Rick Santorum Gets Booed After Back-and-Forth on Same-Sex Marriage at New Hampshire College Event

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

RP, FTW!

Part of the problem with gay marriage is marriage in general. Why is it the government's business who you choose to be religiously connected to? When we gave spouses (or next of kin) legal rights by default we interjected government into religious institutions and practices. What we need to do is take the government out of it.

A solution for a LOT of "problems"

[Danno 1,228]

I'm OK with this. How would it hurt you or anyone else?

How is it less damaging than allowing Katy Perry to marry a man for a year or Kim Kardashian to marry a man for what, 18 days?

This is the problem I have with the Libertarian approach on several fronts.

With them -Every man is an island.

Let them do what they want just so that is does not effect me.

Ahhh but it always does gary.

Example- People are free by law and social norms to now live promiscuous life styles.

As I pointed out early today, 91% of children of single parents were recipients of food stamps.

This same demographic of kids growing up in broken homes (or in homes that were never connected) has filled our Jails and treatment centers, they in turn create more children who will be a drag on society.

(Not all are... but the rates are much higher)

I agree, a 45 year old man marrying his 16 year old daughter does not personally "hurt me".... as you put it but, to accept your logic one must deny that certain things (we used to call vise) are social toxins or atleast they add a pollutant to the culture which does effect us.

SOmethings have a direct appreciated injury but other things, such as dumping my old motor oil in the back yard takes a little more effort to put your finger on who was even harmed harmed by it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is the problem I have with the Libertarian approach on several fronts.

With them -Every man is an island.

Let them do what they want just so that is does not effect me.

Ahhh but it always does gary.

Example- People are free by law and social norms to now live promiscuous life styles.

As I pointed out early today, 91% of children of single parents were recipients of food stamps.

This same demographic of kids growing up in broken homes (or in homes that were never connected) has filled our Jails and treatment centers, they in turn create more children who will be a drag on society.

(Not all are... but the rates are much higher)

I agree, a 45 year old man marrying his 16 year old daughter does not personally "hurt me".... as you put it but, to accept your logic one must deny that certain things (we used to call vise) are social toxins or atleast they add a pollutant to the culture which does effect us.

SOmethings have a direct appreciated injury but other things, such as dumping my old motor oil in the back yard takes a little more effort to put your finger on who was even harmed harmed by it.

Nothing in your babbling has anything to do with marriage...gay or straight. If you can provide statistics that children in 2 parent homes with gay marriage get more in food stamps than children in 2 parent heterosexual marriages, then do so. Please.

I also fail to see how an incestuous marriage can be somehow worse than a simple incestuous relationship. Can you explain that?

There seems to be this fallacy that if we do not allow "certain" people to get married, then those things do not happen. That's stupid.

I also would be surprised to learn that you did not embrace the Libertarian ideals when they apply to something YOU like to do. Such as freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, individual responsibility, oh yeah you like that! But when it comes to individual liberty...Oh, hold the phone!

It is not about what you or I like or even think. I am not gay, have no interest in men (are you kidding me!!!!) and do not have any gay friends and do not want any, but I do not concern myself with what they do in their private life.

[Danno 1,228]

I also would be surprised to learn that you did not embrace the Libertarian ideals when they apply to something YOU like to do. Such as freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, individual responsibility, oh yeah you like that! But when it comes to individual liberty...Oh, hold the phone!

It is not about what you or I like or even think. I am not gay, have no interest in men (are you kidding me!!!!) and do not have any gay friends and do not want any, but I do not concern myself with what they do in their private life.

Get real my friend, we all embrace different parts of philosophies which suite us.

IN your case you embrace a current understanding of

'libertarianism" ..... tell me..where in this country has those concepts EVER flourished? ...The idea that the State has no place to set laws concerning morals?

You guys say you "just want to get back to the Constitution" you must disown all of American history in order to embrace those ideas.

The very laws which you go on and on about where Much more in practice and acceptable by the Founders themselves.

So tell me, where do you get this notion that the STate has no right to enforce social norms?

And why didn't the Founders revolt against these laws instead of helping to establish them as many did within their own states?

I beginning to unravel whats going on with the D.O.P.E.S. (Disciples of Paul Everywhere).

Ron Paul says "The federal govt has no right to do X".... and his uniformed followers think this applies to any level of Gov't.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Get real my friend, we all embrace different parts of philosophies which suite us.

IN your case you embrace a current understanding of

'libertarianism" ..... tell me..where in this country has those concepts EVER flourished? ...The idea that the State has no place to set laws concerning morals?

You guys say you "just want to get back to the Constitution" you must disown all of American history in order to embrace those ideas.

The very laws which you go on and on about where Much more in practice and acceptable by the Founders themselves.

So tell me, where do you get this notion that the STate has no right to enforce social norms?

And why didn't the Founders revolt against these laws instead of helping to establish them as many did within their own states?

I beginning to unravel whats going on with the D.O.P.E.S. (Disciples of Paul Everywhere).

Ron Paul says "The federal govt has no right to do X".... and his uniformed followers think this applies to any level of Gov't.

I am not a Ron Paul fan.

They have not flourished because it is not in the interest of politicians for it to flourish. They would have to make the laws putting themselves out of business. However it does not change my ideals and I do not compromise my beliefs.

