Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary Cheney Considered Quitting 2004 Campaign Over Gay Marriage Issue
ABC News ^ | May 3, 2006

Posted on 05/08/2006 4:06:47 PM PDT by skandalon

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450451-470 last
To: spunkets
The reynolds decision is as bogus as Roe.

Tell that to the judge next time you bomb an abortion factory...

451 posted on 05/10/2006 8:24:24 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Interesting debate.

Is your goal here to convert or conquer? Separate goals separate strategies...

I would suggest conversion seems highly unlikely...

452 posted on 05/10/2006 8:26:25 PM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of Luke 16:31 as you used it?


453 posted on 05/10/2006 8:27:45 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"Where is the word “marriage” in the Constitution?"

It's not in there.

454 posted on 05/10/2006 8:30:48 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
Btw, you are the first person I have ever come across to claim to be without sin.

You are not the first person I have ever come across that had extreme sarcasm go flying over their head with a whooosh.

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.

I'll bet you can't stand those darn theocrats that founded our Republic either, can you?
455 posted on 05/10/2006 8:40:29 PM PDT by Antoninus (I will not vote for a liberal, regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Perhaps you can explain the relevance of Luke 16:31 as you used it?

Your post #445...


To: John O
" That's why I keep sending you to the scriptures. God's word."

-

You posted the wrong ones. You posted Moses, as I pointed out.

-

445 posted on 05/10/2006 7:44:21 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)


446 posted on 05/10/2006 7:45:57 PM PDT by Yeshua (LET'S ROLL!)

456 posted on 05/10/2006 8:43:15 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Tricky HTML...

If “marriage” isn't in the Constitution, YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IT!

457 posted on 05/10/2006 8:46:31 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Is your goal here to convert or conquer?

Maccabeus answered that question the same way I would...

458 posted on 05/10/2006 8:49:51 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

...more scottish play


459 posted on 05/10/2006 9:27:41 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
You posted Moses, as I pointed out.

That's why I keep sending you to the scriptures. It's all God's word. You might try reading it once . You may learn something.

But then again maybe you wouldn't. There is none so blind as he which refuses to see.

460 posted on 05/11/2006 5:21:55 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
If “marriage” isn't in the Constitution, YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IT!

I have to disagree with you here SFD. The Constitution is primarily a limit on Government.

The tenth Ammendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

We have 'rights' to everything that is not mentioned in the Constitution. However, that doesn't mean that we have the right to recognition of some of those things by government (or anyone elsefor that matter)

So we have the right to form unions between two people. We do not have the right to have those unions recognised (as marriages or any other way).

Recognition of marriage by the government is tied to lots of programs and financial incentives for the purpose to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

If there's no chance of posterity (children) then why recognize the marriage at all. While a union of any two mentally healthy people (of opposite sexes) have at least the chance of producing children, no 'homosexual' union can do so.

461 posted on 05/11/2006 5:35:23 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I forgot... can someone remind me of the reason why we have the right to bear arms...


462 posted on 05/11/2006 5:38:09 AM PDT by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Lack of self control perhaps.

I had a strong urge once to strangle my boss.

Maybe Im a closet killer, I dont know... luckily I stayed in the closet though and didn't embrace my "killer instict"

Another time I had an opportunity to cheat on my wife and run off with this beautiful young stewardess. I didn't.

Maybe Im a closet adulterer - I was tempted, I had this urge. I'm sure society would understand...Many animals in the animal kingdom have more than one mate.

I could have thought of a thousand reasons to justify my actions if I chose and like I said, society would have supported me. Surely they wouldn't be hateful and fail to understand the attraction and love I could have had for this woman.

In the end, I didn't do it. I didn't act on my impulses, because Im not an animal Im a human.

I didn't do it because it was wrong.

463 posted on 05/11/2006 5:54:45 AM PDT by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: John O
Article. IV.

Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

464 posted on 05/11/2006 6:07:55 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Exactly. Public recognition can be controlled by congress.

That doesn't stop two people from forming a union. The laws of the several states used to prevent perverse unions but an unconstitutional ruling from the tyrants in black changed that. (Which is why we need a federal marriage ammendment defining marriage as the union of one man to one woman. It would restore states rights)

So we have the right to be married (and always have and always will) but we do not have the right to have that marriage recognized.

465 posted on 05/11/2006 6:20:07 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
You are not the first person I have ever come across that had extreme sarcasm go flying over their head with a whooosh.

Who knew it was sarcasm? I had no idea just how arrogant you are!

I'll bet you can't stand those darn theocrats that founded our Republic either, can you?

Is that your belief? That the founders of our republic were theocrats? You are going to have a hard time proving that – just as you have yet to “prove” that you are in a position to redefine what the word “rights” means.

Fyi, the Founders of this country knew that they were founding a government – not a religion. The “rights” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply to all Americans – not just the ones you approve of. (that includes Mary Cheney and gasp, gasp, homosexuals). The other “rights” enumerated in the constitution are such things as freedom of speech (again including Mary Cheney and the oh, so scary *homosexuals*), freedom to assemble, freedom of religion (even if they don’t join your church, freedom to bear arms, to a speedy trial etc etc.

No where does it say what you claimed that there is no right to sin!!! No where does it say that one must even believe in God. No where does it give religious instruction.

Perhaps what you are hoping for is something like Iran or Saudi Arabia – where people are forced to obey what is accepted as the only true church ?? The Islamists do not care about love – they worship virtue and doing what one is told. Perhaps that appeals to you as well???

466 posted on 05/11/2006 1:25:43 PM PDT by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
Who knew it was sarcasm? I had no idea just how arrogant you are!

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Is that your belief? That the founders of our republic were theocrats?

No, that is your belief. I am actually much more liberal on the subject of sodomy that our Founding Fathers were and you consider me a "theocrat." I find the Jeffersonian solution of castration for sodomites to be harsh. How is it, then, that I am a "theocrat" but Thomas Jefferson gets a pass in your book?

Fyi, the Founders of this country knew that they were founding a government – not a religion. The “rights” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply to all Americans – not just the ones you approve of.

Nowhere in any of our founding documents is a 'right' to do evil enumerated, nor a 'right' practice deviant sex. As a matter of fact, deviant sexual practices were commonly outlawed and nobody thought twice about it.

No where does it say what you claimed that there is no right to sin!!!

It also says nothing in the Founding documents about forbidding cannibalism, but I think it's safe to say the Founders were against it. The Founders never thought our society would degrade to the point where people would be claiming a "right to sin." If we had a "right to sin", any law restricting human action would, by definition, be violating the rights of the sinner.

If we have a "right to sin", then by definition, we can take no action when we are the victims of sin for fear of violating another person's "right to sin." You may say that there are legal consequences to exercising your "right to sin"--but what kind of society punishes people for exercising their so-called "rights"? In common parlance, such a society would be called a tyranny.

When you think about it, the so-called "right to sin" is a clever way of saying we have no God-given rights at all.

John Adams said: "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

Does this particular Founder sound like a man who thought we have a God-given right to sin?
467 posted on 05/11/2006 2:02:52 PM PDT by Antoninus (I will not vote for a liberal, regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

No, it is proper to ask. But as I say, I had no idea just how arrogant you are.

No, that is your belief.

Wrong. I know that the founders were not theocrats. I still wonder if that is what you are hoping for. You do not seem to draw a line between what is government and what is your religion…nor do you seem to understand the difference.

I am actually much more liberal on the subject of sodomy that our Founding Fathers were and you consider me a "theocrat."

It wouldn’t surprise me if you were or wish to be a theocrat – like the Islamists. Perhaps you are unaware that it is now over 200 years since the founding of our nation???? Are you aware that the founders weren’t too hip about women’s rights either??? And slavery??? Are you aware at all that we live in different times and that human understanding has progressed since the 1700’s?

I find the Jeffersonian solution of castration for sodomites to be harsh. How is it, then, that I am a "theocrat" but Thomas Jefferson gets a pass in your book?

Perhaps because the definition of theocrat does not have to do with your solution to sodomy! Do you know what theocracy is? You are trying to force others to live by your religion. Thomas Jefferson did not. I am not against castration for rapists and other serial sex offenders. Are you aware that Mr. Jefferson did not consider the Bible to be the absolute and only word of God? Are you aware that he was sure that some of the quotes attributed to Jesus could not possibly have been uttered by him and made his own gospel of Jesus?

Nowhere in any of our founding documents is a 'right' to do evil enumerated, nor a 'right' practice deviant sex.

Now you are getting childish! The constitution is about government – not religion. The Bill of Rights asserts general rights such as those I have already listed. Do you have any idea how creepy you come across – obsessed as you seem to be with other people’s sexual practices?

I repeat: there is no where in the constitution that says there is no right to sin. And, in fact, sinners’ rights have been upheld through the courts…which you should count your blessing for – since you are also a sinner. Perhaps it is time for you to get your own house in order – before throwing stones.

In the story of Adam and Eve – they sinned by eating of the forbidden fruit. God gave them the “right” to sin – it would seem.

Anger is a sin. You seem angry to me. Should you be in jail for it?

If we had a "right to sin", any law restricting human action would, by definition, be violating the rights of the sinner.

Apparently you do not understand the difference between government and religion. Sin is a religious term. People have the “right” to sin. If they break the law, there will be legal consequences. If they sin – say for instance, have homosexual sex – they will not receive legal consequences. If someone is greedy, that is a sin – however there is no law against it. If someone is unloving – that is a sin – but again, there is no law against it. If someone is so evil as to condemn another – there is no legal consequence for it.

If we have a "right to sin", then by definition, we can take no action when we are the victims of sin for fear of violating another person's "right to sin

Again, you seem confused as to the difference between church and state. We absolutely, by law, have a “right” to sin. For a Jew to eat things that are not Kosher is a sin. But you or I are not prosecuted for it and, of course, Jews aren’t civilly prosecuted either. When the sin – say murder – is both a religious sin and a civil crime - then there is a civil consequence.

468 posted on 05/11/2006 2:44:19 PM PDT by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
No, it is proper to ask.

It's proper to ask someone if they are without sin? Why don't you ask me if I have a head? The question would be no less idiotic and the answer every bit as obvious.

But as I say, I had no idea just how arrogant you are.

Yawn. Ad hominems are boring.

Wrong. I know that the founders were not theocrats.

Really? And yet they spoke about rights coming from the "Creator", imposed all kinds of laws about public and private morality, called for days of prayer, etc. Heck, even though he didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, Thomas Jefferson thought that Christ's moral teachings represented the most perfect system possible. By your definition, the Founders sounded pretty theocratic to me.

It wouldn’t surprise me if you were or wish to be a theocrat – like the Islamists.

That's right, ignore the point I made and just compare me to guys who slice off the heads of infidels while chanting, "Allah akbar." Again, yawn.

Perhaps you are unaware that it is now over 200 years since the founding of our nation???? Are you aware that the founders weren’t too hip about women’s rights either??? And slavery??? Are you aware at all that we live in different times and that human understanding has progressed since the 1700’s?

So you have retreated to the bastion of the anti-American leftist, eh? The old "living Constitution" canard? Last time I checked, both slavery and women's sufferage were settled by Amendments to the US Constitution--as is proper. If the butt-sex crowd is able to pass a Constitutional Amendment saying that they have a God-given right to "marry", then they will have at least acted legitimately, even though I will go right on disagreeing with them. They can't do that, so instead they are attempting to force their immorality on an unwilling nation via naked judicial fiat against the oft expressed will of the electorate. Are you in favor of that?

Perhaps because the definition of theocrat does not have to do with your solution to sodomy! Do you know what theocracy is? You are trying to force others to live by your religion.

Huh? There are plenty of reasons to oppose homosexual behavior that are based purely on common sense with no religious component to them at all. Is it your opinion that we were living under a theocracy for the first 228 years of our nation's existence until the Lawrence decision made butt-sex a "civil right"? There have been plenty of laws on the books outlawing deviant sex acts throughout our nation's history.

Are you aware that he was sure that some of the quotes attributed to Jesus could not possibly have been uttered by him and made his own gospel of Jesus?

No, I'm a complete illiterate and an idiot. Please, patronize me more. (You do realize that by bringing up Jefferson's suspicions about Christianity, you're actually helping make my case, right?)

Do you have any idea how creepy you come across – obsessed as you seem to be with other people’s sexual practices?

Let's see. Homosexuals parade down Main Street in leather thongs during their "pride" parades, spew their propaganda on every conceivable media outlet, strain every bulkhead to get at my children in schools---and yet somehow, I'm the creepy one for opposing all of this? Again, yawn.

And, in fact, sinners’ rights have been upheld through the courts…

You are now going to cite me a Supreme Court case that does this (preferably from before the courts went nuts in the 1960s), and provide the relevant money quote from the case proving it. If not, please withdraw the claim as spurious.

which you should count your blessing for – since you are also a sinner.

I don't recognize any court which would pat me on the back and "protect me" for committing a sin. Such a court has ZERO moral authority. They may have legal authority--but hey, even Stalin's show trials had that.

Perhaps it is time for you to get your own house in order – before throwing stones.

I know you'd prefer that folks like me be silent in the face of evil, but sorry, no can do. If that bothers you, put me in jail.

In the story of Adam and Eve – they sinned by eating of the forbidden fruit. God gave them the “right” to sin – it would seem.

It would seem--only to someone with very little insight. Once again, having the power to do something does not equal having the right to do it. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? God did not give Adam and Eve the "right" to sin. Indeed, He commanded them not to. And you'll notice--what was the sin they committed? Eating the apple? No. It was willfully disobeying a direct and unambiguous command from God. How does it make any sense that God would give his creatures the "right" to do something and then command them not to do it?

Anger is a sin. You seem angry to me. Should you be in jail for it?

Righteous anger is not a sin. Did Jesus sin when he drove the money-changers out of the Temple? Wrath or vindictive anger, on the other hand, is a sin. Regardless, I'm not in the least bit angry. Perhaps you mistake my zeal to help those afflicted with same-sex attraction properly understand their evil desires and escape their dangerous lifestyle for anger? If so, that's your problem, not mine.

Apparently you do not understand the difference between government and religion.

No, I do perfectly well. All government has its basis in a moral code that comes from somewhere. Ours, thank God, is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some libertine-arians and atheists would have us replace this with some vague notion of morality that none of them can seem to agree on. Such rationalist moral codes have been attempted as the basis for governments in the past--and have been notable for their catastrophic failures.

Sin is a religious term.

Perhaps, but it is also a cultural term meaning "to do wrong." If it makes you uncomfortable, just use "to do wrong" in place of "to sin."

People have the “right” to sin. If they break the law, there will be legal consequences.

No one has a right to do wrong. The very idea is self-contradictory. How on earth can anyone have a right to do something that's against the law unless the law itself is unjust? This kind of thinking is just a complete muddle.

If they sin – say for instance, have homosexual sex – they will not receive legal consequences. If someone is greedy, that is a sin – however there is no law against it. If someone is unloving – that is a sin – but again, there is no law against it. If someone is so evil as to condemn another – there is no legal consequence for it.

In every one of these instances above, you are describing a thought or a feeling--except homosexual sex which is an act. Our system tends not to criminalize thought--a noble notion to be sure. We do criminalize all kinds of acts. No one ever says, "he was caught in the thought." Again, I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but it's a logical mess.

We absolutely, by law, have a “right” to sin.

Really, which law? Can you cite one for me from before 1960 when all this moral "I'm ok, you're ok" gobbledeegook really began to take hold?

For a Jew to eat things that are not Kosher is a sin. But you or I are not prosecuted for it and, of course, Jews aren’t civilly prosecuted either.

Right. But we could be. If my town was 90% Orthodox Jewish and they passed a law that said that no one in the town could eat pig meat, do you think such a law would be constitutional? Newsflash: It would be. And even our modern courts which have strayed so far from the Constitution would likely recognize the law as valid for that town as long as it didn't contain any specific religious language.

When the sin – say murder – is both a religious sin and a civil crime - then there is a civil consequence.

In my opinion, homosexual acts should be a civil crime.

Question (and you don't have to answer this if you don't want to): Do you have a personal stake in this issue?
469 posted on 05/11/2006 9:22:26 PM PDT by Antoninus (I will not vote for a liberal, regardless of party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Let’s review:

I say: that our system protects the “right” of a sinner to sin – as in such cases where the “sin” is not against the law and a person is not consciously attempting to do harm – sins such as greed, lust, sodomy, adultery, abortion, eating whatever food you want, anger, dishonesty etc.

I have proven my point. You have not been able to refute the facts here. Sin is in the eye of the beholder – as is beauty. There are many things that you think of as “sins” that I do not. There are many things that you think of as sins that a Buddhist would not. There are many things that you think of as “sins” that someone of another sect within Christianity would not.

Our system *allows* people of differing creeds to freely practice their own ideology. We do not criminalize religious sins. People have the “right” to commit what you consider to be sins. You may really, really, really want everyone to have to live by your moral code. But your religion is not the law of the land here. In so many ways, America is about freedom. That may woosh right over your head – but it remains a wonderful fact.

You say: there is no “right” to sin. The proof that you are wrong is in your own words that we do not criminalize thoughts. Indeed. And our system protects the right of people to have what you would consider to be sinful thought, and to commit what you would consider to be sinful acts…like sodomy. You are completely and utterly wrong. You are rude, you call me names, you act like I have never in my life read the Declaration of Independence – yet you get all bent out of shape if I treat you the same.

I realize you are young – but that is not an excuse for your arrogance and lack of common decency – something that Mary Cheney has, btw. Since you are a self-proclaimed Christian who, from my perspective, does not live by the teachings of Jesus – I have no expectation that you will act honorably here and admit that you are wrong – but it would be nice.

Oh, and no, I am not in love with someone of the same sex – nor am I having sex with someone of the same sex. But yes, I have a stake in this issue. Why? Because I care about it.

470 posted on 05/12/2006 4:33:46 PM PDT by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450451-470 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson