Are Libertarians Going to Muck Things Up for the GOP?

[Centinel]

So you are saying that if a president felt it was a Constitutional violation of a right to life to allow abortions, he could outlaw them in every state by executive order, because he is obligated to uphold the Constitution?

I am only suggesting that the president must refuse to execute an unconstitutional law. He would accomplish this by refusing to act on it.

You are describing a scenario in which the president actively executes his own edict. This is not at all what I am suggesting, and were he to do so, I would agree with you in opposing it.

If the latter appears to follow from the former, you may have convinced me to rethink ever suggesting the idea again.

 

[Jarod]

Again, they have every freedom I have, nothing is being denied them! Unfortunately, we don't have the freedom to just do whatever we wish to do, that's not how society functions. We can't just proclaim ourselves a "right" and entitle ourselves to it, that's not how 'rights' work. You and other pro-gay marriage advocates keep saying "it doesn't harm anyone" and that is a lie too. It most certainly does harm the institution and sanctity of marriage, it degrades it and defaces it, and turns it into a sexually perverted mockery of what it actually is. In doing this, it undermines one of our most precious assets in civilized society, the family structure. I don't give a damn if you agree with me on this or not, but by god you WILL listen to it and respect it, whether you want to or not. That's what our freedoms are all about, expressing our ideas in the public square.

This is where you and I disagree about the nature of freedom. I belive we should and by the Constitution ARE free to do anything we choose, as long as it does not harm another person in any material way. Clearly allowing Gay people to get married, while not forcing anyone to get married, does not harm you in any material way. Were it not for the media you would likely not even know about it. Its really none of your business. Freedom is not something granted to you by the Constitution or the GOVERNMENT, it is something you have that is taken away from you by the Government when necessary. It should only be taken away WHEN NECESSARY to protect others.

Marriage is and has always been an evolving institution.

The Family is and has always been an evolving institution.

Sexual perversion is and has always been an evolving thing, and a code word used by those who would userp freedom, one mans perversion is another mans delight.

You are free to argue against freedom all you want, but I say its unAmerican and its a sad attempt to try to enslave people into living in your small minded little world because you have to justify why you are missing out on a broader understanding and acceptance of life and what it means to be free.

 

[Jarod]

I don't buy the idea that only the supreme court is able to understand the constitution. Yes, as the judiciary, the function of the supreme court is the arbitration of disputes between parties, based on the facts and the law. So yes, the judiciary must interpret the constitution in order to understand how the legal claims of the disputants and determine the outcome of the dispute.

But this does not mean that the judiciary has an exclusive understanding of the constitution. Heck, think back to when the states were first considering the idea of entering into our current compact. Each state had to read the constitution and understand it. There were debates over its adoption in every state. How do you think the pros and cons of ratification were even discussed? How did states even understand to what they were agreeing?

And remember, every office holder in these states must swear an oath to uphold the constitition. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Note that it says this constitution, not "support the decisions of the supreme court".

The idea that the law of the land is only what the the supreme court says it is flies in the face the whole concept of a representative republic. The states sent delegates to a convention to write the constitution, and the people of each state then ratified the constitution. It is the people's law. It is not an arcane tome containing secret text known only to the robed high priests. It is a compact written by and agreed to by the people of the several states. And the people expect their representatives, executive officers, and judges to abide by the contract they wrote. In fact, as explicitly stated in the contract itself, they require them to swear an oath to uphold it.

If the supreme court violates the constitution, it is up to the president, congress, the governors, the state legislatures, and the local sheriff to reject the error and uphold the constitution.

Noone, unless they are truely uneducated, says that the law of the land is what the S.Ct says it is. THe S.Ct only interperrets law, it does not and cannot affirmativly make law, thus the law of the land is not what the Supreme Court says it is.

Now, if a legislature makes a law, then the S.Ct. can strike it or part of it down. Because the legislatures are made up by rule of the masses, they often disregard the Constitution to appease a large group of often uneducated masses of people. When this happens, the S. Ct is a moderating force that can cure that ill. That is the S. Ct.'s job.

 

[Jarod]

Oh please...another bloviating gasbag claiming that it will destroy the fabric of society if two gay men are allowed to marry each other.

EXCEPT you can't seem to define EXACTLY HOW gay marriage is harmful to society.

We've got people like the CarCrashians marrying and divorcing in 72 days, noooooooo, no damage to the institue of marriage there...it's homosexuals marrying that is going to destroy the institute of marriage...you are as big a joke as the Kardashians and their phony wedding.

Using Dixie logic we should outlaw Divorce, right?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is where you and I disagree about the nature of freedom. I belive we should and by the Constitution ARE free to do anything we choose, as long as it does not harm another person in any material way. Clearly allowing Gay people to get married, while not forcing anyone to get married, does not harm you in any material way. Were it not for the media you would likely not even know about it. Its really none of your business. Freedom is not something granted to you by the Constitution or the GOVERNMENT, it is something you have that is taken away from you by the Government when necessary. It should only be taken away WHEN NECESSARY to protect others.

