Ron Paul Is The Only Choice For Catholics

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1315318002' post='2301073']
It is HUD's fault, and anyone who supports the special government favor that is HUD cannot complain when those favors don't benefit them.
[/quote]

By the way, I'm not a fan of HUD. I could go on about my issues with HUD for days. While HUD's regulations make the reconciliation agreement worse, I would have the same problem with the reconciliation agreement even if HUD didn't have any regulations regarding public housing. So - to be clear - the reason that I do not blame HUD for this problem is that the problem would still exist even if there was no HUD.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315326200' post='2301117']
Wrong. I have lived outside of Galveston. I clearly said that I liked him before I moved here.[/quote]
Things have changed, since then, so you no longer understand.


[quote]Show up, learn about the issue, & make a statement. That's all I ask. I would not blame him if his statement is ignored. I do blame him for not even trying. I think that if he were to point out how hypocritical and harmful the state of Texas is being to this city, it might have an effect on this situation - especially since Perry is running for president. It won't affect HUD at all; but again, HUD did not create this problem). This is about Texas selling us (the city of Galveston) out to get their hands on federal money.
[/quote]
HUD created the hoops that Texas is now jumping through. Shall Texas give up this money by not jumping through them? Perhaps you should work to eliminate HUD and thus remove the problem.

[Mr.Cat]

Federal politicians NEVER lobby to state governments or attempt to influence their decisions. At least, that is the impression I am getting from this thread. That's why it's so silly to ask Representative Ron Paul to address something happening in his district... So SILLY!

Edited September 6, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

Obviously, nationalists have a different view.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1315331862' post='2301144']
HUD created the hoops that Texas is now jumping through. Shall Texas give up this money by not jumping through them? Perhaps you should work to eliminate HUD and thus remove the problem.
[/quote]

I highly suggest you learn about this situation before making assumptions. (The problem is not HUD.) We can start a new thread if you actually want to discuss this issue further.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Capitalism is bad. I'm voting for Che.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315342353' post='2301237']

I highly suggest you learn about this situation before making assumptions. (The problem is not HUD.) We can start a new thread if you actually want to discuss this issue further.
[/quote]
As I said, since you live in Galveston, you cannot understand the perspective of others outside of Galveston. They should turn the entire island into a prison colony.

[Winchester]

meh

Edited September 7, 2011 by Winchester

[Aloysius]

have you called Ron Paul's office or sent him letters on the issue? you yourself admitted he likely cannot do anything about the situation, so I think this is a ridiculous issue to bring up in a discussion about Paul's presidential campaign.

the job of a Federal Congressman is to represent his constituents in the Federal Government. I'm sure they can also do some things to try to influence state policies, though that should obviously not be their primary job if they should be bothering with it at all. in fact, I'd be offended at Federal Congressmen trying to interfere in the actions of a State that way... I mean, Texas might be wrong to be doing what it's doing, but doesn't it have the right to do it? what constitutional right would the Federal government have to stop them?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315369462' post='2301453']have you called Ron Paul's office or sent him letters on the issue? you yourself admitted he likely cannot do anything about the situation, so I think this is a ridiculous issue to bring up in a discussion about Paul's presidential campaign.

the job of a Federal Congressman is to represent his constituents in the Federal Government. I'm sure they can also do some things to try to influence state policies, though that should obviously not be their primary job if they should be bothering with it at all. [b][u]in fact, I'd be offended at Federal Congressmen trying to interfere in the actions of a State that way[/u][/b]... I mean, Texas might be wrong to be doing what it's doing, but doesn't it have the right to do it? what constitutional right would the Federal government have to stop them?[/quote]Why? Why would you be offended? Governments work together all the time. In this case it's merely asking for THEIR Representative to address something happening in THEIR district...

We have a federal government, NOT a confederal government.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314916437' post='2298840']
I find the breathless "slippery slope" arguments popular on here along the lines of "if we allow governments to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then next thing you know, they'll deny them to Catholics!" (or whatever exactly it is we're supposed to be so afraid of - followed no doubt by scary scenarios involving cops in wedding chapels and/or bedrooms and other apocalyptic horrors) to be simply absurd and fallacious.

It seems to me that whole slippery-slope "argument" is just clever, if obvious, verbal ju-jitsu employed by the "gay rights" crowd to keep "religious conservatives" from opposing "gay marriage."
The sad thing is that so many on here seem to be falling for it.
[/quote]


and yet i am pretty sure i have seen you arguing for a slippery slope argument on if gay marriage is legalized, eventually pedophilia will be accepted, polygamy will be ok and bestiality will be hunky dory.
And that basic premise is even less likely to happen.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315369462' post='2301453']
what constitutional right would the Federal government have to stop them?
[/quote]
The only reason I brought it up is because the state of Texas is doing this to get federal money. IMHO, the federal government shouldn't have the money in the first place. Since you see this as tangential, I'm willing to drop it. Ron Paul is just fantastic. :/

[Socrates]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1315264047' post='2300679']
Well since PM is literally not letting me quote your post Soc, I'm going to have to resort to drastic measures and put your quotes in bold. Sorry [/quote]
It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

[quote][b]Marriage has always involved legal issues and legal recognition; it has always involves such things as inheritance of property and title, etc.[/b]


Not really. It used to just be a church issue. Marriage licenses originated in many states purely for eugenics purposes. That right there tells me that they should never have existed in the first place.[/quote]
Sources?

In olden times, there was not the strict separation of church and state common in modern America. Marriages may have been performed by and recorded by the Church, but they certainly were recognized by civil law. Even a quick glance at history will show kingdoms gained and empires forged by marriages. Whether or not a union was recognized as a lawful union had everything to do with the inheritance of property and title - including kingdoms.

The idea that marriage ever existed only a purely religious sphere kept tightly separated from and unrecognized by civil law is simply inaccurate and fallacious.


[quote][b]And there's no way to deal with legal issues surrounding things like marital infidelity if marriage is never acknowledged in the first place.[/b]


Besides being grounds for divorce in a court, what legal issues are there surrounding marital infidelity? Adultery is legal, provided the adulterer is cheating with someone over the age of 18.[/quote]
Like it or not, the law must deal with issues of divorce and separation, including possession and inheritance of property, and custody of children.
If the law never acknowledges anybody as being married to anybody else, then there is simply no coherent way for such issues to be handled.

Yes, ideally there should be no divorce (nor should there be adultery), but I'm not sure that simply allowing people to cheat on their spouses as much as they like with absolutely zero legal consequences is such a wonderful solution.
Of course, in ages much saner than our own, adultery was a crime with serious consequences for the adulterer/adulteress.

[quote][b]And I don't think, as a married man, I should be required to get and sign a POA for such things as getting to visit my wife in the hospital.[/b]


Honestly, I sort of doubt you'd even have to. The vast majority of hospitals in the US (if not every one in the US) would recognize you as your wife's immediate family. The only marriages that would have to get a POA for those kinds of things would be controversial couples like homosexuals or polygamists.[/quote]
If marriage is never legally acknowledged in the first place, the whole idea of the wife being immediate family would be moot. If, say, my wife was unconscious after being in an accident in a strange town, proving myself family could become unnecessarily messy.

[quote][b](And, yes, I realize my standards on this are different than those involving homosexual couples. That's exactly the point; real marriage is fundamental to and the foundation of any healthy human society. Homosexual relations are not, and they should not be treated the same by law, as Card. Ratzinger explains multiple times in the document I linked to. In short, people should not enjoy any legal status that any other single adult does not have.)[/b]


I'm sort of confused what you're saying here. Could you elaborate on this please?[/quote]
Read my past posts on the subject, or better yet, read the CDF document. Marriage between man and woman and homosexual "relationships" should not have the same legal status.

[quote][b]I fail to see how limiting legal recognition to marriages between a man and a woman actually gives any scary new powers to government.[/b]


Well as others have said, once you let the government into marriage, they have the power to prevent anyone they see fit from getting married. I just don't see the point of letting them in, because I don't see that as their job.[/quote]
Not recognizing homosexual "marriage" does not grant the government any actual power over marriage they did not previously have. The states had never recognized homosexual marriages prior to a few years ago, yet we don't have jackbooted thugs raiding marriage chapels, or whatever horrors we're supposed to fear.
Legally limiting marriage to man and woman does not prevent any man from marrying any woman. Any statements to the contrary are nonsense.

[quote][b]It would simply codify what has always been understood, against those who would redefine marriage to mean something entirely different. [/b]

[b]Legally defining marriage as between man and woman is not creating a new definition - it merely acknowledges the true definition of marriage which has always existed.[/b]

Agreed.

[b]Just as legally defining murder as the killing of an innocent person acknowledges the reality and moral wrongness of what murder is.[/b]

A murderer infringes upon another person's natural right to life. Murder is gravely wrong, but that's not why it's illegal--it's illegal because someone's rights are being infringed upon when a murder takes place.

[b]The truth is, you can't separate law and morality. All law enforces morality of some kind (that it is wrong to murder, rape, or steal, for instance), and law which does not acknowledge or enforce morality is an unjust law.[/b]

Like I said, those things are illegal because someone's rights are infringed upon--in the case of murder, the right to life. With rape, the right to liberty. With theft, the right to property.[/quote]
So what exactly is a "right," where do rights come from, and why must we be obliged to respect them? Why is it wrong to violate rights?

If the source and origin of rights is the state, or the written law, then the state, or lawmakers, can just as easily take them away, or replace them with entirely new and different rights.

If you say the rights come from God, then encoding the rights into law and demanding that we respect them is a moral (or even religious) imperative.

If you claim rights to life, liberty, and property have nothing to do with morality or right and wrong, then there is no reason to respect or obey them, other than that the law says so.
And if human law has no higher authority than itself, and is the ultimate source of rights, then it can take away or change those rights on its whim.

For instance, pro-abortion lawyers and politicians do not acknowledge that unborn children have any right to life, or they claim the right to life is superseded by the mother's "right to choose."

Once you take morality out of the equation, any law is equally valid, and cannot be judged just or unjust on its own merits.

[quote]There are plenty of immoral things that are legal, for example, premarital sex, pornography, and being an arse. If you want to legislate morality, why not go all the way? Why not make those things illegal as well?[/quote]
I would have no problem with the production and distribution of pornography being illegal. The truth is that porn was never seen as a "right" in this country prior to the late 1960s.

If you want to avoid legislating morality, why not go all the way and legalize all murder (not just of the unborn), theft, and rape?

The idea that we should not violate rights to life, property, etc. is itself a moral claim.

[quote][b]The raising of a family - which is the primary purpose of marriage - is quite costly in today's world, and the modest tax breaks given to married couples are just one small way to ease the burden on those with families and preventing it from becoming unduly costly.[/b]


For Libertarians like Ron Paul, this is a moot point. The federal income tax was never supposed to be continuous. It's been going on for almost a century. Most of us think it should be abolished.

[b]If "getting the government out of marriage" is really so important to you, then perhaps when you get married (I'm presuming you're currently single), you and your husband should simply not apply for a marriage license. Then the state will not recognize your marriage at all, and you and your spouse can enjoy the same legal status as any two single persons without government oppression.[/b]

Provided the income tax is abolished by the time I get married, I am 100% ok with this [/quote]
I'm all for abolishing the federal income tax myself, though unless there is radical change (and not of the Barrack Obama variety) I don't see that happening anytime soon.

In the meantime, begrudging small tax breaks for married couples is more than a bit silly.
[quote][b]That's not the way the Church views this issue. I'll repeat what I quoted earlier from the CDF document: "The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society."[/b]


[b]If the law fails to acknowledge marriage at all, as you propose, then the law certainly cannot "recognize, promote, and protect marriage," as Card. Ratzinger teaches is not just a suggestion, but a [i]requirement[/i] to promote the common good.[/b]

Why does he not think that natural law and churches are enough? Not trying to be disrespectful or insubordinate, but I genuinely do not understand. Marriage was fine before licenses were issued.
[/quote]
It is the duty of civil law to uphold the natural law, not to contradict or disregard it. Even if you want to get rid of state marriage licenses, the state must still recognize and uphold marriage, as it did in times past.

I think Cardinal Ratzinger makes it pretty clear in that document, which I'd suggest re-reading carefully and with an open mind. It seems most people on this site spend more time and energy trying to dismiss or oppose our Holy Father's teachings on this matter than they do trying to understand and learn.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1315382931' post='2301483']


and yet i am pretty sure i have seen you arguing for a slippery slope argument on if gay marriage is legalized, eventually pedophilia will be accepted, polygamy will be ok and bestiality will be hunky dory.
And that basic premise is even less likely to happen.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure you "see" lots of things on this phorum that aren't there.

I make no claims to know whether such things will eventually be accepted as a basis for "marriage" in the future, though I have said, and still say, that I cannot think of one single coherent reason why states should recognize "gay marriage," but not polygamy, so long as its all between consenting adults. There's no reason to say that the sex of the people in a legal marriage should not matter, but that there is something sacred about the number two.

Pedophilic or bestial marriages being legal are more of a stretch (though child brides are a common reality in many parts of the world - it's not like its something unheard of in human society), but there are more and more people vouching for the acceptance of such things, and recently a group of psychiatrists began lobbying for the APA to remove the "stigma" from pedophilia ([url="http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/"]"Mental Health Group Looks to Remove Stigma from Pedophilia"[/url]), so it may not be quite as far-fetched as you think.

Once we as a society embrace moral relativism, and throw out "traditional" standards of morality, the doors are wide open.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Socrates

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1315418118' post='2301671']I'm pretty sure you "see" lots of things on this phorum that aren't there.

I make no claims to know whether such things will eventually be accepted as a basis for "marriage" in the future, though I have said, and still say, that I cannot think of one single coherent reason why states should recognize "gay marriage," but not polygamy, so long as its all between consenting adults. There's no reason to say that the sex of the people in a legal marriage should not matter, but that there is something sacred about the number two.

Pedophilic or bestial marriages being legal are more of a stretch (though child brides are a common reality in many parts of the world - it's not like its something unheard of in human society), but there are more and more people vouching for the acceptance of such things, and recently a group of psychiatrists began lobbying for the APA to remove the "stigma" from pedophilia ([url="http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/"]"Mental Health Group Looks to Remove Stigma from Pedophilia"[/url]), so it may not be quite as far-fetched as you think.

[u][b]Once we as a society embrace moral relativism, and throw out "traditional" standards of morality, the doors are wide open.[/b][/u][/quote]This is one giant appeal to the slippery slope fallacy and stigmatizing people who "[i]we[/i]" disapprove of. Skimming across the article, it appears they are trying to [u]PREVENT[/u] pedophilia, [b]not[/b] promote it. Social stigmatization and labeling rarely helps social harmony, peace, or order... it usually works against it.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Mr.Cat