-1 vote

LEFTIST activist at a pro-traditional marriage rally: *VIDEO*

Congressman Jim Durkin(R) of Illinois can't make up his mind on traditional marriage....so we sought to help him this past Saturday outside his office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA0qB2gDhnM

http://www.illinoisfamily.org




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

gay sex is gay sex....

...not a MARRIAGE....it can never be....

You're straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel by attempting to defend this supposedly "weak and
defenseless" lot.

The homosexual agenda is about destroying the family as God designed it.

BTW, Westboro Baptist favors NO GOVERNMENT at all.....they think God just governs from the sky.

Care to answer some legitimate questions / discussion?

Let's assume you are correct and there is a liberal and not necessarily entirely homosexual agenda to destroy the traditional and biological family unit.

In as few words as possible please describe what you believe the role of government to be.

Do you believe people have the right to contract?

Do you believe "groups" of people should be recognized by government?

Do you believe that others have the right to dictate their religion to you?

Do you believe that the government has to right to dictate religion onto others?

Do you think the government should prevent other people from practicing their religions?

Do you believe any religion should have special privileges over another or that the government should provide special privileges to any religion?

These are honest questions. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Marriage is a God-ordained institution...

...the state's should have stayed out of it...it's a racket for them; lawyers, judges, psychologists, universities, social workers, police, all PROFIT off the breakdown of social order they manufacture.

Marriage; right to contract...man, woman, witnesses(Pastor/deacons)...

The Rule of Law is sufficient to deal with deviant behaviors and punishment of evildoers.

The homosexual may do his homosexual thing; but if they commit a crime against another person, or his property, or another man's CHILD while in that reprobate state of mind; they should be punished and bear the consequences ALONE...the society should not encourage it...nor should the society be given the bill...nor should they remain silent.

Separation of church and state means: the government may not interfere with the with the operation of any church, and, if the teachings of the church shape a man's moral code of conduct, then that man is free to bring that conscience into the halls of government.

If the man believes that sodomy laws ought to be put back on the books, the electorate may vote for or against it. The states have mostly said marriage is only between a man and a woman, now they're caving to political pressure by a well-funded, coordinated, single-digit minority...and so, we apply pressure given that we know the states have no intention of getting out of the marriage racket.

The gays are stupid to want to line up to enter into a state contract; especially if they're all liberatian and less government...this is why it is easy to see their agenda is about is just part of the long war against God: and they're for total chaos, rebellion, and anarchy because they're communists at heart, and their guy is in the White House.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvOiEfl1cxc

how about you make your case

like that from now on. instead of instigating all this hate by speaking as if you are a statist?

It's quite clear you are capable of making better arguments and posts.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

I have to respond to each post...

...as I sense the sarcasm, criticism, or support...that's just my way...everyone is at a different maturity level and education/experience.

Jesus addressed different audiences in different ways too...like Matthew 23....not very respectful, was he?

well I wouldn't say you're getting as good of a reaction as him

You're reacting in kind to their reaction instead of making your point like you did above. It comes across to the majority much better. Make your arguments calm, and even and the the majority of the response will be the same.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

c'mon....

...you know people have made up their mind already, many are dogmatic, and frankly they're opportunists trying to get under people's skin.

I get downvoted simply because I'm me these days. Professing Christian women have jumped on me, with zero regard or knowledge of the Scriptures, and without hardly a meek and gentle spirit; called myself and our group(efforts) "homophobic", "bigotry", "hateful", "idiots", and "jerks"....without getting down in the mud with them, I have used scripture and American history to make the case this social fabric is being ripped deliberately to no avail.

We live in an age of gross willful ignorance and outright blasphemy; and these pseudo-intellectuals simply do that which is right in their own eyes, and it is destroying the nation.

They're assaulting our foundation with incredible fervor, and there's no time to "gently persuade" those who have decided their own minds are the scriptures or their "feelings" are laws of nature and the Holy Spirit(read Jeremiah 17:9), same as any rouge cop thinks he is the law because he is in uniform. People think they're Christians because they go to church; well, I'm not a car because I stand in a garage!

