Newt shows his "true colors"...

If we change the definition of what marriage is, then what about polygamy? A man wants 2, 3 plus wives or a woman that wants 2, 3 plus husbands? A bio-sexual that wants both a husband and a wife. And then there are other far reaching and over the top areas which I won't mention (you can use your imagination). There are people who do those things. Are they born that way? Should they have that choice. Now as I stated, I know that's over the top. Call me a Beavis (I use Beavis because there are certain words we're not suppose to use here). Don't want to be in violation of any rules.

DrakeZ07 said:

SNIP

Now, when I see someone saying their a Librarian, and don't really care if we have marriage or not, but goes into extreme detail, or accuses the gay community of wanting to shove our lifestyle on to others, and force others to accept us; you know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of how the anti-2A, and anti-gun groups take a small fraction of a community, and use it as an excuse to further their train of thought, and use it to bolster their own responses.

Click to expand...

I'm one of those "Librarians". The government is trying to shove the "acceptability" of same sex "partners" in taxpayer funded schools. Somebody's trying to force others to accept it and I'm sure it's not all the self-loathing heterosexuals out there.

The "acceptability" of same sex marriage is "belief system" dependent as is marriage in general. "Belief system" is another way of saying "religion" and the government at the fed level or ANY level should not be involved in such matters. Understanding that the only way liberty can exist for me, is for it to exist for EVERYONE, I MUST resist using government to tell others how to live.

As it relates to exercising my liberty, it my BELIEF that homosexuality is wrong. I taught my children this and we teach my grandchildren accordingly. I have yet to use a signature line... perhaps this may be the one. Thanks for the inspiration.

DrakeZ07 said:

SNIP

We all have our different opinions, and such, we're all entitled to our opinions; But, please, would it be too much to ask that we all use our efforts, strength, and typing abilities to promote the OC cause, and leave the banter about social issues to other forums to hash out?

Click to expand...

This is the SOCIAL lounge... need I say more?

DrakeZ07 said:

It kinda gives me a sour taste in my mouth, to see a community so adamant about a constitutional right, and furthering that right, so determined to advance the cause; yet, go into detail about about why they dont like a certain social issue, or thing.

Click to expand...

Get over it.

DrakeZ07 said:

I may not always keep my opinions to myself, sometimes I feel passionate about saying something, and sometimes when I feel such, I let true colours fly; but I just ask that we keep non-OC opinions to our selves.

Click to expand...

Then go start your own forum... as far as I know, within the confines of the forum rules, one may voice any non-OC opinions here in the SOCIAL LOUNGE. Of course, you may have been recently appointed administrator here at OCDO so...

DrakeZ07 said:

I know its a request that will fall on deaf ears, and holds no value to others; and I'll probably be trolled to death with responses; but I figured with others giving opinion, I would share my own, and give a basic list of reasons as to why I came here, and why it hurts me to see the bickering, or as some call it "argumentative".

Click to expand...

I respect your opinion... now respect mine. Some of us ENJOY arguing because it allows us to LEARN from each other. As long as we display a maturity level that the subject matter demands we can share thoughts. At worst we can agree to disagree... Fair?

DrakeZ07 said:

-Mods; if this post is too "inflammatory", please consider deleting it. Thank you.

Click to expand...

This is the SOCIAL LOUNGE... as far as I can tell you haven't broken any forum rules so why be concerned about moderation?

William Fisher said:

If we change the definition of what marriage is, then what about polygamy? A man wants 2, 3 plus wives or a woman that wants 2, 3 plus husbands? A bio-sexual that wants both a husband and a wife. And then there are other far reaching and over the top areas which I won't mention (you can use your imagination). There are people who do those things. Are they born that way? Should they have that choice. Now as I stated, I know that's over the top. Call me a Beavis (I use Beavis because there are certain words we're not suppose to use here). Don't want to be in violation of any rules.

Click to expand...

Who is "WE"??

georg jetson said:

Who is "WE"??

Click to expand...

How's this, I'll change [If we change the definition of what marriage is] to [If the definition of marriage is changed]. That better?

William Fisher said:

How's this, I'll change [If we change the definition of what marriage is] to [If the definition of marriage is changed]. That better?

Click to expand...

No. Now I have to ask "what definition".

IOW... are we talking about a "belief system" definition or a "legal" definition?

marshaul said:

While this may be the first time I've disagreed with you in substance, I suppose it was inevitable.

The government intentionally likes to conflate issues, so that it is harder to make arguments against its increasing prominence in American life.

For instance, where is your concern that heterosexual couples are using government to force you to recognize their marriages? They are doing it no less than homosexuals would were the fedgov to recognize their marriages. But, in truth, it's not their fault that government insists on enforcing recognition of a religious sacrament. (To the extent that a marriage is merely a voluntary contractual arrangement between consenting individuals, government has the same obligation to enforce and respect such contracts as it does any others. I'm hoping you can agree with that.)

What about special privileges? Whose fault is it that marriage is intrinsically linked with special privilege? Did gays decide to do that? Or was it hetero married couples? Or is it merely something insidiously installed into the institution of marriage by government to make its presence in the arena of marriage not only accepted, but expected?

Click to expand...

Oh, man, and you a college student with smarts.

The only reason I didn't mention heteros forcing me to recognize their unions was because the thread is about gays. My, my. If asked, I woulda said, "No way Marshaul is gonna blame me for not including heteros in the argument. They're not particularly part of the discussion."

Do note that I said government should get outa marriage. And, its only function should be to settle divorce or custody disputes. You'll notice I didn't say divorce and custody of heteros only.

So, I kinda think we're prolly on the same page.

Unless I'm not reading something into my own words that you are.

Citizen said:

Oh, man, and you a college student with smarts.

The only reason I didn't mention heteros forcing me to recognize their unions was because the thread is about gays. My, my. If asked, I woulda said, "No way Marshaul is gonna blame me for not including heteros in the argument. They're not particularly part of the discussion."

Do note that I said government should get outa marriage. And, its only function should be to settle divorce or custody disputes. You'll notice I didn't say divorce and custody of heteros only.

So, I kinda think we're prolly on the same page.

Unless I'm not reading something into my own words that you are.

Click to expand...

The object of my post was simply to point out that it's unfair to criticize gays for seeking privilege when the government insists on attaching privilege to right, and gays may reasonably claim to be seeking only equal right.

The only reasons heteros come into it is that, absent this observation, your post is easily read as attaching special blame to gays for explicitly seeking privilege, when in my opinion government is the party responsible for attaching privilege to a discussion of right.

Our conclusions are indeed identical, all the same.

georg jetson said:

No. Now I have to ask "what definition".

IOW... are we talking about a "belief system" definition or a "legal" definition?

Click to expand...

Legal definition. Belief system doesn't even need a certificate. There have been some older couples (No, I don't have a link) that for awhile were doing what they called 'In the eyes of GOD marriages' so that they wouldn't get the wives SS benifits reduced for being married. They would get the certificates but wouldn't file with the court. In some African cultures the mere act of joining hands and jumping over a broom stick seals the deal. Link to that one -> http://www.do-it-yourself-weddings.com/wedding-broom.html

So (IMO) in America the legal definition and most belief system definitions, marriage is between a woman and a man.

William Fisher said:

Legal definition. Belief system doesn't even need a certificate. There have been some older couples (No, I don't have a link) that for awhile were doing what they called 'In the eyes of GOD marriages' so that they wouldn't get the wives SS benifits reduced for being married. They would get the certificates but wouldn't file with the court. In some African cultures the mere act of joining hands and jumping over a broom stick seals the deal. Link to that one -> http://www.do-it-yourself-weddings.com/wedding-broom.html

So (IMO) in America the legal definition and most belief system definitions, marriage is between a woman and a man.

Click to expand...

Should there be a legal definition? Marriage is a contract. Why should the government be used to prevent certain people to enter into contract? This gives power to the government for abuse.

georg jetson said:

Should there be a legal definition? Marriage is a contract. Why should the government be used to prevent certain people to enter into contract? This gives power to the government for abuse.

Click to expand...

I can sign a contract (agreement) with you stating that I will work for the 1970 minimum wage of $1.10 an hour and later state that our contract (agreement) was in violation of the Minimum Wage and sue for todays rate. That gives the government power over our contract (agreement).

And isn't this site mainly about Government abuse of our RIGHTS. Illinois, for example. You know, GUN RIGHTS.

William Fisher said:

I can sign a contract (agreement) with you stating that I will work for the 1970 minimum wage of $1.10 an hour and later state that our contract (agreement) was in violation of the Minimum Wage and sue for todays rate. That gives the government power over our contract (agreement).

Click to expand...

This would apply for EVERYONE. It does NOT give the gov power to decide who can and who cannot enter into a contract based on arbitrary reasons like sex or belief system.

William Fisher said:

And isn't this site mainly about Government abuse of our RIGHTS. Illinois, for example. You know, GUN RIGHTS.

Click to expand...

(agreement)

Dreamer said:

There is only ONE deity that I know of in the history of man who might consider contract law and bureaucratic authority to be a sacrament, and that is Mammon. 'Nuff sed...

Click to expand...

Not really. In fact, hardly. First, Mammon isn't a god, and neither is it from Judaism or Christianity, although the concept was mentioned briefly in the Christian Bible. Ancient Sumeria conjured up a "god" to represent greed, and Christian authors of the New Testament used the term pejoratively in Math 6-24 and Luke 16-9, 11, and 13.

In light of its etymology, your references to Newt's use/belief in it are thin. Very thin when you consider the word "God" is mentioned in the Bible more than 1,000 times more often (4,473 times, to be exact).

I don't know about you folks, but I don't think EITHER of these possibilities is the sort of person I want as Commander-in-Chief.

Click to expand...

What? A rich man? Very few Presidents (as in ZERO) were paupers when they took office. Our average President has been at least ten times wealthier than the average citizen.

What? A religious man? Nearly all Presidents were men of faith to one extent or another.

Bottom line, if you're wanting to see a poor atheist in office, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Probably the wrong country, for that matter.

Last time I looked, the legal, government-regulated, contract-law-based aspects of "marriage" were NOT a sacrament--in fact, classifying an aspect of contract law or bureaucratic power as a "sacrament" would seem to me to be a direct violation of the 1st amendment prohobition on the establishment of a state-endorsed religion.

Click to expand...

U.S. Law is based very heavily on common law. Common law is based very heavily on Judeo-Christian morals, traditions, and Jewish law. It is so heavily based on the Torah and the Bible, in fact, that there is almost nothing condoned in the Bible that's forbidden by U.S. law. If anything, U.S. law is much more restrictive in most situations, while being more law in a few others.

So either Newt is INTENTIONALLY clouding the issue by conflating contract law with sacred rituals or he REALLY DOES consider contract law to be a sacrament.[/quote

Actually, the latter, as do the vast majority of folks who understand both U.S. Law as well as Biblical morals, traditions, and Jewish law.

For that matter, Romney understands much the same, as does Santorum and Paul, although the latter is more of a strict Constitutionalist than the others.

...duplicitous ...scumbag...

Click to expand...

Much of the remained of your post is vitriolic.

What I was really hoping to find in a candidate is someone who embodies Romney's presence, Newt's keen wit and experience, Santorum's faith, Perry's country resolve, and Paul's Constitutionalism.

I think many of us on this forum possess faith, resolve, and a firm belief in our Constitution. Unfortunately, there are other aspects of being "Presidential" which seem so sway the hearts and minds of all too many voters.

The very fact that Obama was elected in the first place tells me it's the people of our country who're in a worse state of affairs than its government, who generally tend to follow, not lead, the will of the people.

Click to expand...

Newt's "true colors" stop mattering after one realizes he is responsible for the Gun Free School Zones Act. After being declared unconstitutional he re-passed it in 1995 with more commerce clause "fixes", when he was speaker of the house.

DrakeZ07 said:

---snip---

We all have our different opinions, and such, we're all entitled to our opinions; But, please, would it be too much to ask that we all use our efforts, strength, and typing abilities to promote the OC cause, and leave the banter about social issues to other forums to hash out?

It kinda gives me a sour taste in my mouth, to see a community so adamant about a constitutional right, and furthering that right, so determined to advance the cause; yet, go into detail about about why they dont like a certain social issue, or thing.

I may not always keep my opinions to myself, sometimes I feel passionate about saying something, and sometimes when I feel such, I let true colours fly; but I just ask that we keep non-OC opinions to our selves.

I know its a request that will fall on deaf ears, and holds no value to others; and I'll probably be trolled to death with responses; but I figured with others giving opinion, I would share my own, and give a basic list of reasons as to why I came here, and why it hurts me to see the bickering, or as some call it "argumentative".

-Mods; if this post is too "inflammatory", please consider deleting it. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Somebody gets it! A spot on observation. The target and focus of OCDO is open carry and only open carry.

georg jetson said:

---snip---

This is the SOCIAL lounge... need I say more?

Get over it.

