I only disagree with him on one point. I believe that your rights end where the other guy's rights begin. Gays getting married does not infringe on anyone's rights and therefore is ineligible for government intervention or legislation banning same. Saying that allowing gays to marry is redefining marriage is nothing more than symantics. Who told us we have to ALLOW someone to get married? Does anyone have to allow me, a straight guy, to get married?
One other point, you should never allow government to do to someone else something you wouldn't want them to do to you. If we allow the government to determine who someone can marry, anyone at all, it is only a matter of time before they apply that power to YOU.
Good guy. Definitely a states-rights guy. Hate how he tows the neocon "let's bomb iran b/c they might bomb us" preventative-war line, instead of asking "why do they want to bomb us" and realizing our aggressive foreign policy and empire building is really wizzing in their Corn Flakes.
gijeff....your thoughts are with the erroneous opinion that "gays"...Homosexuals and Lesbians...have a "right" to marriage. They do not because marriage was instituted by God for the purpose of pro-creation. Homosexuality is an unnatural act and also a grievous sin. So saith He who created Man and sexuality. Therefore even the idea of adoption is out of the question.
if marriage isn't a government construct...but a construct of God and implemented by the church..
why not get government out of the equation, and let the churches decide?
hey, if you're gay you can find a church that will marry you, more power to you!
if God says it's wrong, that's between them and God, not them and the rest of us. and I don't have the right to punish people for their quibbles with God. that's HIS job.
I agree with Joe, but would add further that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. gifeff is wrong because he wants to redefine marriage. This has nothing to do with the government. If two perverts want to shack up, there is nothing to stop them, but you can't call it marriage because it isn't. That said, I agree with gijeff in that the government has no authority to "allow" or "disallow" that for which it was never given authority. But the issue is small compared to the fact that while we argue this, the government rapes us all.
Far as I'm concerned the government ought to only be allowed to issue certificates of civil union. Marriage is a religious rite and should be performed by your church. Sorry, but Iran as well as the RIFs hate us because our existence puts the lie to their dream of Islamic world domination. Nothing we could do short of submission to slavery will satisfy them. So, I say nuke em and do it now! Lastly, listening to the whole interview it became clear to me that the wrong black man is president. I'd vote for Sowell in a heartbeat.
He is one of my favorites although I had only read his articles and hadn't listened to him before. A gentleman, humble and with a great sense of humor. A kindred soul.
I don't believe anyone has a right to anything not outlined in the constitution, except to be left in peace as long as they leave everyone ELSE's rights the hell alone.
I believe in the preamble to the constitution it says Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. One could very easily make the case that having a family falls under the pursuit of happiness clause.
Gays getting married affects nobody but themselves. Some people just have too much time on their hands to worry about what other people are doing and want to tell them how to do it. Sound familiar....maybe sound like a liberal/progressive?
If they want to co-habitate and call it "macaroni", marry a houseplant, hell one woman in France married the Eiffel tower, it's ALL none of my business. None of it affects my rights, none of it affects me in the least. I find it a bit distasteful, but it's not MY life, so I don't think about it. It's none of my business. You try that, don't think about it. See if that can't work for you.
Those of you that are offended by their shacking up and calling it anything they want....need to man up and grow a thicker skin. Only LIBERALS feel they have a right not to be offended. This country may have been founded by very religious men, but they had the wisdom to know they shouldn't force their moral code on everyone else. We have laws, which are a sort of aggregate of what everyone considers acceptable and we MUST adhere to those to live here, a more astingent moral code is an optional extra. Gays don't go around trying to force you to live THEIR way, why do you all feel you should force them to live yours, or not live theirs?
You need to step outside your religion just for a second and think about the bigger picture. If one religion can dictate how we will live our lives in this country, what happens if that religion is not YOUR religion? Would we accept it if Muslims tried to get laws passed to make us all live by THEIR code? OH, HELL NO! Try the shoe on the other foot and see if it's not an eye opener.
