M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Some of my best friends and family are straights....but that does not give straights permission to vote away my civil rights.What does slavery have to do with gay sex and the gay sex culture?[
And instead you got two entire testimonies which should have been more sufficient to prove that the bible was, indeed, used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation. And apparently, you weren't even denying that it was (and is).
If they can't make the slavery analogy, their argument falls apart. Thats why they keep bringing it up.
uh, no, we bring it up because your main justification for your homophobia is that God says it's bad.
And even though you ignore a whole list of things God says is bad, you want to harp on this one thing.
But the bible says slavery is okay, and people used it to justify slavery right up until the civil war.
nothing you said is true. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. I want them to be able to have a legal binding committment to their same sex partners.
But their union is not, and will never be, a marriage. The gays that I know agree with that, BTW.
What does whether you have the right to marry or not have to do with forcing other people to do business with you?
Here's a DIRECT analogy.
It has been ruled that we have an absolute right to own and carry weapons, yet many businesses are posting signs stating that they don't want to do business with people who are carrying guns. How is that NOT a direct violation of your precious civil rights if you have the right to force people to do business with you?
Hint, you do NOT have the right to force people to do business with you. And frankly if you would accept and acknowledge that fact, you would have the higher moral ground that these nincompoops who for whatever reason believe the government should define marriage.
As opposed to the NINCOMPOOPS of little historical understanding regarding their nation's sociopolitical ethos and the ontological realities thereof, eh? Even less understanding of human nature? Those lacking sufficient life experience and learning? Those minds as closed as a slammed shut door to the fact of the underlying imperative of limited, republican government and the Republic's social contract?
As long as homofascists insist that the government define what marriage is (Knock. Knock. Anybody home?), the wise and perceptive patriots defending the inalienable rights of ideological free-association and private property will continue to oppose their homofascist agenda. Right. As if their agenda is not in fact about the government defining marriage and the ongoing governmental regulation of marriage that they may impose their sexual relativism on everybody. LOL! Just how blind are you?
For all your pretensions of defending liberty, you're still playing in the sandbox of the superficial and niave, STTAB.
________________________________
Nevertheless, the emboldened portion of your post is outstanding.
You are doing the same though when you insist that marriage NOT be defined as including gay marriage. Do you not get that?
Wrong! What you don't get is that I'm not the one trying to argue the inalienable human rights of the individual out of existence by imposing my religion on them/making them go to my church, as it were, or by bringing my church into their lives or onto their property, making them worship my God or participate in my religious observances.
Open your mind. A little intellectual empathy is required here. Bromides won't due.
I don't care whom they marry, so to speak. It's none of my business. With the removal of anti-sodomy laws, which I supported and actively fought for, who or what is stopping them from "marrying" one another? Hello!
I'm not talking about prohibiting them from "marrying," I'm talking about prohibiting the government, at either the federal or the state level, respectively, from officially redefining marriage in the absence of a constitutional amendment granting them that power. It's bogus. This nation was not founded on the pagan notion that absolute human rights are subject to being cancelled out by the collectivist mobocracy of sexual relativism. Got oxymoron? But, no doubt, you can't follow that.
Try to follow this.
But given the fact that the law of the land has been effectively amended, not by the means of Article V, mind you, not in accordance with the means outlined in the Constitution, a power vested in the people as they so direct the legislative branch or the several states via the two-thirds rule, not in accordance with the principle of limited republican government, which you're so big on only when you're not so big on it, as you don't grasp the realities of it; but in accordance with the usurpative construct of the living Constitution via judicial review.
The difference between you and me is that you wax poetic about "the theory of live and let live" as the reality of the situation flies right over your head. The reality is that the political left doesn’t give a damn about inalienable rights; it’s agenda is to destroy those who do.
Lefty is not going to support the idea of getting the government out of the private affairs of family or marriage . . . are you watching now? . . . not now, not ever! And he is not going to recognize the right of Christians, for example, to refuse him service that entangles them in his pagan rituals . . . not now, not ever!
Got reality yet?
And since these are the only two options that would correct the assault perpetrated on the foundational imperative of limited, republican government relative to inalienable human rights in the real world: they have left patriots who live in the real word, not in your fantasy world, no other course of action but to resist them, from here on out, on every front. What don’t you get about the resistance of defensive force exerted against the tyranny of initial force?