[Danno 1,228]

I am not a Ron Paul fan.

They have not flourished because it is not in the interest of politicians for it to flourish. They would have to make the laws putting themselves out of business. However it does not change my ideals and I do not compromise my beliefs.

Well I respect that you hold fast to your beliefs especially since they have never been put into practice anywhere at anytime since before even the signing of the Mayflower Compact.

It would indeed be a lesson of value.

MayFlower Compact 1620

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.[12]

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I am not a Ron Paul fan.

They have not flourished because it is not in the interest of politicians for it to flourish. They would have to make the laws putting themselves out of business. However it does not change my ideals and I do not compromise my beliefs.

Come on Gary, you know you're wearing a Ron Paul uniform right now!

[james&olya 1,121]

This is the problem I have with the Libertarian approach on several fronts.

With them -Every man is an island.

Let them do what they want just so that is does not effect me.

Ahhh but it always does gary.

Example- People are free by law and social norms to now live promiscuous life styles.

As I pointed out early today, 91% of children of single parents were recipients of food stamps.

This same demographic of kids growing up in broken homes (or in homes that were never connected) has filled our Jails and treatment centers, they in turn create more children who will be a drag on society.

(Not all are... but the rates are much higher)

I agree, a 45 year old man marrying his 16 year old daughter does not personally "hurt me".... as you put it but, to accept your logic one must deny that certain things (we used to call vise) are social toxins or atleast they add a pollutant to the culture which does effect us.

SOmethings have a direct appreciated injury but other things, such as dumping my old motor oil in the back yard takes a little more effort to put your finger on who was even harmed harmed by it.

You seem to accept correlation as equivalent to causation! There are many factors and potential explanations for these phenomena. Look at the situation in Iceland for their statistics on out-of-wedlock births!

The best reason for government to get their nose out of it has to do with our most basic rights, life, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!! In addition congress is enjoined to not make ANY law relative to establishment of religion! Yes, it is right there in our constitution! And when I hear you religious types speak of the "sanctity" of marriage you tend to prove that point!

[james&olya 1,121]

Well I respect that you hold fast to your beliefs especially since they have never been put into practice anywhere at anytime since before even the signing of the Mayflower Compact.

It would indeed be a lesson of value.

MayFlower Compact 1620

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.[12]

You are aware, I hope, that a revolution occurred a few years back, 1776 actually! The rebels won and set up a different government and with something they called a 'constitution'! It is still in effect and one of its features is language establishing a SEPARATION of church and state!

[Danno 1,228]

You are aware, I hope, that a revolution occurred a few years back, 1776 actually! The rebels won and set up a different government and with something they called a 'constitution'! It is still in effect and one of its features is language establishing a SEPARATION of church and state!

Well to be a little more precise they prevented The US Congress from Establishing a state religion or prohibiting the "free exercise thereof".

Q: What does that have to do with the State of NJ and their marriage laws?

Q If you think continuing the necessary practice of marriage law somehow establishes a Church.... which church does it establish?

[james&olya 1,121]

Well to be a little more precise they prevented The US Congress from Establishing a state religion or prohibiting the "free exercise thereof".

Q: What does that have to do with the State of NJ and their marriage laws?

Q If you think continuing the necessary practice of marriage law somehow establishes a Church.... which church does it establish?

Do you or do you not believe that marriage is "sacred"?

If you do believe marriage is "sacred" then please explain exactly what "sacred" is.

Your answers may show what religion YOU believe the state establishes!

My right to have "free exercise thereof" of my chosen religious belief includes the right that I choose not to indulge in religion! Why then must I be subject to "sacred" marriage definitions?

[james&olya 1,121]

...The idea that the State has no place to set laws concerning morals?

So tell me, where do you get this notion that the STate has no right to enforce social norms?

[/b][/color]

You are hopeless!

[Danno 1,228]

You are hopeless!

You seem to have run out of stupid things to say?

Just to confound you a bit further, is nude dancing legally prohibited in many places due to morals or health concerns?

Is Sex in the park illegal due to local morals or due to zoning regulations?

Are bigotry laws being enforced today in many places because there is an obvious breech of morals or as a environmental concern?

What is so alarming (if I understand you correctly), is that you actually think Laws and community morals have no connection.

In my prior post I asked 2 simple questions, please, take a moment and answer them.

----------------------------------------------

Well to be a little more precise they prevented The US Congress from Establishing a state religion or prohibiting the "free exercise thereof".

Q: What does that have to do with the State of NJ and their marriage laws?

Q If you think continuing the necessary practice of marriage law somehow establishes a Church.... which church does it establish?

[Danno 1,228]

Do you or do you not believe that marriage is "sacred"?

If you do believe marriage is "sacred" then please explain exactly what "sacred" is.

Your answers may show what religion YOU believe the state establishes!

My right to have "free exercise thereof" of my chosen religious belief includes the right that I choose not to indulge in religion! Why then must I be subject to "sacred" marriage definitions?

For many their actual Birth date and or time of Death holds some spiritual importance as well..... no one suggests that the state by issuing Birth and Death certificates are actually plotting to Start a State sanctioned Church.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You seem to have run out of stupid things to say?

Unlike Danno.