Marriage is and has always been an evolving institution.

The Family is and has always been an evolving institution.

Sexual perversion is and has always been an evolving thing, and a code word used by those who would userp freedom, one mans perversion is another mans delight.

You are free to argue against freedom all you want, but I say its unAmerican and its a sad attempt to try to enslave people into living in your small minded little world because you have to justify why you are missing out on a broader understanding and acceptance of life and what it means to be free.

It doesn't harm you in any material way for me to run around naked in public masturbating, but the law says I can't do that. Why? I'm not forcing you to run around naked and masturbate! It's really none of your business! Sexual freedom has always been an evolving institution! One mans perversion is another mans delight! And if marriage can be changed to include homosexuals, why not polygamists, or people who are into incest and bestiality? Who are you to deny a man the love of his goat? It's not harming you in any material way... one man's perversion is another mans delight... we should be free to choose whatever we want to do, right?

We have a responsibility to uphold a civilized society with rules, boundaries, and limitations.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am only suggesting that the president must refuse to execute an unconstitutional law. He would accomplish this by refusing to act on it.

You are describing a scenario in which the president actively executes his own edict. This is not at all what I am suggesting, and were he to do so, I would agree with you in opposing it.

If the latter appears to follow from the former, you may have convinced me to rethink ever suggesting the idea again.

The law is not unconstitutional if the SCOTUS has ruled the law is not unconstitutional, that's where we seem to be having trouble here. You realize that in every case where the SCOTUS has been charged with determining Constitutionality, the nine judges almost never unanimously agree? This should tell you, people who are well-versed and educated to the hilt on the Constitution, can still disagree on what it says. There is no universally understood interpretation of the Constitution, there is constantly much debate on what IS or ISN'T Constitutional, and much of that depends on how an individual interprets it. You keep saying the president should't uphold an unconstitutional law, but unconstitutional by who's interpretation? If the SCOTUS has heard a case on the law, and ruled that the law was not unconstitutional, that's what the president and the rest of us have to go by. If we don't like the courts ruling, we can amend the constitution.

My example was valid, I am using your logic... if the president believes it is unconstitutional to perform abortions, he can outlaw them by executive order, because he is obligated to uphold the constitution. If what the SCOTUS says doesn't matter, and the president can't uphold an unconstitutional law, then he should be able to do this... no one has tried it... I wonder why? It's because the SCOTUS does matter, what they rule is Constitutional DOES matter, and THAT is what the president must adhere to as constitutional, regardless of whether he agrees with the ruling in Roe v Wade or not.

 

[zappasguitar]

The law is not unconstitutional if the SCOTUS has ruled the law is not unconstitutional, that's where we seem to be having trouble here. You realize that in every case where the SCOTUS has been charged with determining Constitutionality, the nine judges almost never unanimously agree? This should tell you, people who are well-versed and educated to the hilt on the Constitution, can still disagree on what it says. There is no universally understood interpretation of the Constitution, there is constantly much debate on what IS or ISN'T Constitutional, and much of that depends on how an individual interprets it. You keep saying the president should't uphold an unconstitutional law, but unconstitutional by who's interpretation? If the SCOTUS has heard a case on the law, and ruled that the law was not unconstitutional, that's what the president and the rest of us have to go by. If we don't like the courts ruling, we can amend the constitution.

My example was valid, I am using your logic... if the president believes it is unconstitutional to perform abortions, he can outlaw them by executive order, because he is obligated to uphold the constitution. If what the SCOTUS says doesn't matter, and the president can't uphold an unconstitutional law, then he should be able to do this... no one has tried it... I wonder why? It's because the SCOTUS does matter, what they rule is Constitutional DOES matter, and THAT is what the president must adhere to as constitutional, regardless of whether he agrees with the ruling in Roe v Wade or not.

Nice to see you listing all the ways that gay marriage would destroy the fabric of our society like I asked you too...

Once again wee see that the Right certainly FEELS strongly about the causes they support, but they let their FEELINGS get in the way of rational discussion...note how Dixie couldn't list ANY SPECIFICS when asked how he believes gay marriage might destroy the fabric of society.

LOOOOOOOOONG on rhetoric and short on specifics...just another standard RightWing talking point trotted out by another clueless RightWing apologist.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nice to see you listing all the ways that gay marriage would destroy the fabric of our society like I asked you too...

Once again wee see that the Right certainly FEELS strongly about the causes they support, but they let their FEELINGS get in the way of rational discussion...note how Dixie couldn't list ANY SPECIFICS when asked how he believes gay marriage might destroy the fabric of society.

