Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol I never said government granted rights and anyone who has read my posts would know better. Try to keep up will you?
No it's not. Because government got involved in the marriage business, it falls under equal protection under the law. You have the right to live your life unemcumbered but you don't have a right to "government marriage". THAT is a government granted privilege.
Try reading Locke and others on natural rights, little noy. Then you might be worth debating.
Natural rights only require government to protect them and not interfere. Under the equal protection clause any benefits of government marriage cannot be denied in a discriminatory manner.
Try debating what I wrote this time. No straw man argument.
Way to go Chi! I agree with you 100 percent. The reasons behind a statement are what matters. It's all about the context of the statement.
He very well may have gone into an explanation after that statement or at another time. Reasons matter.
We weren't given the context of the statement. It was (apparently) on a radio show. Can we have the transcript?
Much more damaging is Woodrow Wilson's belief (shared by all progressives) that the Constitution is a "living document." That belief is what gave us "abortion on demand," eliminating the very right to life of unborn persons, who are alive, have a soul, suck their thumbs, play with their toes, and show facial expressions.
Way to go Chi! I agree with you 100 percent. The reasons behind a statement are what matters. It's all about the context of the statement.
He very well may have gone into an explanation after that statement or at another time. Reasons matter.
He likely has gone into further explanations elsewhere & likely not just on conspiracy-based radio or whatever.
This is the thing, much or all of what he could say about this issue would be based on his own fantasies rather than reality. Ask one of his longtime allies & present day owner-donors, Mr. Peroutka about his 'whistling Dixie & Christian nationalism'.
Long story short, we need reality-based problem solvers & critical creative thinking strategies, not ideologues &/or secessionists.
Try reading Locke and others on natural rights, little noy. Then you might be worth debating.
Educate yourself on what a right is, then come back. Again marriage isn't a right. It is a government granted privilege.
You're ignorant on this issue so it's really not a debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Natural rights only require government to protect them and not interfere. Under the equal protection clause any benefits of government marriage cannot be denied in a discriminatory manner.
Again. One more time in hopes you understand. Marriage is not a right, never has been, and never will. It is a government granted privilege.
Living your life unemcumbered and not using force to get what you want or using force on others when no ones rights have been violated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Try debating what I wrote this time.
I did. You're the one who deflected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
No straw man argument.
lmao You're the one making a straw man, not me. Straw man -an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
That's what YOU did, when you falsely accused me of saying "governments grant rights" when I didn't.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 12-11-2017 at 07:04 AM..
He likely has gone into further explanations elsewhere & likely not just on conspiracy-based radio or whatever.
This is the thing, much or all of what he could say about this issue would be based on his own fantasies rather than reality. Ask one of his longtime allies & present day owner-donors, Mr. Peroutka about his 'whistling Dixie & Christian nationalism'.
Why would I need to do that? I can just listen to the way Moore talks and once he gets into office, how he votes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Long story short, we need reality-based problem solvers & critical creative thinking strategies, not ideologues &/or secessionists.
Attributing this to Moore is dishonest especially when he has talked about policy. AND as far as an ideologue, since when has a big federal government EVER worked policywise? And when has a small federal government ever failed policywise? Big government IS the problem. It hasn't been successful at a Federal level. That's the exact point he is making. lol
So if someone is an ideologue on the constitution or on the rights of the individual that is somehow a bad thing? The problem is people who do not defend the rights of the individual.
After us Democrats dumped Al Frankenstein, it's revealing how the Republicans rally around THEIR pervert.
Usually it's the other way around. The Republicans have finally learned how politics is done. You support your own side. Thanks for showing us, Democrats!
CNN takes 7 year old obscure comments from Moore and claims he wants to bring back Slavery.
Sounds like Fake News from CNN.
Why anyone believes this organization is beyond me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
