Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 112

Thread: My Official Position on Conservative Candidates Signing onto the NOM Pledge

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterBorn View Post
    I am curious, and have never been given an answer to this question:

    If we allow gay marriage, what is the worst that will happen? I am not talking about forcing churches to participate in gay weddings against their will. Just allowing gay marriage.

    What will happen that is bad?
    You ask what will happen!!!!

    (Excerpt) Crazed scientists all over the globe are “playing god” with the very building blocks of life. Today, thanks to extraordinary advances in the field of genetic modification, scientists are now able to do things that were once unthinkable. Part human/part animal hybrid monsters are being created by scientists all over the planet and it is all perfectly legal.

    It is only a matter of time before humans start allowing themselves to be genetically-modified in order to “fight illness” or to “enhance” their abilities. The temptation to insert the genes of animals or plants into people in order to create “super soldiers” or a “superior race” will certainly prove to be much too tempting.

    Once genetically-modified humans start breeding with normal humans there will be no putting the genie back into the bottle. Eventually, we could get to the point where there are very few “100% humans” left. (End)
    http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/08...er-the-planet/

    Check out the video.

    Scientific experiments will result in part human, part animal beings. Allowing other than a human man and a human woman to marry will set the stage allowing the mating of those "hybrids" resulting in a "Planet of the Apes" scenario.

    Once genetically-modified humans start breeding with normal humans there will be no putting the genie back into the bottle. Our descendants will look back to the time we allowed gays to marry. That's what will happen!!!

    Or maybe not.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    'promote the general welfare' is not a power prescribed to the government.
    Promote the general welfare is referred to in the Preamble and "The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preambl...s_Constitution

    Not a power prescribed to the government? The Preamble informs us of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. The Constitution's fundamental purpose. If a government is to uphold the Constitution it has to uphold the fundamental purpose of said Constitution. How can anyone logically argue the government has the obligation and power to uphold the Constitution but doesn't have the obligation and power to uphold the fundamental purpose of the Constitution?

    It's a general order to define how the government is supposed to use the powers assigned to it, in promoting the general welfare. Health care under promoting the general welfare would be ensuring that doctors are free to treat their patients the best way they know how, not to write policies and procedures as if they were a government agency.
    If the current reality ensured medical care for everyone then government's involvement would not be necessary. A study by Harvard showed 45,000/yr are dying due to lack of proper medical care. With the current recession that number can't do anything but rise and considering high unemployment is forecast for an extended period of time there's no better time than now for the government to step in.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Lompoc, Ca
    Posts
    8,430
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 1,472 Times in 1,090 Posts
    Groans
    475
    Groaned 278 Times in 249 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rana View Post
    If government isn't involved how would non religious person join together? A contract?
    when two people get a marriage license, and have it properly filled out and returned to the appropriate government entity, they are entering into a contract with the state and each other

    so yes, let religious institutions handle the religious end of it and the state handle the legal end if it
    I pledge allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America as amended by the legislative and executive branches and interpreted by the Supreme Court

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    My point is equality. If everyone is equal before the law then the law should apply equally to everyone. If two things are the same it's illogical to refer to them by different names. If marriage and a civil contract between two homosexuals are supposed to be the same then call them by the same name. It's that simple.
    Everyone is not equal under the law. Everyone is created equal and then pursues success and happiness their own way.

  5. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    history and scotus disagree. are they wrong?
    Kindly point out this "history".

  6. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    Everyone is not equal under the law.
    Care to elaborate?

    Everyone is created equal and then pursues success and happiness their own way.
    Everyone is created equal? Are you insane? Mental and physical abilities/disabilities vary in incredible degrees not to mention into what milieu one is thrown.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  7. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    Care to elaborate?



    Everyone is created equal? Are you insane? Mental and physical abilities/disabilities vary in incredible degrees not to mention into what milieu one is thrown.
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. "

  8. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,488
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    Kindly point out this "history".
    Loving v. Virginia (1967)

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

    Now, you can look at this case, with it's precedents, in 1 of 2 ways. Either the SCOTUS was wrong in the first place and just racist that was later corrected by this case, or you can look at it as a case much like the 2nd Amendment is today, where it was something that they didn't want to look at until they absolutely had to, then acquiesced that it is indeed a fundamental right of mankind.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  9. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    Loving v. Virginia (1967)

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

    Now, you can look at this case, with it's precedents, in 1 of 2 ways. Either the SCOTUS was wrong in the first place and just racist that was later corrected by this case, or you can look at it as a case much like the 2nd Amendment is today, where it was something that they didn't want to look at until they absolutely had to, then acquiesced that it is indeed a fundamental right of mankind.
    How is marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?

  10. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,488
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    How is marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?
    it is fundamental to our very existence and survival because people wish to develop close, personal, and intimate relationships with other beings. It allows us to thrive emotionally. It prevents the government from denying those relationships that allow us to pursue happiness.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  11. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    3,296
    Thanks
    590
    Thanked 1,229 Times in 809 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 176 Times in 163 Posts

    Default

    Why do conservatives want to reduce the freedoms of others? Marriage bestows a great many rights that civil unions do not. It is ironic that the same people who want to remove government from control of trade want government to define marriage. Hypocrites all.

    http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
    http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html
    http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarri...ayMarriage.htm
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/IS...tbidstrupshoA/

    Wanna make America great, buy American owned, made in the USA, we do. AF Veteran, INFJ-A, I am not PC.

    "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." Voltaire

  12. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Minister of Truth For This Post:

    DamnYankee (08-15-2011)

  14. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    it is fundamental to our very existence and survival because people wish to develop close, personal, and intimate relationships with other beings. It allows us to thrive emotionally. It prevents the government from denying those relationships that allow us to pursue happiness.
    How is any of that pap "fundamental to our [the country's] very existence and survival"?

  15. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Threedee View Post
    Marriage does not promote anything which a civil union fails to guarantee. Within the state of Vermont, civil unions equal marriages. The only difference is how the people are treated federally and in neighbouring states, at the present.
    Vermont civil unions and marriages are both licenses. Other states can choose to honor that license or not.

  16. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by midcan5 View Post
    Why do conservatives want to reduce the freedoms of others?
    When did you stop beating your wife?

Similar Threads

  1. My position on Iraq
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 10-18-2022, 08:36 AM
  2. what is the anti-abortion position on IUDs
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-30-2008, 01:39 AM
  3. My position on fixing the healthcare system
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-07-2007, 04:14 PM
  4. My position on illegal immigration
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-01-2007, 08:02 PM
  5. The Democrats' Extremist Position on Iraq
    By Whitey in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-02-2006, 09:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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