Ben Carson Wants to Censor Speech

[NYcarbineer]

Kim Davis denied them and the Court dealt with her accordingly.

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Government benefits given to one group must be given to all who meet the same criteria. A state cannot deny drivers licenses to women, for example. Nor can they deny marriage licenses to same sex couples.

The criteria is being able to form a reproductive unit. Queer couples don't meet the criteria.

Show me one state law that requires that 'reproductive' unit formation.

ONE.

 

[bripat9643]

So Democrats pass 800,000 of government regulations to control you, whereas some Republicans want to pass one, and the Republicans are the party of big government?

"logic" like that is the reason everyone laughs at liberals.

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

Oh puhleeze. You can't possibly be that stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Government benefits given to one group must be given to all who meet the same criteria. A state cannot deny drivers licenses to women, for example. Nor can they deny marriage licenses to same sex couples.

The criteria is being able to form a reproductive unit. Queer couples don't meet the criteria.

Show me one state law that requires that 'reproductive' unit formation.

ONE.

They all did prior to the queer campaign to overturn the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't believe these people still think they haven't lost this argument.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't believe these people still think they haven't lost this argument.

I can't believe you idiots think you've won it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

Oh puhleeze. You can't possibly be that stupid.

Cite the state law. ONE is all you need to show me.

 

[Rustic]

Your logic is what is strange. Do you have any clue about the nutty, extreme stuff that some college "professors" have said in recent years? Any clue? Such as bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theories that claim that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airliner, that the WTC buildings were brought down with planted explosives, etc., etc. All Carson is saying is that if a college knowingly allows professors to keep spewing this kind of radicalism, they should lose their federal funding. It's about time.

Those professors would be free to keep teaching their nutty stuff outside the university. They would be free to keep spreading their nuttiness on their personal websites. Etc., etc., etc. But if they wanted to teach at a college that's getting federal money, they would have to stop teaching such stuff to their students. That is hardly an extreme measure.

Universities are traditionally places of free thought, challenging norms, etc. Why does the government have to mess with them? There are universities that are pure conservative nuttiness and there are universities that are pure liberal nuttiness and there is a lot in between. They aren't federal institutions like public schools. As long as they meet the requirements for accreditation, provide a decent education - who the F cares? If a student doesn't like it they can transfer to another place.

Talk about indoctrination - that is EXACTLY what Carson and others are proposing by attempting to control what they teach from a political perspective. AND WHO is going to determine what is the "correct" politics?

So, what's your point??

Who, in this pro-"small government" party determines what constitutes "radical" politics that needs to be squashed? Next time, just read the exchanges.

That is why the only the basics should be taught leaving opinion out entirely.
Unfortunately, progressives have left a big pile of steaming sh!t in our institutes of higher learning, that being political correctness.

If you were talking about public schools, which are completely taxpayer funded - I agree. Universities and higher education, are completely different. You just want them all covered with your own steaming pile of shit.

All public funded... Should have no opinion invited.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So Democrats pass 800,000 of government regulations to control you, whereas some Republicans want to pass one, and the Republicans are the party of big government?

"logic" like that is the reason everyone laughs at liberals.

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

marriage has never been a right until falsely an loosely interpreted by the supreme ct.
Since this was one person acting in this instance, and not a community as a whole, your assumption that a right was denied by Christians fails. Even though we all know that marriage is not a right.

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

Maybe not, but considering that all states marriage license specifically requested information for a Bride, and a Groom, bride and groom being defined gender, it is fair to say that all states saw marriage as a joining of a male and a female.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't believe these people still think they haven't lost this argument.

I can't believe you idiots think you've won it.

Are gays getting married? Is the government there to step in and protect their right to do so?

Yes and Yes.

You lose.

 

[bripat9643]

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

Oh puhleeze. You can't possibly be that stupid.

Cite the state law. ONE is all you need to show me.

It appears you are that stupid.

It's curios that liberal turds think acting like an imbecile is some kind of winning strategy.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't believe these people still think they haven't lost this argument.

I can't believe you idiots think you've won it.

Are gays getting married? Is the government there to step in and protect their right to do so?

Yes and Yes.

You lose.

You won the legal battle because the court system is infested with liberal judges. You lost at the ballot box and in terms of logic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not only one - they're reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women, what is considered marriage, and now this.

Remember - it's not the Dems who run on the platform of "less government".

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

Marriage as a right was affirmed in Loving v Virginia, 1967 - neither falsely nor loosely.

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

Maybe not, but considering that all states marriage license specifically requested information for a Bride, and a Groom, bride and groom being defined gender, it is fair to say that all states saw marriage as a joining of a male and a female.

Well what they saw isn't what was and is.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I can't believe these people still think they haven't lost this argument.

I'm glad that gays can get married now.
however I find it hard to believe that there are still people claiming that marriage is a right regardless of the participants involved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

Oh puhleeze. You can't possibly be that stupid.