Then go start your own forum... as far as I know, within the confines of the forum rules, one may voice any non-OC opinions here in the SOCIAL LOUNGE. Of course, you may have been recently appointed administrator here at OCDO so...

I respect your opinion... now respect mine. Some of us ENJOY arguing because it allows us to LEARN from each other. As long as we display a maturity level that the subject matter demands we can share thoughts. At worst we can agree to disagree... Fair?

This is the SOCIAL LOUNGE... as far as I can tell you haven't broken any forum rules so why be concerned about moderation?

Click to expand...

A little history is in order here regarding the Social Lounge. The Social Lounge was not created to expand the scope of OCDO, but rather to isolate otherwise errant postings/threads that were off topic for this forum. In so doing an opportunity was created for poster/members to talk about movies, family life, their favorite vehicle, etc. within this additional/new sub-forum. While there has been wide latitude in what has been left unmoderated/edited/deleted, there have been occasions when threads, postings and the authors thereof have chosen to push or test the limits - limits are not solely found within the black letter rules, which some have insisted that they should be. Let me assure you they are not.

Argument as a means of education is an inefficient means of sharing thoughts, opinions, ideas. It solicits base remarks/responses from some people as passions are inflamed. The original purpose for the Social Forum is, I fear, being pushed and pulled beyond what was intended.

Keep in mind that the intent and purpose of OCDO is to promote and protect the right to carry normal, properly holstered handguns as we go about our everyday lives. The further we stray from that principal value, the further OT we find ourselves.

Out of context perhaps, but to quote John, "Help keep OCDO strong and focused."

I have had the opportunity to argue this on another forum with the gays. So here I will just say...I won't agree to gay marriages...period! :cuss:

jhco50 said:

I have had the opportunity to argue this on another forum with the gays. So here I will just say...I won't agree to gay marriages...period! :cuss:

Click to expand...

OK, so what about Gypsies? Blacks? Interracial couples? Jews?

Where are YOU willing to draw the line on this slippery slope?

Contract law SHOULD not be contingent on adherence to "religious" or ideological dogma. To require that someone be a member of a "religiously approved group" to engage in a contract between conesnting adults is nothing less than tyranny hiding behind clerical vestments.

Believe what you want, but limiting the entering into a lawful contract by consenting adults because you don't approve of their "lifestyle" is about as un-Liberty and un-Freedom a thing as I can imagine...

William Fisher said:

I can sign a contract (agreement) with you stating that I will work for the 1970 minimum wage of $1.10 an hour and later state that our contract (agreement) was in violation of the Minimum Wage and sue for todays rate. That gives the government power over our contract (agreement).

And isn't this site mainly about Government abuse of our RIGHTS. Illinois, for example. You know, GUN RIGHTS.

Click to expand...

Minimum wage laws are unconstitutional and a sever overreach of the feds, not very relevant.

jhco50 said:

I have had the opportunity to argue this on another forum with the gays. So here I will just say...I won't agree to gay marriages...period! :cuss:

Click to expand...

That's fine, you don't have to agree to get married to a gay. So long as you're not standing between them getting married.

Here's a question to the group of anti-gay marriage people: gay people are already engaging in the behavior you don't like, you cannot legally change that, the only thing you can do is oppress them by denying them the legal protections of marriage. What benefit is it to you to do so, though?

Any argument about "marriage being for kids" is silly, since that's not a requirement of marriage, nor do we deny marriage to those who are unable to procreate. Any argument about adoption by gay couples is silly, because we allow single people to adopt. So, what exactly do you gain by standing opposed to same sex marriage?

As long as the 'couple' is OCing, CCW at a minimum, more power to them. Their getting married does not impact OC specifically, and our 2A right generally. Being anti-2A is a liberal thing for the most part, not a sexual orientation thing.

Tawnos said:

That's fine, you don't have to agree to get married to a gay. So long as you're not standing between them getting married.

Here's a question to the group of anti-gay marriage people: gay people are already engaging in the behavior you don't like, you cannot legally change that, the only thing you can do is oppress them by denying them the legal protections of marriage. What benefit is it to you to do so, though?

Any argument about "marriage being for kids" is silly, since that's not a requirement of marriage, nor do we deny marriage to those who are unable to procreate. Any argument about adoption by gay couples is silly, because we allow single people to adopt. So, what exactly do you gain by standing opposed to same sex marriage?

Click to expand...

That's not nice pointing out people's schadenfreude.