Other than RKBA, what are your main voting issues?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see a contradiction between Huxley's words and my paraphrase at all. It was a negation of the "Gnostics" of church history right? So who were the Gnostics? Adherents of various loosely related mystical religious sects unified by a belief in intuitive revealed "knowledge". Pretty much how I defined it.

It is NOT a halfway point between belief and non-belief. Do you believe there is a god or gods? If the answer is "I don't have enough info" or "there is no way for the human mind to comprehend that question" you are certainly right, but that answer still implies that you lack ("a") positive belief in any proposed gods ("theism")

A person does not have to say "it is impossible for a god to exist" to be an atheist. A person who DOES say that is, frankly, an idiot as it would take universal knowledge to make that claim. Proving a universal negative is a fool's game, especially in metaphysical questions. You are doubtless familiar with the IPU construct. It is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible pink unicorn, undetectable by any physical means, who speaks only to me. The general idea of a god falls into the same realm. Now specific gods can be proven impossible if they have inherent logical inconsistencies. For example an omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent god cannot exist just like a married bachelor cannot exist, but that doesn't mean there can't be ANY god.

Anyone who does not have a beleief in any gods is atheistic. Whether they choose to use the label or not is immaterial. Applied to the general question of divine existence, all rational people take the agnostic position since even the most religious rational person will admit deductive proof is not available for such existence, and again only an idiot attempts to prove a universal metaphysical negative. So in a way almost all atheists, and many theists, are agnostics (there are a few irrational atheists who claim to think any god by definition is impossible), and all agnostics are atheists (or they would believe in a god of some type).

What would you have called yourself in 1806 rather than 2006? (assuming that is you were in a scoeity where answering that question did not bring a death sentence - a position to which some theists wish to return)
 
ArmedBear said:
Gay marriage is an interesting subject. Again, I think that the motives of many advocates are not to fight for their own freedom to do as they choose, but rather to force others to bow to their wishes. On the other hand, there are committed gay couples who aren't hurting anyone, and who just want to have certain legal rights now given only to married couples.

There is another principle in law, however, and that is rational basis.

There is no rational basis for gay marriage, if one looks at the institution of marriage. Marriage exists to provide a legal framework for family law. It's about a couple having children, and the legal responsibilities of family members to each other and to the community (e.g. parents may be held criminally liable for some acts of their children). Family law also provides for divorce, and helps sort out what happens in case of divorce. That doesn't mean I LIKE divorce; the law does have to deal with these things, though.
Click to expand...

Thing is, a marriage doesn't really effect anyone outside of that marriage in any measurable way. A gay marriage doesn't stop heterosexuals from marrying or degrade the value of marriage. Gay marriage is no different from any other marriage built on love (a concept I find odd, but thats beside the point) There are other things that do have an effect on society, such as children, but children aren't exclusive to marriage.

No rational basis for gay marriage? How about self-determination? Going on your claim that marriage is about having children and being responsible to the community, we should not allow people who are incapable of bearing children to be married. I know a couple who has been married for nearly 10 years and they don't want children. Should their marriage be anulled because they aren't planning on any children...because they don't follow your definition of a family?
The point I'm trying to make is that marriage does not follow such guidelines. Marriage is different for every couple. A few hundred years ago, arranged marriages were common. Since marriage is largely what you make of it (if you want children or simply companionship) and doesn't fit into a specific definition, the state shouldn't be sanctioning such things. If a couple (or perhaps 3 or 4 people :eek: ) wishes to enter into a contract of civil union, the state should indeed sanction such a thing as it is a contract and should one party decide to terminate the contract, the state must be able to enforce the provisions of the contract.

In other words, the state has no business in the private lives of its citizens.
 
Aside from RKBA and general libertarian issues, one that I try to look at for any candidate is pork barrel spending, redistricting, and voting themselves pay raises. I think indications on any of those three items shows their attitude toward their constituency, and the rest of the taxpaying/voting public, fairly clearly.
 
dmallind, I see where you're coming from, but I still maintain there is a distinction between atheist and agnostic. Huxley wasn't referring to the Gnostic sect(s) of Christianity when he coined the term. He was referring to the root Greek word which simply means "knowledge". He was specifically trying to differentiate between his position (lack of evidence either way and clearly a lack of "faith"), the position of the faithful theists, and the position of the self-declared atheists.