Cite the state law. ONE is all you need to show me.

It appears you are that stupid.

It's curios that liberal turds think acting like an imbecile is some kind of winning strategy.

You claimed that state law requires reproduction ability before one could get a marriage license.

I'm asking you to cite ONE state law that said that or says that. You have 50 chances to be right.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Government has always regulated what is considered marriage, and it still does, so that argument is pure hooey. How are they "reaching their tentacles into the private lives of women," by allowing private businesses decide what benefits they are willing to provide?

The government benefits that go with it are not a right. They are privileges. People are free to make any contractual arrangements they wish, but that doesn't make them entitled to any government sanction for their arrangements.

Agree - they aren't a "right". But individuals have a right to be treated equally - you can't give benefits to one marriage and not another when they are all recognized as marriages under the law. Like interracial marriage.

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

Maybe not, but considering that all states marriage license specifically requested information for a Bride, and a Groom, bride and groom being defined gender, it is fair to say that all states saw marriage as a joining of a male and a female.

Well what they saw isn't what was and is.

Really? they didn't see it as a male female union?
why was there even an argument for gay marriage, obviously its been going on for many years prior to the recent decision.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't believe these people still think they haven't lost this argument.

I'm glad that gays can get married now.
however I find it hard to believe that there are still people claiming that marriage is a right regardless of the participants involved.

Of course it's a right.

 

[Coyote]

Universities are traditionally places of free thought, challenging norms, etc. Why does the government have to mess with them? There are universities that are pure conservative nuttiness and there are universities that are pure liberal nuttiness and there is a lot in between. They aren't federal institutions like public schools. As long as they meet the requirements for accreditation, provide a decent education - who the F cares? If a student doesn't like it they can transfer to another place.

Talk about indoctrination - that is EXACTLY what Carson and others are proposing by attempting to control what they teach from a political perspective. AND WHO is going to determine what is the "correct" politics?

So, what's your point??

Who, in this pro-"small government" party determines what constitutes "radical" politics that needs to be squashed? Next time, just read the exchanges.

That is why the only the basics should be taught leaving opinion out entirely.
Unfortunately, progressives have left a big pile of steaming sh!t in our institutes of higher learning, that being political correctness.

If you were talking about public schools, which are completely taxpayer funded - I agree. Universities and higher education, are completely different. You just want them all covered with your own steaming pile of shit.

Taxpayers cover about 80% of the cost of public universities, so they are included in the shit.

No, they don't.

For example, here's a look at Rutgers: http://budgetfacts.rutgers.edu/sites/budgetfacts/files/revenue_sources_pie_12_2013.pdf

U. Washington: State Budget Information | Office of Planning & Budgeting

State funding for Universities have been systematically cut: States Are Still Funding Higher Education Below Pre-Recession Levels | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The purpose of a university education is not the same as public school.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I can't believe these people still think they haven't lost this argument.

I'm glad that gays can get married now.
however I find it hard to believe that there are still people claiming that marriage is a right regardless of the participants involved.

Of course it's a right.

no, its a privilege that is regulated by the state.

 

[bripat9643]

They are treated equally. Marriage is the union of a man and a women. It requires having the proper reproductive equipment. Two queers don't qualify any more than a blind man is qualified to drive.

No marriage isn't. There is no reproductive requirement in any marriage law in any state in the union.

Oh puhleeze. You can't possibly be that stupid.

Cite the state law. ONE is all you need to show me.

It appears you are that stupid.

It's curios that liberal turds think acting like an imbecile is some kind of winning strategy.

You claimed that state law requires reproduction ability before one could get a marriage license.

I'm asking you to cite ONE state law that said that or says that. You have 50 chances to be right.

That's not what I claimed. Once again, the queer defender is setting up a straw man.

 

[bripat9643]

So, what's your point??

Who, in this pro-"small government" party determines what constitutes "radical" politics that needs to be squashed? Next time, just read the exchanges.

That is why the only the basics should be taught leaving opinion out entirely.
Unfortunately, progressives have left a big pile of steaming sh!t in our institutes of higher learning, that being political correctness.

If you were talking about public schools, which are completely taxpayer funded - I agree. Universities and higher education, are completely different. You just want them all covered with your own steaming pile of shit.

Taxpayers cover about 80% of the cost of public universities, so they are included in the shit.

No, they don't.

For example, here's a look at Rutgers: http://budgetfacts.rutgers.edu/sites/budgetfacts/files/revenue_sources_pie_12_2013.pdf

U. Washington: State Budget Information | Office of Planning & Budgeting

State funding for Universities have been systematically cut: States Are Still Funding Higher Education Below Pre-Recession Levels | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The purpose of a university education is not the same as public school.

It appears Rutgers gets about 70% of it's revenue from the government