Obama Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Obama Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

  1. #21
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Actually, I believe marrage is between a man and woman, but I also think the Feds have nothing in it. This is a tough and touchy subject here in this country.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    So you are saying that you realy have nothing to back up your previous statement. I also see that you did not answer the question I previously posed, so I will state it again. Article 1 section 8 defines the powers of congress, these are referred to as congress's delegated powers. Where in that list of powers is congress given the power to regulate marriage, sexual intercourse, or reproduction?
    You are right, I have nothing to back my statement. That's why I said it was my opinion. It is interesting that progressive liberals can trash and interpret the Constitution any way they want to fit their agenda and it doesn't seem to matter. By the way if you are right how is it Constituional for the government to protect abortion on demand? Why is it if a pregnant woman is murdered it's considered a double homiside but if she gets an abortion it's to have a parasite removed.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    You are right, I have nothing to back my statement. That's why I said it was my opinion. It is interesting that progressive liberals can trash and interpret the Constitution any way they want to fit their agenda and it doesn't seem to matter. By the way if you are right how is it Constituional for the government to protect abortion on demand? Why is it if a pregnant woman is murdered it's considered a double homiside but if she gets an abortion it's to have a parasite removed.
    The above is a perfect example of a "straw man" argument. Substituting "parasite" for "unwanted pregnancy" makes it difficult to defend the position that abortion should be a woman's choice. Marriage is a man-made religious ritual. The framers of the constitution knew that, and for the same reason they decided to separate church and State, decided it wasn't a power they needed to reserve to the government. Why can't you live-and-let-live? Who gave you the right to determine that marriage is only between a male and a female? Crack a book; read a science journal once in a while, and you might: 1. learn how to spell, and 2. discover that your beliefs are antiquated. If you believe in a god that created everything, then he created all men, not just those that fit your narrow definition.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    First of all it is not a straw man argument, it's my opinion. Just like high cap mags cause people to go nuts, my key board misspelled the words I didn't. The first amendment states the government will not establish a religion nor hinder the formation of a religion. The term seperation of church and state was in a letter Jefferson wrote, it's not in the first amendment just interpited that way to fit the liberal progressive agend. In my opinion premeditated murder is still murder. You can justify it any way you like. God gave you a free will to do so. Being a conservative I relize that I do not have the same freedom of speach that you do. And yes I freely admint my education stopped at high school. I have no degrees. So in your book I am poorly educated.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    Being a conservative I relize that I do not have the same freedom of speach that you do.
    Where did you come up with that one?

    As a conservative it pains me to see the Republican party consistantly choose to be a Christian party instead of a conservative party. The Tea Party movement does show some promise to change this though.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    It is interesting that progressive liberals can trash and interpret the Constitution any way they want to fit their agenda and it doesn't seem to matter.
    So where is this clause in article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution that gives congress this "implied" power to regulate marriage, sexual intercourse, and reproduction?

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    . . .Just like high cap mags cause people to go nuts, . . .
    Just for clarification, are you saying in your opinion, "high cap mags cause people to go nuts?"

    . . . Being a conservative I relize that I do not have the same freedom of speach that you do. . .
    I'm "CONSERVATIVE". Just ask my wife. We're both card carrying members of the conservative party. Again you're substituting facts with "oh, woe is me". That attitude is not becoming. And while we're on the subject of free speech, the Supreme Court ruled that members of the Westboro Baptist Church can spout their hateful rhetoric at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. Do I think they have a right to free speech? Yes. Does that mean that I agree with their behavior? No.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    So you are saying that you realy have nothing to back up your previous statement. I also see that you did not answer the question I previously posed, so I will state it again. Article 1 section 8 defines the powers of congress, these are referred to as congress's delegated powers. Where in that list of powers is congress given the power to regulate marriage, sexual intercourse, or reproduction?
    What does it matter. The left will find what ever interpetation they need to fit there agenda. Rowe vs Wade should not be law and the tax payer should not be paying for it, but that doesn't matter. The left will get there way by force if necessary. It's clear that we are not going to agree and that's fine. Mararage is between a man and a woman. The government has no business getting involved. But that's not good enough for the left. Before long we will have a law for you to marry your pet.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    As a conservative it pains me to see the Republican party consistantly choose to be a Christian party instead of a conservative party. The Tea Party movement does show some promise to change this though.
    Would you cite examples please? The poster child for the Tea Party, Sharron Angle, espouses some pretty religious views. At least that is my perception from her "Issues" page. But, then again, I equate anti-abortion and homosexual bashing with religious piety. It is so difficult to find a political candidate that is pro-constitution; not just on the 2nd amendment, but one who also believes in very limited government. A constitutional government would not legislate marriage or abortion in EITHER DIRECTION.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    I've never understood people's obsession with other people's bedrooms.

    I don't think any state prohibits gay people from getting married. I don't think any state requires people to proclaim their sexual orientation before obtaining a marriage license. I don't think any state test people to be certain they can procreate before issuing them a marriage license.

    So what's the issue? It ain't gay people getting married. It ain't limiting marriage to heterosexuals. it ain't limiting marriage to those who can procreate.

    Who was the law aimed at?
    Actually, my state passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast