See other Activism Articles
Title: Michael Badnarik for Congress (He told me he's going to be a Ron Paul with attitude!)
Source:
Badnarik for Congress
URL Source: http://www.badnarik.org/
Published: Dec 10, 2005
Author: Michael Badnarik
Post Date: 2005-12-10 21:21:05 by christine
Keywords: attitude!), Badnarik, Congress
Views: 384
Comments: 49
Dear Friends and Acquaintences, 2005 has been an extremely hectic year. From January through June my time was dedicated to attending LP state conventions across the nation, and teaching my Constitution class anytime I could find people who would sit still for it. In July my focus shifted to organizing a highly dedicated campaign staff for my current congressional campaign. Much of the groundwork for 2006 is in place, and by January we will have six full-time staff members working out of our Austin office. Just this afternoon we were discussing a plan to establish as many as six satellite offices across the district, so that volunteers and constituents would have nearby access to campaign materials. This is more exciting than watching my first live shuttle launch! Although our office will be slowing down for the holidays, we still have rent and bills to pay before we head home to visit our families. Unfortunately, "Peace on Earth" is one of the things Santa never seems to deliver, so that is one gift we will have to earn for ourselves. I am hoping that you are filled with the spirit of the holidays, and that you are willing to contribute to the cause of Liberty - via my congressional campaign, of course. Even a small contribution will help us keep the fires burning - and the office open - until next month. Please visit http://www.Badnarik.org and click on the donate button in the upper right hand corner. Your generosity is greatly, and sincerely appreciated. You can help even more by forwarding this message to your personal list of patriots freedom lovers. And now, using the miracle of modern technology, I'd like to take a moment to personally wish you and your family the very best this holiday season. http://veepers.bluemountain.com/slip/NpD2fbPO2HgIJ_0t9QHodG From my family, and the dedicated staff at Badnarik for Congress, have a very Happy Holiday, and an extremely prosperous New Year! Michael Badnarik soon to be the first declared Libertarian in Congress
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
I didn't vote for him for president. I chose constitution party. I would vote for him for congress. He would be refreshing on many issues. Borders would probably be a problem though, like christine pointed out on another thread.
Don't Steal the government hates competition!!!
ping!
All of Michael Badnarik's positions should be viewed within the framework of a strict interpretation of the plain meaning of the US_Constitution. The principles of liberty, which include personal responsibility for one's own actions and a rejection of collectivist ideologies as both immoral (that is, involuntary collectivism always results in coercion and force) and suboptimal (that is, they produce much worse economic and personal satisfaction results) is his primary guiding force. * Abortion: Badnarik personally opposes abortion, but believes that decisions regarding abortion rights should be made at the state and not the federal level. He recognizes that there is significant controversy surrounding when life begins, and argues that therefore the state should not legislate against abortion, since a fetus is not unarguably a human life. * Broadcast regulation: Badnarik opposes government regulation of "offensive" content. "I find it very offensive when the government tells me what I can and cannot watch. [...] Individual people should decide what is or is not obscene and they will make that decision by watching or not watching reality TV." * Campaign finance reform: Badnarik supports eliminating public matching funds and contribution limits for political campaigns. * Civil rights: Badnarik supports all of the Bill of Rights unequivocally, a position which he claims contrasts with most political candidates. Badnarik says government does not grant rights but rather acknowledges them, that they exist independently of government as part of who and what we are, and that, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them. * Economic stimulus: Badnarik would stimulate the economy by eliminating the federal income tax in concert with drastically cutting government spending, effectively increasing personal income for most Americans. He also advocates the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the restoration of a commodity-based currency. * Education: Badnarik supports the elimination of the federal Department of Education, claiming that it is both unconstitutional and ineffective. Badnarik has called for the privatization of education, which he believes would result in both more effective and affordable alternatives due to free-market competition. * Energy: Badnarik opposes government regulation of the energy industry, instead arguing that the free market is more effective in controlling prices and maintaining stability. "All you need to know about economics is the law of supply and demand. When the supply of something goes down, the price of it will go up. And as the price of gasoline goes up, the consumerist at the pump is going to provide the incentive for finding alternative sources." * Free trade: Badnarik would withdraw the United States from NAFTA and GATT. "NAFTA and GATT have about as much to do with free trade as the Patriot Act has to do with liberty," he has said. "We need to get the government out of regulating trade, so that American workers can do what they do best and that is to create wealth." * Gay marriage and Civil Unions: Badnarik believes that marriage, as a contract between two individuals, should not be a concern of government, and supports the right of individuals to associate in whatever ways they see fit. * Gun control: Badnarik opposes restrictions on gun ownership as restrictions on an individual's right to self-defense. Badnarik is an enthusiastic gun owner, and believes strongly in the Right to keep and bear arms. * Health care: Badnarik opposes government involvement in health care and drug regulation, as he contends that the current drug approval process raises costs for consumers. * Illegal drugs: Badnarik supports the decriminalization of marijuana and other illegal drugs, citing the restrictions on personal freedoms as a result of the War on Drugs. See also: Drug legalization. * Immigration: Badnarik supports amnesty for certain illegal immigrants who already reside in the United States. Badnarik believes peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the country without restrictions or quotas, subject only to ensure they are not terrorists or criminals. Badnarik does not believe that the existence of a social 'safety net' is a good excuse for excluding immigrants. * International relations: As president, Badnarik would avoid "entangling alliances" and would initiate "a rapid recall of our troops from around the world. Other countries will be less likely to attack us when we are trading goods that are necessary for their survival." He supports the reduction and eventual elimination of government-funded foreign aid programs. * Iraq War: Badnarik supports a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, while providing for repair to infrastructure damaged by U.S. action. * Military draft: Badnarik opposes any reinstatement of a military draft. === Another Libertarian A-hole.
Another Mogambo Day
I've met Michael, talked with him at length, and taken his Constitution Class. While he's a Libertarian he's anything but an "A-hole". He knows the Constitution and supports it. He also lives what he preaches. Perhaps you don't agree with his platform, but there's no politician that I've met other than possibly Ron Paul, who supports the Constitution with the fire of Michael Badnarik. He would be a good person to have in Congress. Boonie Rat MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
It is clear, therefore, that it is time to rethink traditional strategy and tactics when it comes to opposing a modern police state. America is quickly moving into a long dark night of police state tyranny, where the rights now accepted by most as being inalienable will disappear. Let the coming night be filled with a thousand points of resistance. Like the fog which forms when conditions are right and disappears when they are not, so must the resistance to tyranny be. Louis Beam Combining the word "THE" with I.R.S. yields "THEIRS" - any questions? BR
As opposed to a gov shill cocksucker like you?
you couldn't be more wrong. i don't see a damn thing to argue with in those positions--even immigration, michael is right. if the government would do their job in checking and cross checking backgrounds of foreigners before they're allowed in, then this would be a non issue. the libertarian philosophy is one of SELF OWNERSHIP--"you own yourself, and no one else on Earth has a higher claim to your body or your labor than you do. So long as people act in a way that doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom, Libertarians believe that they should be free to do what they please." you have a problem with that?
I was about to ask you, rac, WHY you think that Badarik is an a**hole, or WHO you think is more fit for the job, or WHAT you think is a better program than libertarianism, but it occurs to me that if the comment above is the most discerning thing that you can come up within response to this thread, WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT YOU THINK??
and futher, you won't find a more tireless activist or a patriot who loves this country more than Michael Badnarik. it was Michael who started me on my path to enlightenment when I heard him speak at a Bill of Rights rally and then took his constitution class. for you to paint him with the "asshole" brush is really unjust, rack.
Assuming that the entire social safety net system were eliminated, immigrants would be forced to "sink or swim" as our own ancestors did. They had a 50%+ "failure and return home" rate. Works for me.
He has some strong points. But this point here is pure evil.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
He has some strong points. But this point here is pure evil. OK, I'll bite: What have you got against two or more individuals, possibly of the same sex, getting married?
I love children, but I can never finish a whole one.
it's not pure evil, stone. government should have absolutely no say so in regard to whom one chooses to associate or marry, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or anything inbetween. that's a private contract between those individuals. got that?
Because God invented the idea of marriage. This is corrupting Gods will. Besides it's my opinion that homos area sickos. Just like there is no such thing as a round square. There is no such thing as gay marriage.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
A mariage is a contract between a man a woman and God. If they want to sign some kind of contract for a will or stuff like that, then I have no problem with that. Just don't mock God and call it a marriage. If you have kids, would you want them to see two men french kissing at the mall. If I owned a mall and two men were kissing I would have them thrown out and brought up on charges.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
I voted that guy for president, hope he is successful in his run for congress!
Goodness Stone, you and your homos!!
Most Americans agree with me that they are abnormal. Something wrong with them. I'm entitled to my opinion.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
you missed the point. as usual. the point that badnarik is making, as am i, is that it's not the government's business. badnarik was not saying that he agrees with homosexual marriages.
As usual huh..... :(
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
That's the problem with the States marriage.. It carries no more weight or places no more restrictions on the participants than a will or any other type of contract. The State's "Marriage" is, was and will continue to be a false one. It's meaningless.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” President Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Just out of curiousity, how do you fill out the part about being married on your tax forms?
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
I tell the truth.. I'm single. I'm engaged and will be married, however. Not because I need the State to affirm with I already know, but so as not to bring dishonor on the woman I love.. That however is the ONLY reason I would even consider this for a minute. Aside from that, I don't need them to tell me who my wife is or "grant" me some special, magical State Privilidge to avoid sin.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” President Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I'm engaged and will be married, however. Not because I need the State to affirm with I already know, but so as not to bring dishonor on the woman I love.. That however is the ONLY reason I would even consider this for a minute. Aside from that, I don't need them to tell me who my wife is or "grant" me some special, magical State Privilidge to avoid sin. I could have sworn that you said you were married before. I am in agreement with what you stated.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
Depends on who you ask, me or the State.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” President Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Let's leave aside homosexual marriages and focus on heterosexual marriages just to make the point and look at some reasons why the state should not be involved. If one is not a christian, the concept of self ownership is a valid enough reason. 5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License by Pastor Matt Trewhella Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one? 1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right. 2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true. In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far- reaching implications. 3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children. As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so. 4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony. Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry. By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State. 5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State. The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio." See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State. When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage? God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery. In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept. Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime. History of Marriage Licenses in America George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued? Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages." Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. What Should We Do? Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.) You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law. When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we. (Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.)
ping to above
I wouldn't mind if the government got out of the marriage business. I got a state marriage license. Been married 14 years. Wifes father who was a minister married us. I'm really married, not because of the States paper. But because we made a vow before God. I wasn't aware about these issues at the time. Also the government can take their idea that they have jurisidiction over our marriage and stick it up their collective asses.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. B/S. Bigamy is an imaginary crime and an imaginary sin. It's more Catholic garbage that's festered and eaten it's way into the lawbooks.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” President Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
You are saying that bigamy is ok. You gotta be kidding. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. It doesn't say three are one flesh. You really surprise me on this one Jhoffa_
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
1: How many wives did Abraham have? 2: Find me a prohibition against it.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” President Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
2: Find me a prohibition against it. 1.Several wives. That doesn't make it right. 2. Thie is a cut and past, but it makes the point better than I could. God’s standard is clear—Genesis 2—from the very, very beginning. When God made the first family, people, how many were in it? Two! That’s a rather significant statement, don’t you think? And in verse 23 of Genesis 2, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘women’.” That’s a dignified name, beautiful name! The Greek word is ‘gune’… I don’t understand that, but anyway! “She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.” Now watch, here’s God’s standard for marriage, verse 24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, cleave unto his wife, and they shall be”—what? “One flesh.” Nothing added. Nothing subtracted. Two people, one flesh. From the very beginning, folks, that was God’s plan. You say, “Well, how did polygamy get started?” It got started in the reprobate line of Cain the murderer! Look at Genesis 4, if you’re there, and verse 23: “One of the sons of Cain,” in the Cainite family, “dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.” Cain produced some family and one of them was Lamech. Lamech was unbelievable. He was the first artist. Verse 23: “Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah”—that’s from A to Z. That’s his two wives, Adah and Zillah. “He said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah” and so forth. This is the first occasion of polygamy in the Bible and notice that it is in the line of Cain, the sinful line.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
God got this one right. One wife....please....
Personally, I think people who watch reality TV are sickos. Restricting marriage to one man and one woman (must they be of the same RACE?) does more harm than good, IMHO. Look at the Pubbies who just got outed recently. Better to be honest with yourself and those with whom you choose to spend your life. Personally, I could never do a group marriage, or marry another guy, but I'm not going to shun those who do.
I love children, but I can never finish a whole one.
Why anyone would want more than one is beyond me. But hey--anything goes in Libertarian Land! [Or it should, until your fist hits my nose].
I love children, but I can never finish a whole one.
The only thing I do not agree with him on is Immigration and the reason for this is NOT racist but for preservation of our Constitution. (Mexico is basically a socialist nation and the illegal Immigrants tend to export this phlosophy with themselves and spread it through their "anchor" children.)
Says who? There are even instructions in the OT on how to treat multiple wives. You're wrong. No, it isn't.. No, I don't. “She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.” Now watch, here’s God’s standard for marriage, verse 24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, cleave unto his wife, and they shall be”—what? “One flesh.” Nothing added. Nothing subtracted. Two people, one flesh. From the very beginning, folks, that was God’s plan. Perhaps, but no where is this condemned. On the contrary, you will find all sorts of things condemned, right down to jewlery and hats (in certain circumstances) but not bigamy. In fact, many of the prominent players had multiple wives and concubines. David, Jacob, Abaraham, etc, etc.. You are left with assumptions which are not supported by scripture. As I said.. Jacob had 2 and relations with his maid.. Remember that he prayed for Rachel. He didn't pick her up in a bar, either. She was given to him, but Leah first. Is he now more sinful than Cain? I'm not saying that I think this is a good model for society, in fact I feel it's not. What I am saying is that this practice is quite common and is not condemned anywhere. In fact, the opposite is true.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” President Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Says who? Notice that God's definition of marriage involves a man "leaving his father and mother" to be united to his wife. Once a man has left his father and mother's authority and household to marry, he cannot leave that household again! This means that when a man first marries a woman, he does so upon leaving his parent's authority. If he were to subsequently marry another woman, he would not be leaving his parent's authority again, and thus would not fulfill the definition of marriage as outlined in Matthew 19 and Genesis 2:24. God gives us only two other circumstances where a man can marry another woman: 1) If his wife dies [see Romans 7:2-3] 2) If his wife commits adultery [see Matthew 19:8-9]
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
In fact, many of the prominent players had multiple wives and concubines. David, Jacob, Abaraham, etc, etc.. You are left with assumptions which are not supported by scripture. Now, let me give you an illustration. Deuteronomy 21:15: “If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated,”—and this is a verse people pick. “If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated, then it shall be when he makes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn.” Now that that’s clear, we’ll go on to verse 17. “But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” The point is this: you have two wives. Wife #1, you don’t like. Wife #2, you like. Both have sons; you’re prone to give the inheritance to the second wife, to her son, even though he is not the firstborn because you like that second wife better. People say, “Well, here is God allowing bigamy.” No, not at all. The point here is simply this: here is a man who has two wives in his lifetime. The assumption is one has died, one is alive. He may not give the inheritance to the second though she is his beloved and maybe he’s long forgotten the first, but his inheritance must go to the first. It’s a situation here and if you study carefully through the text and through the verb forms that are used here, you will see that that is supported by the text. The word “had” is there. The word “was hated,” past tense, relative to that wife who has died.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
1) He's not defining marriage, he's discussing it and explaining it. 2) You can find many, many, MANY examples of Bigamy strung throughout the Bible, but you can't find a single condemnation, can you?
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” President Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
God tolerated bigamy. He clearly says that marriage is for a man and a woman. Tell me where It says where it is good to have multiple wives. It doesn't say it is a sin for two men to stick coke bottles up their butts. But im pretty sure it is.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
Comments (41 - 49) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: *3rd Party* (#0)
#3. To: christine (#0)
#4. To: rack42 (#3)
Another Libertarian A-hole.
#5. To: rack42, christine (#3)
Another Libertarian A-hole
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#6. To: rack42 (#3)
Another Libertarian A-hole.
#7. To: christine (#6)
Another Libertarian A-hole.
#8. To: rack42 (#3)
#9. To: rack42 (#3)
#10. To: rack42 (#3)
* Gay marriage and Civil Unions: Badnarik believes that marriage, as a contract between two individuals, should not be a concern of government, and supports the right of individuals to associate in whatever ways they see fit.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
* Gay marriage and Civil Unions: Badnarik believes that marriage, as a contract between two individuals, should not be a concern of government, and supports the right of individuals to associate in whatever ways they see fit.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#13. To: Indrid Cold, christine (#11)
#14. To: christine (#12)
that's a private contract between those individuals. got that?
#15. To: christine (#0)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#17. To: Diana (#16)
Goodness Stone, you and your homos!!
#18. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#19. To: christine (#18)
you missed the point. as usual
#20. To: A K A Stone (#14)
A mariage is a contract between a man a woman and God. If they want to sign some kind of contract for a will or stuff like that, then I have no problem with that.
#21. To: Jhoffa_ (#20)
The State's "Marriage" is, was and will continue to be a false one.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
#23. To: Jhoffa_ (#22)
I tell the truth.. I'm single.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
I could have sworn that you said you were married before. I am in agreement with what you stated.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#13)
#26. To: JHoffa_ (#25)
#27. To: christine (#25)
#28. To: christine (#25)
When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?
#29. To: Jhoffa_ (#28)
Bigamy is an imaginary crime and an imaginary sin.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#31. To: Jhoffa_ (#30)
1: How many wives did Abraham have?
#32. To: A K A Stone (#31)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#13)
Because God invented the idea of marriage. This is corrupting Gods will. Besides it's my opinion that homos area sickos.
#34. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
God got this one right. One wife....please....
#35. To: Flintlock (#5)
#36. To: A K A Stone (#31)
1.Several wives. That doesn't make it right.
God’s standard is clear—Genesis 2—from the very, very beginning.
When God made the first family, people, how many were in it? Two! That’s a rather significant statement, don’t you think?
And in verse 23 of Genesis 2, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘women’.” That’s a dignified name, beautiful name! The Greek word is ‘gune’… I don’t understand that, but anyway!
You say, “Well, how did polygamy get started?” It got started in the reprobate line of Cain the murderer! Look at Genesis 4, if you’re there, and verse 23: “One of the sons of Cain,” in the Cainite family, “dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.” Cain produced some family and one of them was Lamech. Lamech was unbelievable. He was the first artist. Verse 23: “Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah”—that’s from A to Z. That’s his two wives, Adah and Zillah. “He said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah” and so forth. This is the first occasion of polygamy in the Bible and notice that it is in the line of Cain, the sinful line.
#37. To: Jhoffa_ (#36)
1.Several wives. That doesn't make it right.
#38. To: Jhoffa_ (#36)
Perhaps, but no where is this condemned. On the contrary, you will find all sorts of things condemned, right down to jewlery and hats (in certain circumstances) but not bigamy.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#37)
#40. To: Jhoffa_ (#39)
2) You can find many, many, MANY examples of Bigamy strung throughout the Bible, but you can't find a single condemnation, can you?
.
.
.