Any time you attempt to insinuate your wishes into someone else's life, you are wrong, period, full stop, end of story. If they are not breaking the law or infringing on your rights as outlined in the constitution and bill of rights, then shut up and get on with YOUR life, I am sure you can find something more productive and rewarding to do than trying to make other people behave as you wish them to, rather than as they wish to. If not, well then, you will be a very frustrated person, because it is not within our nature to be ruled over.....that's why this country exists in the first place.
One more point, do you trust that the federal government, having banned gay marriage will not eventually turn their eye and hand toward banning conservative marriage, banning militia marriage, banning republican marriage? Once they have that foot in the door, they will never remove it, history shows it very clearly....they NEVER DO.
Whenever you attempt to force someone else to live YOUR way instead of THEIR way, you are WRONG, full stop....end of story. If they are not infringing on your rights as outlined by the constitution and bill of rights, then you have no right to attempt to interfere in their lives.
I thought it was only liberals and progressives that thought they had the right not to be offended. Some of us need to man up, grow a thicker skin, and live OUR OWN lives instead of trying to control everyone else's.
Our founders were very religious men, very good men, and very wise men. They knew that you cannot force your moral code on someone else, and shouldn't, so they wrote it FIRST in the bill of rights. We have laws which are essentially an aggregate of what everyone considers acceptable behavior, and allows us to live in peace with one another, and we MUST follow those. Additional, more strict codes of conduct are allowed, and even encouraged, but not required.
Those of you that want to make others live their lives the way you want instead of the way they want, well you are bound for frustration and disappointment. It is not in our nature to be ruled over or conquered...that's why this country exists in the first place.
One more thought, step outside of your religion for just a second and think what could happen if we allow one religion to dictate how we live...what if that religion is NOT YOURS. Sharia law comes to mind. Would we accept this? Oh, Hell No! Nor should we accept any OTHER religion dictating how we live our lives. Not even yours, nor even mine.
gijeff has it right... Enabling the government to ban something for religious reasons or because it is an "unnatural act" just gets their foot in the door. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time before they start banning the things YOU do for the same reasons.
We've already seen that it goes downhill from there. Then if Muslims get in power, all of a sudden Sharia law is in effect. If radical Vegetarians get into power, now eating meat is "an unnatural act."
If it doesn't hurt anyone else, it should be legal. Period. Anything else and we'll end up right back where we are now.
Strictly following the Constitution creates freedom for all no matter who is in power. Under Constitutional law, I couldn't care less if Muslims, gays, hippies, or conservatives are in office because they can't restrict ANY of my rights.
It never ceases to amaze me how many supposed supporters of liberty advocate to 'legalize gay marriage'. This is another example of going after the wrong thing.
Allen's response to Joe is dead on. The mistake that was made was letting the government get its nose under the marriage tent in the first place. And by the way, I say this as an evangelical Christian.
1. Eliminate the Income Tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.
2. Implement a consumption tax (if any tax at all).
3. Clarify (somehow, legislatively or via constitutional amendment) that marriage is within the purview of the religious freedom portion of the 1st Amendment and that there should be no government involvement whatsoever. And because of the 14th Amendment, states can't be involved, either.
Problem solved. No unequal tax treatment. No objections from most Christians.
Heck, with what some advocates of 'gay marriage' are proposing, even single guys who just happen to be nothing more than housemates, but have no sexual involvement, might have objections. Has anyone even thought about the ridiculousness of trying to prove to the government you are gay and not just a couple of guys sharing a house? Why would anyone want to? For the tax, benefit, of course.
Dr. Sowell may be wrong, but not in the way some are suggesting, and not so egregiously. He's correct that we cannot allow the government to redefine marriage. But it's time to roll back the clock and get all levels of government out of the marriage business altogether.
I forgot to mention one point. gijeff says: I don't believe anyone has a right to anything not outlined in the constitution, except to be left in peace as long as they leave everyone ELSE's rights the hell alone.
If there is anything clearer, gijeff, that you have no clue what the purpose of the US Constitution is, the intent of the founding generation, and the fight of our lives we are in now, I don't know what it would be.
The US Constitution was intended to place strict limits on government. If you really believe that no one has a right to anything not outlined in the US Constitution, then what, pray tell, is intended by the 10th Amendment? Please, do enlighten us.
Now you're just picking nits. By what I said I meant enforceable rights, rights that the Federal Government needs to intervene regarding. Unspoken, but clear. By choosing to ignore the qualifier I put on that statement, you would appear to be picking a fight without cause. The right to be left alone as long as you're not infringing on anyone else's rights pretty much covers everything else. Were you deliberately being obtuse or do you really not get that?
Also, personal attacks, hmmm...really? Can't you disagree with someone without calling them names? Most folks get over that kind of thing about the time they hit the age of....oh I dunno, about ten.
Fact is we agree on most of the salient points.....
1. Eliminate the Income Tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.
2. Implement a consumption tax (if any tax at all).
3. Clarify (somehow, legislatively or via constitutional amendment) that marriage is within the purview of the religious freedom portion of the 1st Amendment and that there should be no government involvement whatsoever. And because of the 14th Amendment, states can't be involved, either.
I am with you on all of that, except I don't think that we have the right to attack and insult people we disagree with. Strangely it doesn't appear we disagree about much, so I fail to understand why you felt a need to attack me. It's just childish and harmful to the goal of open and civil debate. Consider yourself enlightened.
I chalk this up to poor wording on your part, but do acknowledge that in large part we agree, gijeff. And what name, exactly, did I call you?
One minor point I can't agree with is that there is no right to insult, though it's obviously a poor debating tactic. It's tantamount to saying that there is a right to not be offend.
Anyhow, no offense intend, and sorry for the harshness.
16 comments:
I only disagree with him on one point. I believe that your rights end where the other guy's rights begin. Gays getting married does not infringe on anyone's rights and therefore is ineligible for government intervention or legislation banning same. Saying that allowing gays to marry is redefining marriage is nothing more than symantics. Who told us we have to ALLOW someone to get married? Does anyone have to allow me, a straight guy, to get married?
One other point, you should never allow government to do to someone else something you wouldn't want them to do to you. If we allow the government to determine who someone can marry, anyone at all, it is only a matter of time before they apply that power to YOU.
GIJeff
Link?
Good guy. Definitely a states-rights guy. Hate how he tows the neocon "let's bomb iran b/c they might bomb us" preventative-war line, instead of asking "why do they want to bomb us" and realizing our aggressive foreign policy and empire building is really wizzing in their Corn Flakes.
gijeff....your thoughts are with the erroneous opinion that "gays"...Homosexuals and Lesbians...have a "right" to marriage. They do not because marriage was instituted by God for the purpose of pro-creation. Homosexuality is an unnatural act and also a grievous sin. So saith He who created Man and sexuality. Therefore even the idea of adoption is out of the question.
so, joe..
if marriage isn't a government construct...but a construct of God and implemented by the church..
why not get government out of the equation, and let the churches decide?
hey, if you're gay you can find a church that will marry you, more power to you!
if God says it's wrong, that's between them and God, not them and the rest of us. and I don't have the right to punish people for their quibbles with God. that's HIS job.
I agree with Joe, but would add further that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. gifeff is wrong because he wants to redefine marriage. This has nothing to do with the government. If two perverts want to shack up, there is nothing to stop them, but you can't call it marriage because it isn't. That said, I agree with gijeff in that the government has no authority to "allow" or "disallow" that for which it was never given authority. But the issue is small compared to the fact that while we argue this, the government rapes us all.
Far as I'm concerned the government ought to only be allowed to issue certificates of civil union. Marriage is a religious rite and should be performed by your church.
Sorry, but Iran as well as the RIFs hate us because our existence puts the lie to their dream of Islamic world domination. Nothing we could do short of submission to slavery will satisfy them. So, I say nuke em and do it now!
Lastly, listening to the whole interview it became clear to me that the wrong black man is president. I'd vote for Sowell in a heartbeat.
He is one of my favorites although I had only read his articles and hadn't listened to him before. A gentleman, humble and with a great sense of humor. A kindred soul.
I don't believe anyone has a right to anything not outlined in the constitution, except to be left in peace as long as they leave everyone ELSE's rights the hell alone.
I believe in the preamble to the constitution it says Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. One could very easily make the case that having a family falls under the pursuit of happiness clause.
Gays getting married affects nobody but themselves. Some people just have too much time on their hands to worry about what other people are doing and want to tell them how to do it. Sound familiar....maybe sound like a liberal/progressive?
If they want to co-habitate and call it "macaroni", marry a houseplant, hell one woman in France married the Eiffel tower, it's ALL none of my business. None of it affects my rights, none of it affects me in the least. I find it a bit distasteful, but it's not MY life, so I don't think about it. It's none of my business. You try that, don't think about it. See if that can't work for you.
Those of you that are offended by their shacking up and calling it anything they want....need to man up and grow a thicker skin. Only LIBERALS feel they have a right not to be offended. This country may have been founded by very religious men, but they had the wisdom to know they shouldn't force their moral code on everyone else. We have laws, which are a sort of aggregate of what everyone considers acceptable and we MUST adhere to those to live here, a more astingent moral code is an optional extra. Gays don't go around trying to force you to live THEIR way, why do you all feel you should force them to live yours, or not live theirs?
You need to step outside your religion just for a second and think about the bigger picture. If one religion can dictate how we will live our lives in this country, what happens if that religion is not YOUR religion? Would we accept it if Muslims tried to get laws passed to make us all live by THEIR code? OH, HELL NO! Try the shoe on the other foot and see if it's not an eye opener.
Any time you attempt to insinuate your wishes into someone else's life, you are wrong, period, full stop, end of story. If they are not breaking the law or infringing on your rights as outlined in the constitution and bill of rights, then shut up and get on with YOUR life, I am sure you can find something more productive and rewarding to do than trying to make other people behave as you wish them to, rather than as they wish to. If not, well then, you will be a very frustrated person, because it is not within our nature to be ruled over.....that's why this country exists in the first place.
One more point, do you trust that the federal government, having banned gay marriage will not eventually turn their eye and hand toward banning conservative marriage, banning militia marriage, banning republican marriage? Once they have that foot in the door, they will never remove it, history shows it very clearly....they NEVER DO.
GIJeff
Whenever you attempt to force someone else to live YOUR way instead of THEIR way, you are WRONG, full stop....end of story. If they are not infringing on your rights as outlined by the constitution and bill of rights, then you have no right to attempt to interfere in their lives.
I thought it was only liberals and progressives that thought they had the right not to be offended. Some of us need to man up, grow a thicker skin, and live OUR OWN lives instead of trying to control everyone else's.
Our founders were very religious men, very good men, and very wise men. They knew that you cannot force your moral code on someone else, and shouldn't, so they wrote it FIRST in the bill of rights. We have laws which are essentially an aggregate of what everyone considers acceptable behavior, and allows us to live in peace with one another, and we MUST follow those. Additional, more strict codes of conduct are allowed, and even encouraged, but not required.
Those of you that want to make others live their lives the way you want instead of the way they want, well you are bound for frustration and disappointment. It is not in our nature to be ruled over or conquered...that's why this country exists in the first place.
One more thought, step outside of your religion for just a second and think what could happen if we allow one religion to dictate how we live...what if that religion is NOT YOURS. Sharia law comes to mind. Would we accept this? Oh, Hell No! Nor should we accept any OTHER religion dictating how we live our lives. Not even yours, nor even mine.
GIJeff
Apologies for the double post, I got a message saying the first one didn't go through due to length, so rewrote it. O_o
GIJeff
gijeff has it right... Enabling the government to ban something for religious reasons or because it is an "unnatural act" just gets their foot in the door. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time before they start banning the things YOU do for the same reasons.
We've already seen that it goes downhill from there. Then if Muslims get in power, all of a sudden Sharia law is in effect. If radical Vegetarians get into power, now eating meat is "an unnatural act."
If it doesn't hurt anyone else, it should be legal. Period. Anything else and we'll end up right back where we are now.
Strictly following the Constitution creates freedom for all no matter who is in power. Under Constitutional law, I couldn't care less if Muslims, gays, hippies, or conservatives are in office because they can't restrict ANY of my rights.
It never ceases to amaze me how many supposed supporters of liberty advocate to 'legalize gay marriage'. This is another example of going after the wrong thing.
Allen's response to Joe is dead on. The mistake that was made was letting the government get its nose under the marriage tent in the first place. And by the way, I say this as an evangelical Christian.
1. Eliminate the Income Tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.
2. Implement a consumption tax (if any tax at all).
3. Clarify (somehow, legislatively or via constitutional amendment) that marriage is within the purview of the religious freedom portion of the 1st Amendment and that there should be no government involvement whatsoever. And because of the 14th Amendment, states can't be involved, either.
Problem solved. No unequal tax treatment. No objections from most Christians.
Heck, with what some advocates of 'gay marriage' are proposing, even single guys who just happen to be nothing more than housemates, but have no sexual involvement, might have objections. Has anyone even thought about the ridiculousness of trying to prove to the government you are gay and not just a couple of guys sharing a house? Why would anyone want to? For the tax, benefit, of course.
Dr. Sowell may be wrong, but not in the way some are suggesting, and not so egregiously. He's correct that we cannot allow the government to redefine marriage. But it's time to roll back the clock and get all levels of government out of the marriage business altogether.
I forgot to mention one point. gijeff says: I don't believe anyone has a right to anything not outlined in the constitution, except to be left in peace as long as they leave everyone ELSE's rights the hell alone.
If there is anything clearer, gijeff, that you have no clue what the purpose of the US Constitution is, the intent of the founding generation, and the fight of our lives we are in now, I don't know what it would be.
The US Constitution was intended to place strict limits on government. If you really believe that no one has a right to anything not outlined in the US Constitution, then what, pray tell, is intended by the 10th Amendment? Please, do enlighten us.
Markofafreeman,
Now you're just picking nits. By what I said I meant enforceable rights, rights that the Federal Government needs to intervene regarding. Unspoken, but clear. By choosing to ignore the qualifier I put on that statement, you would appear to be picking a fight without cause. The right to be left alone as long as you're not infringing on anyone else's rights pretty much covers everything else. Were you deliberately being obtuse or do you really not get that?
Also, personal attacks, hmmm...really? Can't you disagree with someone without calling them names? Most folks get over that kind of thing about the time they hit the age of....oh I dunno, about ten.
Fact is we agree on most of the salient points.....
1. Eliminate the Income Tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.
2. Implement a consumption tax (if any tax at all).
3. Clarify (somehow, legislatively or via constitutional amendment) that marriage is within the purview of the religious freedom portion of the 1st Amendment and that there should be no government involvement whatsoever. And because of the 14th Amendment, states can't be involved, either.
I am with you on all of that, except I don't think that we have the right to attack and insult people we disagree with. Strangely it doesn't appear we disagree about much, so I fail to understand why you felt a need to attack me. It's just childish and harmful to the goal of open and civil debate. Consider yourself enlightened.
GIJeff
I chalk this up to poor wording on your part, but do acknowledge that in large part we agree, gijeff. And what name, exactly, did I call you?
One minor point I can't agree with is that there is no right to insult, though it's obviously a poor debating tactic. It's tantamount to saying that there is a right to not be offend.
Anyhow, no offense intend, and sorry for the harshness.
Post a Comment