well with most of our anti-income tax views, anyhow.
I posted on my blog not long ago about this with respect to open carry and the disdain with which the hoplophobes look upon it. As believers in individual freedom, we cannot in any way demand that others 'accept' us. Only that they leave us the hell alone. Ditto for homosexual behaviour.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Remember that. I don't believe we can demand certain behaviour. But don't expect a civil society to survive if its constituent parts don't follow a certain common code of conduct. Think Chicago (which is now national) politics. I don't doubt that many enmeshed in it truly believe it is normal behaviour. All the while, every goes to sh*t around them.
LGBT do not build,enrich,nor start civilizations, but they do destroy them. Ever hear the phrase, "drank the Kool-Aid?" And if it's live and let live they want, why won't they let us live without their constant whining? Answer: If we look and sound and live like them, then their self-justification is achieved. Discrimination, not prejudice is to be sought. The discrimination that tells you instinctively that something is wrong, not right. And if it's freedom and rights you want, then why can't "straights" be free to choose what THEY want, and the right to make is so? Answer: LGBT are only concerned that THEIR viewpoint is first and foremost. Which is why the Marxists live in LGBT, to destroy the family, society, and the rule of law. Interesting, you used "you can't have capitalism without contracts". Destroying ALL contracts, social, commercial, etc. is the goal of the Marxists. And then they can rule in abject thuggery to their hearts content. LGBT is just a sidebar of their depravity and degeneration.
Would make an excellent leaflet for wide distribution - outstanding.
And to Anony 6:10 - I failed to see any anti-gay comments; the only things that I read which touched on the subject have been the rather undeniable assaults by gay activists on people who do not agree with them - as in California when the People voted clearly against calling a homosexual relationship a 'marriage', and the tolerant California gays reacted by threats, verbal and physical assaults, shrill cries for boycotts and so on.
The simple fact is that words have meanings and definitions, and marriage is, and always has been, a word which means a covenantal and contractual bond between one man and one woman. Period.
If we want, we can argue and riot and threaten and parade to insist that everyone refer to our Buick as an airplane... or to our hat, as a shoe... but if we do so, we delude ourselves that our animosity can make something into something else which it is not.
All in all, I have been fairly present on the patriotic and RKBA scene for more years than I care to think about, and I have never known anyone in my circles who had any animosity toward gays. Most people really don't care that much about what a person does with his or her genitalia, unless they insist on thrusting into public view, as in the Folsom Street parades of perversion - and that does not help gay / straight relations. So, let's not look for hostilities that aren't there and busy ourselves with the threats that apply to everyone. Remember - tyrants and dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Ahmadinejad and others, do not just deny gays the title of 'married partners' - they usually deprive them of freedom or of life itself.
Anonymous,
There are many people who are of a Libertarian persuasion who believe what happens in someone's bedroom is private and many freedom-loving, Constitution-abiding citizens would agree. Then there are those whose religious or moral beliefs would differ, however, that isn't the issue addressed in the essay. Read it again. Read it without personal filters. Read it from the perspective of someone who sees the truth about forcing overwhelming cultural changes not to help you or anyone else achieve equality but to cause confusion, division and ultimately strip you and everyone else of their rights and privileges. Read it with the understanding that forcing divisive change against the will of the people is about control, not freedom. Read further to find out what has happens to gays in strong-arm socialist and communist governments. Read to find out who besides Jews were murdered in Germany's concentration camps. Read to find the truth. You're being used, my friend.
Anonymous 6:10
Societal divisiveness = societal weakness; which leads to what we have today. Ergo, the limey's point.
Its not about the Constitution, or law, its about biblical tradition, American tradition(male/female).
I do agree with you -- The Constitution has no bearing on who you shack up with, and IMO- the state law shouldn't either. But the Bible does.
Our society is made up of primarily Christians. Given that, why do you care so little about offending them? Would you go to Meca and walk backwards around the temple just to spite them? Just because you could? I don't understand why you don't use another word. Just call it contracted, or unioned, joined, partnered, etc. Make up your own word. If its not about the word, but about employee spousal gains, then you'll have to take that up with your employer, not me, anyone on this blog, or the law. Its the employers right to hire you, fire you, give your partner more benefits, less benefits or none at all.
That decision should NOT be in the hands of the government, or the people, it should lie solely with you and your employer. As for the IRS, lets get government out of EVERYONE'S life. Especially the IRS.
And remember, Christians didn't start this turf war of words. Your collectivist, group rights, gay rights, movement did.
The essay is worth reading for an exposition of how the "Left" wins. Some of the comments here are good examples of why.
Regulating the rights and privileges of an individual by his membership in a group is the very essence of collectivism. You will not win by embracing the fundamental principle of your enemy.
Hi Mike,
The 4th paragraph down describing communism,"A group of Professional Revolutionaries..." and the 5th paragraph.."Briefly the left wing is intent to destroy the exixting society and replace it with one of its own design!!" Isn't that what the triumverate,"'Bama,Pull-losey and Reed" are doing as we speak?!!...Only thing I gotta say is..."Whenever the legislators endeavour to takeaway and destroy the property of the people, or reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon 'absolved' from any further obedience."..John Locke.
"III"
skybill
Jon sez: "...freedom of association is the freedom of the christian association to deny christian marriage to whoever they like."
Backed up, of course, by the coercive power of the state which you can use to gain advantage for yourself by denying it to others.
Nice.
MarkOfAFreeman sez: "...and make the legal contract an option, without all the tax benefits."
Bingo! Give the man a cigar!
There should be no such thing as "a joint (tax) return". There shouldn't be a tax return, period, but let's not go there yet.)
I'd like to say that THIS is what the fight against so-called gay marriage is all about, but I doubt most Christians (sic) have thought about it that fully. They just know in their hearts that gays are not "real" people.
Gay? Be gay, I don't care. I don't want to see it in public. And if gays want to be in 'legal' union call it something other than marriage. The definition of that word is already taken.
I suggest 'kinkered.'
"Hi, this is my kink. I'm the kinkee and we're kinkered."
SameNoKami
III
III
rexxhead sez: Bingo! Give the man a cigar!
Heh. Never used a tobacco product in my life, but will gladly light up a stoggie to celebrate the day we restore this repubilc, God willing. Especially if our current tyrannts outlaw them.
We used to all be gay until recent years. Life used to be gay. Now decent folk don't have anything to be gay about because the perverts have taken over.
Be gay. Just don't be queer.
There was soooooooo much more presented here...
Why get bogged down in all of the gay crap?
There is some serious SH*T going on over there which we all could learn from...
I've said my piece...
G III
Post a Comment