LOOOOOOOOONG on rhetoric and short on specifics...just another standard RightWing talking point trotted out by another clueless RightWing apologist.

Okay, here's how... Once we redefine marriage to include a sexual behavior, then any sexual behavior can be legitimized through a marriage. This means, people who feel they have a right to marry their horse, should be able to do so, it's their sexual preference. We have defined marriage on the basis of sexual preference, so the standard has been set already, and it's just a matter of distinction. The Constitution prohibits us from passing laws which only apply to certain people, and not others like them. If it becomes constitutional to allow marriage on the basis of sexual preference, then that's the law forevermore. It doesn't matter if the sexual preference is something you aren't comfortable with, a right is a right.

Secondly, when our society adopts "gay marriage" as an alternative, future generations may choose to take this course, as opposed to finding a traditional marriage partner. Over time, it may very well become the "norm" for young people to marry the same sex, regardless of whether they are homosexual, just because it is easier and less difficult to make such a union work. No children are involved, so you wouldn't have custody disputes if things didn't work out. Decades roll by and the trend continues, to the point where traditional marriage is almost unheard of anymore, people just choose not to go that route... voila, no more family structure in society. Without the family structure in society, fewer children are born, and those who are, will be taught it's better to be homosexual or marry same sex, to avoid the traditional problems of marriage and live a happy life... a few more generations pass, and we have no society anymore, we become a dying civilization.

Now you can claim that I am being overly dramatic and this stuff would never happen, but there is the problem... you aren't willing to face the possible ramifications of your stupidity because you don't want to. It's easier for you to imagine there would be no repercussion, and life would go on as usual, but no significant change such as this has ever happened, without causing a ramification or consequence, it just isn't realistic to imagine it could.

 

[Rune]

Okay, here's how... Once we redefine marriage to include a sexual behavior, then any sexual behavior can be legitimized through a marriage. This means, people who feel they have a right to marry their horse, should be able to do so, it's their sexual preference. We have defined marriage on the basis of sexual preference, so the standard has been set already, and it's just a matter of distinction. The Constitution prohibits us from passing laws which only apply to certain people, and not others like them. If it becomes constitutional to allow marriage on the basis of sexual preference, then that's the law forevermore. It doesn't matter if the sexual preference is something you aren't comfortable with, a right is a right.

Secondly, when our society adopts "gay marriage" as an alternative, future generations may choose to take this course, as opposed to finding a traditional marriage partner. Over time, it may very well become the "norm" for young people to marry the same sex, regardless of whether they are homosexual, just because it is easier and less difficult to make such a union work. No children are involved, so you wouldn't have custody disputes if things didn't work out. Decades roll by and the trend continues, to the point where traditional marriage is almost unheard of anymore, people just choose not to go that route... voila, no more family structure in society. Without the family structure in society, fewer children are born, and those who are, will be taught it's better to be homosexual or marry same sex, to avoid the traditional problems of marriage and live a happy life... a few more generations pass, and we have no society anymore, we become a dying civilization.

Now you can claim that I am being overly dramatic and this stuff would never happen, but there is the problem... you aren't willing to face the possible ramifications of your stupidity because you don't want to. It's easier for you to imagine there would be no repercussion, and life would go on as usual, but no significant change such as this has ever happened, without causing a ramification or consequence, it just isn't realistic to imagine it could.

What a crock of crazy bullshit.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What a crock of crazy bullshit.

what an incredibly in depth post.

 

[Rune]

About the same as your usual one liner.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

About the same as your usual one liner.

such eloquence. thanks for a great contribution.

life, get one

 

[Rune]

such eloquence. thanks for a great contribution.

life, get one

Better insult, get one.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Better insult, get one.

why? it is still true. until you get a life, i must try to help you.

 

[apple0154]

It doesn't harm you in any material way for me to run around naked in public masturbating, but the law says I can't do that. Why? I'm not forcing you to run around naked and masturbate! It's really none of your business! Sexual freedom has always been an evolving institution! One mans perversion is another mans delight! And if marriage can be changed to include homosexuals, why not polygamists, or people who are into incest and bestiality? Who are you to deny a man the love of his goat? It's not harming you in any material way... one man's perversion is another mans delight... we should be free to choose whatever we want to do, right?

We have a responsibility to uphold a civilized society with rules, boundaries, and limitations.

Masturbation results in bodily fluid being expelled. Just as spitting is frowned upon the reason being it’s messy and possibly spreads disease. As for being totally nude imagine sitting on a chair or bench after someone sat there with no pants on. Again, unsanitary.

Incest? We know the genetic damage that results. Bestiality? Can an animal give consent? So, it is in the interest of the offspring and cruelty to animals that such things should be/are forbidden.

 

[apple0154]

Okay, here's how... Once we redefine marriage to include a sexual behavior, then any sexual behavior can be legitimized through a marriage. This means, people who feel they have a right to marry their horse, should be able to do so, it's their sexual preference. We have defined marriage on the basis of sexual preference, so the standard has been set already, and it's just a matter of distinction. The Constitution prohibits us from passing laws which only apply to certain people, and not others like them. If it becomes constitutional to allow marriage on the basis of sexual preference, then that's the law forevermore. It doesn't matter if the sexual preference is something you aren't comfortable with, a right is a right.

The animal can not give consent. If you were a horse would you want to be married to a guy like you?

Secondly, when our society adopts "gay marriage" as an alternative, future generations may choose to take this course, as opposed to finding a traditional marriage partner. Over time, it may very well become the "norm" for young people to marry the same sex, regardless of whether they are homosexual, just because it is easier and less difficult to make such a union work. No children are involved, so you wouldn't have custody disputes if things didn't work out. Decades roll by and the trend continues, to the point where traditional marriage is almost unheard of anymore, people just choose not to go that route... voila, no more family structure in society. Without the family structure in society, fewer children are born, and those who are, will be taught it's better to be homosexual or marry same sex, to avoid the traditional problems of marriage and live a happy life... a few more generations pass, and we have no society anymore, we become a dying civilization.

Most people marry the opposite sex because, well, in the case of men the scent of a woman drives them crazy!! Without getting graphic doesn’t the scent of a woman automatically do something for/to you? Like the smell of fresh baked bread. Doesn’t that cause you to feel hungry even if you weren’t particularly hungry before noticing the scent?

Do you really believe the majority of people marry due to having thought out the easiness of making a union work? Do you believe young men fight for women because they look forward to the easiness of a relationship working?

As for a dying civilization how can you even mention that considering there are 7 billion people on the planet? Do you think all the births and abortions happened because people got together to discuss the ease of a relationship?

Now you can claim that I am being overly dramatic and this stuff would never happen, but there is the problem... you aren't willing to face the possible ramifications of your stupidity because you don't want to. It's easier for you to imagine there would be no repercussion, and life would go on as usual, but no significant change such as this has ever happened, without causing a ramification or consequence, it just isn't realistic to imagine it could.

I don’t claim you’re being overly dramatic. I claim you’re a 100%, bona fide lunatic.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Masturbation results in bodily fluid being expelled. Just as spitting is frowned upon the reason being it’s messy and possibly spreads disease. As for being totally nude imagine sitting on a chair or bench after someone sat there with no pants on. Again, unsanitary.

Incest? We know the genetic damage that results. Bestiality? Can an animal give consent? So, it is in the interest of the offspring and cruelty to animals that such things should be/are forbidden.

Homosexual behavior causes all kinds of unique diseases and health risks... same difference. As far as sanitary, go lick a bench in New Orleans or San Francisco, and see what you get! Incest... it doesn't effect you materially for people to be born genetically challenged, you might even get a playmate out of it! If you don't think an animal is capable of giving consent, you should know Machismo, my daughter's Chihuahua, ask him any yes or no question, if his answer is yes, he is jumping, standing on his head, barking, begging, doing a little dance... if the answer is no, he runs and hides under the couch. Problem solved!

See what you are doing, is going through the things I said, and justifying some way to deny them to others, not because they are materially effecting you in any way, but because you can dream up reasons to disallow it. This makes you what we call, a "hypocrite."

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Homosexual behavior causes all kinds of unique diseases and health risks... dame difference. As far as sanitary, go lick a bench in New Orleans or San Francisco, and see what you get! Incest... it doesn't effect you materially for people to be born genetically challenged, you might even get a playmate out of it! If you don't think an animal is capable of giving consent, you should know Machismo, my daughter's Chihuahua, ask him any yes or no question, if his answer is yes, he is jumping, standing on his head, barking, begging, doing a little dance... if the answer is no, he runs and hides under the couch. Problem solved!

See what you are doing, is going through the things I said, and justifying some way to deny them to others, not because they are materially effecting you in any way, but because you can dream up reasons to disallow it. This makes you what we call, a "hypocrite."

I have to ask, just so they can clarified; what are these "unique diseases and health risks" that you feel are going to occur?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have to ask, just so they can clarified; what are these "unique diseases and health risks" that you feel are going to occur?

I think there are a couple dozen various conditions and diseases which occur from homosexual activity, it's not a natural function of the human body. These have been documented, it's not a matter of me feeling they will occur, we've had people engaging in homosexuality for many years, we already understand many of the inherent health risks. It was the single largest way to transmit the HIV virus.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I think there are a couple dozen various conditions and diseases which occur from homosexual activity, it's not a natural function of the human body. These have been documented, it's not a matter of me feeling they will occur, we've had people engaging in homosexuality for many years, we already understand many of the inherent health risks. It was the single largest way to transmit the HIV virus.

If you could list them, then they could be discussed or refuted; but this would mean that we know which ones you're considering.