When somebody says they're an atheist, at least in mind, it means they've settled on a position, and that they believe there is no god or gods at all, case closed. It doesn't have to be logical for people to believe it :)

For me, being an agnostic means I'm still looking for knowledge, that I haven't made up my mind (and I never did have "faith" in the Christian sense of the word, despite true-believing parents and many years of Sunday school and church). Who knows what I would've called myself in 1806, it was a much different world. "Freethinker" or "Skeptic" maybe, assuming those words weren't already co-opted by specific movements? I would never refer to myself as an atheist (proving a negative is extraordinarily difficult, as you noted), and at this point, I wouldn't refer to myself as a theist of any sort. That leaves a third position, agnosticism.
 
Just did a little more reading, and it seems I'm using a very narrow definition of the word "atheism". In some uses, it encompasses "agnosticism". I still prefer the latter since "without knowledge" is more precise regarding my position than "without god".
 
My primary issues when voting, other than RKBA:

* Right to life for the unborn and elderly. If you are denied life then no other rights matter. We are obligated to protect the most innocent life.

* Private property rights. The basis of freedom. If you can have your property confiscated, then you are not free.

* Control of illegal immigration. If we don't figure this out then we will have surrendured our soveriegnty. Immigrants should go through the naturalization process to have some understanding and apprecition of how our country is supposed to work, and to swear allegiance to it and not Aztlan.

* Private education including homeschooling; along with parental rights to raise their kids. Parents must be able to select and control the education of their kids or else we have become a State controlled society.

* Fiscal discipline. Excessive pending, debt and taxes work against liberty. We should exert discipline on ourselves to maintain as much liberty as possible in our lives. I favor the lesat invasive form of taxation and the most visible. To me that indicates a single form of taxation such as a sales tax in place of income, SSI, Medicare, etc. That would be require no individual tax filings.
 
I'd be curious to know what you've got against gay marriage though. If your objection doesn't come from religious grounds, where does it come from?
Click to expand...
Well, there's the darwinian objection, that gay marriage denies the biological assumption underlying traditional marriage. Unfortunately, fundementalists are just as suspicious of a darwinian argument, so that one doesn't get much play.

Another objection, which I have (mildly), is that it selectively creates a protected class. "Marriage", from a legal sense, is a codified shortcut for a host of legal agreements. Why let gays use the shortcut, when the shortcut is denied to polygamists? If you're going to completely secularize "marriage", why not open it to any collection of Persons (using the legal definition of Person). Then the polygamists can incorporate, and individuals can marry and divorce in and out of the clan/kibbutz/company/whatever.
 
Quote:
"Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.

I too, vote on that issue, however we have different views on the right to excercise ones religion.

The Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF; ..."

This does not mean, that religion should be banished from government. It means Congress shall pass no law establishing one. It did not establish that the States could not. It merely means the Federal Government could not.

And when a Federal Judge, arbitrarily rules that a religious symbol must be removed from a State's grounds, based on the incorrect concept that the Constitution dictates that NO RELIGIOUS displays or thought, or statements can be made anywhere in the presence of someone who does not believe in a God, then that Judge has violated the Constitution's First Amendment.

So I vote against any and all candidates that appoint aethiest, left wing Judicial Candidates who believe nobody has the right to exercise their religion anywhere near Government buildings, etc., since the Judiciary now believes they, and not "We the People" have the sole authority of establishing if a law is Unconstitutional.
 
I do have one question for Clean97GTI. I'm asking this out of respect for your viewpoint. You mention that my viewpoint was inconsistent, which I've found that you were right, basing my politics off my faith is not a very good reason (because most non-Christians do not hold the Bible as authoratative), and I thank you for making me think about it. I do have one question, though. Murder is wrong according to the law. If you ask a murderer, murder is not wrong. I think murder is wrong. Is it wrong for me to assist in passing a law telling that murderer that murder is illegal. Isn't that also forcing my viewpoint on that person? How do you draw the line with forcing a certain viewpoint on another, because every law telling someone not to do something is forcing another's viewpoint onto them, whether religious or not? Thanks.
 
SolaScriptura139

+1

I think that you summed it up perfectly. All law is an imposition of someone's morality. In a Christian's case, we think that someone should be God. For the most part, Western Culture has agreed and that is why the Bible has been our model of law for over a thousand years.

In recent years, we have moved away from that model. That's why our cities are now more dangerous to live in. Child molesters and rapists more prevalent. Thieves rob any and everybody. Cheating is rampant in our schools. Marragess last months rather than lifetimes. etc. etc. etc.
 
Since marriage is largely what you make of it (if you want children or simply companionship) and doesn't fit into a specific definition, the state shouldn't be sanctioning such things.
Click to expand...

That was my point.

However, if one does not deny the history of marriage, one must acknowledge the following:

1. Marriage exists as a means by which a couple can form a family. Traditionally, they get married, they screw, she gets pregnant, he is legally responsible for the kids, they build a home together. In many ways, marriage exists to keep the man around to support the family.

2. Marriage wasn't always a government thing. The government got involved because it was a source of revenue, and in order to impose other restrictions, some of them racist in the extreme.

3. Over the years, laws concerning interracial marriage were struck down as morally wrong, and unconstitutional. Laws concerning sex and fertility were struck down as a violation of privacy. Laws restricting divorce were relaxed, then eliminated, because they did more harm than good, even though "no-fault" divorce really undermines the principles of contract. The end result is that your friends' marriage should not be annulled if they don't or can't have children -- BUT it was not always so.

4. At this point, many people get divorced, remarried, etc. Despite the EXISTING laws intended to keep the parents around to raise the kids, and to make men support their offspring, marriage as a contract is certainly weakened. In practice, the contract does remain sexist, BTW.

5. Apropos of nothing, really, gay marriage advocates have started to claim that homosexual couples should be an additional specific class added to the list of people who can legally marry, based on the notions of privacy and equality. This doesn't hold water: equality doesn't mean adding a single additional class to a legally-defined group while excluding others. And the fact that I have gay friends in committed relationships doesn't change that.

So, the rational conclusion of the changes in the way we have legally defined marriage over the years is to get the government back OUT of the game altogether, not to get the government back into the game of deciding who can do what with whom.

We agree, generally. However, I wouldn't say the government should SANCTION any marriage. Allow contracts to be drawn up by anyone, as long as everyone is of sound mind and is not coerced. No special sanctions should be required.

Then, let churches do whatever they want. Don't make them recognize a marriage that violates their principles. But don't let them define our secular laws, either.

Aside to SolaScriptura-

The difference between murder and gay marriage is a simple one: murder involves one person killing another against his will. Gay marriage involves two adults choosing to get married, voluntarily, without forcing anything on anyone else.

Someone who is murdered, raped or robbed did not WANT to be the victim. Sane religions, philosophies, etc. agree that this is wrong. And the victim CERTAINLY agrees that the crime is wrong!

A marriage -- straight or gay -- does not involve an unwilling victim, or any victim, presumably. If a marriage is "wrong", it is defined that way by people who aren't involved in the marriage. The people getting married WANT to do it, so they don't agree that it is wrong. As long as they're not forcing anyone else to get involved, there isn't a crime. God can send them to hell if that's God's law, but the State shouldn't send them to jail.

Let's say you think that gay marriage is really bad. It's also true that alcoholism is really bad, right? If two alcoholics get together to share a 12-pack, and they don't drive, brawl, or do anything to hurt anyone else, is that a crime? It might be really bad, wrong, a sin, etc. But we don't call the cops to come and take them to jail. As decent people, we might try to help them, but we'd think it's a violation of basic freedom if the state got involved, right?
 
Last edited:
SolaScriptura,
While laws do force some morality on people, they do it to preserve liberty or safety. A simple view that I hold is that you should be able to do whatever you want provided it doesn't endanger anyone else nor prevent them from excercising such liberty.
If you murder somebody, you are taking that right away from them and that is unacceptable in a country that would call itself free. You do not have the right to murder somebody else.

While you can still do it, you must may the penalty which involves the loss of your rights and freedoms.
 
Pafrmu said:
I think that you summed it up perfectly. All law is an imposition of someone's morality. In a Christian's case, we think that someone should be God. For the most part, Western Culture has agreed and that is why the Bible has been our model of law for over a thousand years.

In recent years, we have moved away from that model. That's why our cities are now more dangerous to live in. Child molesters and rapists more prevalent. Thieves rob any and everybody. Cheating is rampant in our schools. Marragess last months rather than lifetimes. etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Our laws are NOT based on biblical principles. Our laws are built to preserve the liberty and rights of the people living under them. You do not need the Bible to tell you what these principles are. The Bible was simply a place these things were written down many thousands of years ago. I doubt that was the first time such laws were codified.

Our cities are dangerous because people are nasty, opportunistic creatures. I believe this is because humans are simply a product of natural selection (in fact, thats what evolution largely is) Humans were able to adapt and grow (our brains are the real key to our success as a species) and flourish. Humans are not monogamous creatures by nature although I've gotten a lot of argument to the contrary. Monogamy is more the exception than the rule in nature. Monogamy limits breeding which in turn, reduces population. Not too smart if you wish to continue your species.
I believe this is why marriages fail. People aren't built to be monogamous and you can observe evidence everyday that backs that up. Every man, whether he is married or not, looks at women other than his mate. You just can't help it. Something in your brain forces you to watch that curvy member of the opposite sex walk by. You want her for reasons you can't explain, but societal conditioning kicks in and you then try to cover it up so your wife doesn't smack you...even though she just eye-balled the chiseled waiter who served your food.

I've kinda gotten off base, but my point is that people are nasty and selfish because thats how you survive. We've polished our rough exterior and adopted more socially acceptable codes and life has become more comfortable as a result. You can't suppress thousands or millions of years of instinct though...you can control it, but the animal still comes out and usually in the form of a criminal or at least in behaviors we consider less than polite, such as checking out the hottie who just served your drinks and hoping your girlfriend didn't see. :evil:

*climbs off soapbox*
 
ArmedBear,

Marriages have been entered into for all sorts of reasons. Love, family, financial arrangements, kingdoms, citizenship :fire: , etc.
Its really impossible to classify a marriage as "traditional."

I don't feel that adding a special class of people, namely homosexuals, to marriage laws is the right thing to do. I feel that all marriages everywhere should be declared null and retroactive Certificates of Civil Union issued by the state. These certificates count simply as a contract between two or more parties. Marriage will no longer count for anything as far as the state is concerned. If people wish to have a marriage ceremony performed, they are free to go to anyone they choose to have it done. Churches, ship captains, etc would all be able to perform marriage ceremonies although they wouldn't be legally binding. Only civil unions would hold any legal weight.

My feeling is that government has no place defining marriage nor forcing churches (here's that separation of church and state thingy) to recognize anything. The relationship between a man and his god is exactly that...between the two of them. The state has no business in that relationship, nor does that relationship have any business in the affairs of the state.

I think we are largely in agreement on this matter.
 
Its really impossible to classify a marriage as "traditional."
Click to expand...

I agree. My only point was that the left-wing logic that says that the notion of marriage has traveled a good distance from its history (when birth control didn't exist and children were an asset in an agrarian society rather than a liability in a post-industrial one), and therefore we should add gays to the list of people who can marry, doesn't make any more sense than right-wing positions on the subject. The objective is statist: forcing insurance companies and others to act in ways that cost them, and that they do not choose, with the government choosing the beneficiaries. At least keeping traditional marriage doesn't have that clear intent.

I truly believe that the libertarian approach, getting the government out of our personal lives completely, is the only one that is logically or morally consistent.

From what you've written, we are totally in agreement about where to go with this.
 
Other than RKBA... in no order except what comes to mind...

Religious freedom-

I do not want to live in a theocracy, partial or total. Christians, when it comes to this issue, for some reason lack any bit of empathy. How would you like to walk up to a courthouse and see the law of (insert non-christian god/prophet) plastered everywhere. Would you feel like you were about to get a fair trial, based on the rational thinking of your peers, under the law of your country?
Athiests still remember that not too long ago, well into the 20th century, that athiests could not testify in court.

I will and do vote for christians. But I have a line. People like Tom Delay. I am from Sugar Land, tx, and I saw him speak in a synagogue where he made it very clear that he would ensure the US continues to back Israel, because it is God's will as laid out in the Holy Scripture. NO THANKS TOM :cuss: :fire:

Taxes-

I am still young, and as someone else on this board put it, I would rather not be a sharecropper in my own lifetime.

Education-

As a 2nd year college student, the public education system is still fresh in my mind. The purpose of public schools is a free daycare service, period. On the high school level, it is to keep kids off the streets where they would be commiting crimes, and in a pseudo-prison, period. Solution? Revamp the schools. Two different types of schools, those for college-bound kids and those for vocational-school kids. Those who have the drive for higher learning go to one high school, those who could care less about education and just want to goof off go to another where they learn the basics but spend a lot of time learning trades. So instead of being told everyone can/will go to college, but then realizing senior year that they spent all their time on football, have a 1.5 GPA and no desire to go to a university, they have a real chance at life.

Campaign/election reform-

On all levels. No more lobbying. At all. One person one vote. No companies donating millions, which is worth far more than any vote, and everyone knows it. No more bought and paid for congressmen and presidents. No more bribery. No more obvious corruption in congress that goes unchecked because only congress caan check it.
 
I vote Republican; period. But, having said that; I think that it's more of a vote AGAINST than a vote for. The lessor of the evils, so to speak.

The main issues that I vote on are:

Abortion-------------Against

Homosexual Rights---Against

Gun Ownership/Rights--For

Smaller Government----For


Bama61
 
All the doublespeak about rights and how the right-wingers hate the sin not the sinner, are all for rights but not for gay marriage really falls apart when you put it that way.

Homosexual Rights---Against

Thats good to know.

Rights are good as long as only certain people have them and the icky homos dont have any.

YEAH, THE HIGH ROAD, SURE

This makes me sick... :(
 
several tangential issues such as RTKBA. lower taxes, smaller government, less spending, less intruisive government.

and most important:
The right to be born and not slaughtered before hand.

and don't give me this crock that it is somehow intrusive of government to keep someone from being slaughtered in the womb. If that were the case then it would also be intrusive of government to have laws against murder and rape and such. These laws are simply protecting the rights of an individual.
 
Malice,

People who practice homosexuality are no more or no less than anyone else. Homosexuality is a sin just as committing adultery, lying, stealing, murdering, etc.

I do not believe that people should practice any of the about mentioned things because they are abominations to God. But, what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their business.

BUT, they have no right to flaunt it out in public and they absolutely have no right to special treatment. Folks want to compare "gay" rights to civil rights. That is pure garbage. It is not a sin to be a black person. It is a sin to practice homosexuality. That is not what Bama61 says, but what God says. End of discussion.

Bama61
 
Okay, try this. Other than guns, gays, and God, what are your main voting issues?

Most importantly, what concerns are gun owners likely to share? Focus on our differences, and you will just get a closed thread.
 
Bama61 and Malice:

The High Road does include a large Pink Pistols contingent. Chill.

I have been labelled homophobe myself, but I do support human rights
for all willing to live in peace and respect each other.

I did get irked that when I opened the Compton's encyclopedua CD
on human sexuality the three datelines are all gay or homosexual.
Heck, I know a lesbian couple who told me THEY were offended by
MTV flaunting girls kissing for shock value. The pro gay agenda is
triggering a backlash.

It is easy for traditional values people to feel under siege. The
Hollywood-New York City axis feels that attacking status quo
is the only way to go. A lot of values are traditional because
they are good, natural and stand the test of time.
 
Bama61, you may believe homosexuality is a sin, but thankfully, we don't live under such restrictive rules. We have the First Amendment which gives us freedom of and from religion. The other thing the 1st Amendment provides is freedom of expression. This falls under the freedom of speech and there is an excellent explanation here.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
Gay people do indeed have the right to "flaunt" it in public just the same as a street juggler has the right to stand on a corner and juggle or someone may act or sing in public. Its covered under free speech.
Just because it makes you uncomfortable or offends you, doesn't mean you get to stop it. If you don't like it, look the other way and walk on by.

Also, the traditional values things holds very little water with me. People set their own values and they always have. If you want to talk tradition, don't forget that we can observe homosexuality in ancient Greek society and even some in Mesopotamia although Greek history is better documented. In fact, there is evidence to state that homosexuality isn't a behavior at all, but is in fact biological in origin.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
I'd suggest a little more research before claiming that homosexuality is a sin just because it doesn't fit your religious views.

Equal rights extends to all free people, not just the ones who are more equal.
The "pro-gay" agenda as it was described above :scrutiny: may not fit everyone. Lots of rights activists go to extreme lengths to get their point across. Another example would be the folks who dressed up like indians and tossed crates of tea into Boston Harbor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
If Democrats were pro-gun and Republicans were anti-gun, who would you vote for?
2
Replies
30
Views
876
albanian
A
J
  • Locked
What are the most important issues to you this election year?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Sawdust
S
L
  • Locked
Canada votes a new gov't today.
Replies
24
Views
832
McCall911
M
D
  • Locked
RKBA and CA Governor's Race?
Replies
2
Views
525
Jim March
J
I
  • Locked
Ever visit the opposition's threads?
Replies
18
Views
655
iapetus
I
Back
Top