It's nice that you're offering constructive criticism, but, considering the fact that God-hating, unrepentant, unlearned people now do abominable things in their front yards(that they used to do behind closed doors), a strong public rebuke is in order...some will hear...others will be disgusted by the truth and war against it.

I'm not concerned with re-packaging the message, God's Word is clear on this issue, and it is His opinion that counts.

You're not smart enough to

You're not smart enough to find a solution dude.

Its easy. Push for homosexual marriage to be called 'Nikaah' (mohhamedan term for marriage). Once the ulemas get a wind of this, they will be up in arms and most people in the world fear fundamentalist Muslims so they will be content with the term 'civil union' or something other than 'marriage'.

Easy peasy. Anything to defend the bible right? After all, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

I guess I didn't get it . . .

or the discussion. I saw rudeness both in the white haired man and the young man who put his face right next to the white haired man and then gave him 'the finger'--

rudeness on both sides seems to be the consensus here.

What is wrong with having the government get out of marriage altogether?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The jingoistic tone of that video just makes me laugh...

starting with the big 'Merican flag and some guy professing his undying love for 'Merica in the form of song.

We all respect your freedom to be sexually attracted to a Red, White, and Blue piece of cloth.

Why can't you respect others freedom?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Radical Christians

Radical Christians taking a page out of the Radical Muslim playbook. We shall force our morals upon you!

I will go with the wisdom of Dr. Paul on this one. "You can not legislate morality"

It's not about morality.

The purpose of a legal institution called marriage is for the raising of children. Only man+woman can produce children.

But the rhetoric strays far from that truth

The basis for the biological unit called "family" (historically) is a mother and a father. It is from that biological arrangement, that cannot be denied, that the legal institution of marriage came. LEGAL marriage is about getting the government involved in the definition of what a marriage is. It is absurd on all fronts, we would ALL be better off to stop telling the government who we marry, when, or why. To that truth, I "support" the right of homosexuals to enter into whatever relationships they like, so long as they are among consenting adults. The "gay rights" whackos want to pretend that it is denying them their "rights" to acknowledge that sperm + ova = offspring, pretending that relationship = marriage and a familial arrangement is the same as a biological "family." "Don't ask, don't tell" should not have been repealed, it should have been extended to heterosexuals too.We all need to stop asking and telling the government ANYTHING about our personal lives.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

my take...

"... that all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

To me, this means that gov'ts job is to protect rights. I see a big difference between "protecting rights" and "regulating behavior". If an action of mine infringes on another individual's rights (aka, a crime), then gov't is justified in punishing me for my action. On the other hand, an action of mine does not infringe on any other individuals rights, then my action is not a crime and is simply a behavior.

This is the same logic I use to explain why drug laws are unconstitutional. It's not gov'ts job to regulate my behavior, but rather to protect my rights. On that note, if two dudes want to pursue their own version of happiness and get "married" (even though I find it weird) that's fine by me, since it has zero impact on my ability to enjoy my God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Remember, the Constitution was not written to restrict ME, but rather, to restrict gov't.

It's not about regulating homos' behavior.

It's about making sure the state doesn't put it's stamp of approval on that kind of perversion. If anyone wants to get the state out of issuing marriage licenses to normal couples, that's fine. But, I certainly don't want the state recognizing homo unions as legit.

uhhh, logic fail? You say

uhhh, logic fail? You say it's not about regulating gay people's behavior, but the means to your end involves regulating gay people's behavior. hello....

How is not supporting a homo forcing me to sponsor

his perversion infringing on HIS behavior?

uhm

Care to elaborate how advocating against state recognition of any marriage is "regulating behavior" ?

Edit: Only someone afraid of answering a question would down vote it without responding to it.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Your question doesn't make

It wasn't me who downvoted, but if you really want a response...

The issue at hand isn't whether or not the State should recognize any marriage, although I'm sure the great majority or DPers believe gov't should get out of the marriage business, I know I do. Rather, the question at hand is whether gov't should deny (regulate) two individuals the opportunity, if not right, to express (behavior) their resolve to make a lifelong commitment to each other, and to receive the secular benefits that come from said commitment. In the secular sense, that's all a marriage is. Your religious baggage is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if you think their expression is perverted, immoral, evil, or whatever. They're not hurting you. They're not denying you the opportunity to enjoy any of your rights. And it doesn't matter if your religion disapproves, no one's trying to force you to let them get married at your church.

Just live and let live, man. Practice tolerance. Stop the group think.

I didn't say it was you, I was calling out whoever did

The issue at hand isn't whether or not the State should recognize any marriage, although I'm sure the great majority or DPers believe gov't should get out of the marriage business, I know I do.

Really? because the following statement is directly contradictory.

Rather, the question at hand is whether gov't should deny (regulate) two individuals the opportunity, if not right, to express their resolve (behavior) to make a lifelong commitment to each other, and to recieve the secular benefits that come from said commitment.

The government not granting special privileges to a group is not regulating behavior. Is the government not giving me your car, regulating my behavior? No, that's completely absurd. People have the right to contract, but they do not have the right to gain privileges from the government at the expense of others religion or wealth.

You do not have the right to the religious function of marriage. If you're gay and can find a church that will marry you, you can get married. Simple as that.

Granting more groups special privileges isn't the way to fix a broken system. Should we fight for affirmative action to swedes but not fins? No, there shouldn't be affirmative action. Instead of advocating for homosexual marriage start advocating for the dissolution of government marriage.

In the secular sense, that's all a marriage is. Your religious baggage is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if you think their expression is perverted, immoral, evil, or whatever. They're not hurting you. They're not denying you the opportunity to enjoy any of your rights. And it doesn't matter if your religion disapproves, no one's trying to force you to let them get married at your church.

Just live and let live, man. Practice tolerance. Stop the group think.

I'm not christian you dolt, stop assuming the people that disagree with you are bigoted morons. Perhaps, it's you who should stop the group think!

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Again, your questions lack

Again, your questions lacks logical foundation. No one's advocating the gov't grant "special" privileges to any one or any groups. Getting married isn't special, it's a social norm that's existed for eons and millions, if not billions, of people, believers and non-believers, have been married over the course of human history.

So was slavery

Your appeal to tradition fallacy is showing.
Kind of ironic that you question my logic.

So tax breaks and death benefits aren't special privileges? I don't get death benefits if my best friend dies and I don't get a tax break if he lives with me.

You see, you are advocating for group rights, you just may not realize it.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Because denying an individual

Because denying an individual the same rights as every other individual, including in this case the right of contract, is an infringment upon their civil liberties.

My personal preferance is for the gov to get the hell out of marriage all together, however, IF they are going to do it, the law needs to be equal to EVERY individual or it is a collectivist, group-based law.

No one is forcing YOU to marry someone of the same sex. No one is forcing you to attend a gay wedding. Why don't you mind your own business and leave other people alone to do as they please so long as they are not denying you of your rights?

Marriage isn't just about procreation. Its about whatever the hell I want it to be about. I don't use a bridal sheet when I sleep with my wife. Nor do I sleep with her only for the purpose of breeding. Does that mean you want to force your religeon down my throat too for "breaking" traditional marriage? What if my wife and I are swingers? Then will you use the government as a club to prohibit us from being married?

What it boils down to, is "some" christians rest their opinion on the false axiom that homosexuality is a "perversion" which the government should prohibit in any legal sense. You believe your bible gives you the authority to deny other people rights based on "your" view of morality.

Homosexuality is the natural defense mechanism against over population used by humans and many other species of animals. Homosexuality occurs more often in densly populated urban areas and helps slow the birth rate. This isn't rocket science. It doesn't matter if you believe that, or if you choose to believe what the flying spagetti monster tells you. You have absolutly no right whatsoever to deny other individuals the same basic rights you have. If you are trying, its because you're a collectivist tyrant who want to force you're opinions down other people's throats using the government as a club.

uh what?

Because denying an individual the same rights as every other individual, including in this case the right of contract, is an infringment upon their civil liberties.

Whoa whoa whoa, The government giving special privileges to straight couples is denying rights to gay couples? You don't have a right to religious function. You don't have a right to special privileges bestowed by government. Rights come nature not a bureaucrat.

If you practice a religion that has marriage get married I don't give a fuck, but arguing that you're a bigot or an idiot because you don't think granting more and more special privileges to "groups" with stolen money, is just ludicrous.

My personal preferance is for the gov to get the hell out of marriage all together, however, IF they are going to do it, the law needs to be equal to EVERY individual or it is a collectivist, group-based law.

So you're ok with the government giving special privileges as long as its equal. okay... I'm not even going to get into how wrong this is. It's just obvious.

No one is forcing YOU to marry someone of the same sex. No one is forcing you to attend a gay wedding. Why don't you mind your own business and leave other people alone to do as they please so long as they are not denying you of your rights?

Hold on now asshat. That's a fucking strawman, I never made any of comment to that effect. Check yourself. Why don't you stop advocating for more people to steal from me to get special privileges bestowed by your overlords?

The rest of your comment is a tirade. Shut the fuck up, I'm not even a christian.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

I misread your comment. I

I misread your comment. I agree with you, but I also think its not as simple as that.

Marriage isn't a religeous thing unless you choose a religeous ceremony. However the ceremony has nothing to do with the government side of the equasion. The government is involved for tax and inheritance legal purposes. I don't want them involved, but they are. I see no reason why one group of people should be prohibited from entering the same contract as another just because of sexual orientation.

Also a marriage doesn't give you "special" rights. It changes your tax structure, often reducing taxes, and dictates inheritance and custody rights so you don't have to battle the state later if your significant other dies. These aren't "special" rights. They are things that the government shouldn't have any say in anyway, and the taxes are a fraud. However im in favor of everyone protecting themself from the state in any way they can.

I think everyone should take advantage of every tax loophole they can find and work toward dismantling the system while they do it. It would be stupid not to defend your private property by any means available to you that won't land you in a state-sponsored cage.

don't accidentally justify the the idea of group rights

Marriage is a religious function, don't even try and deny that.
So it's cool with you if whites don't have to pay taxes because they're white?

No, we shouldn't advocate for group privileges or benefits or tax breaks or anything else. It's not hard to understand, no one, not group A or group B, NO ONE should have their income stolen from them by government. NO ONE should get special consideration over anyone else. Feeding into to the idea of groups, only justifies it.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

If Marriage is religeous, how

If Marriage is religeous, how come im married and have a marriage certificate even though im not religeous, and there was no religeon involved in my ceremony which took place in a hotel before a judge? Im sure at some point in the past, and to some people currently, "traditional marriage" is religeous. But so far, I don't see any christian groups trying to use government to block non-religeous people from getting married. They seem to be content with banning marriage only to those of certain sexual orientations. In some ways, that's worse. It shows the bigotry for what it is. If they "truly" cared about traditional marriage, they'd want to block all non-traditional, non-religeous marriages. They'd want to block couples from getting married who can't have children for example. Or couples of swingers who regularly engage in extra-marital sex. That they are only picking on gays pretty well reveals the intolerance for what it is. They don't care about "traditional marriage." They simply hate homosexuals and consider it a offense against their religeon.

You misunderstand. Its the entire concept of "group rights" im against. "IF" whites don't have to pay taxes, then no one should. Every law should be equal to everyone. Every right, universal to everyone. This is the concept of Individualism that seperates a republic from a democracy. Naturally these things can't infringe on other rights, or they are unconstitutional and should be stricken down, however in a lawless collectivists society, at least universal welfare rights will collapse the corrupt system FAR faster, and do less to divide people against one another.

Also, you're mistaken in that I think we should CONSTANTLY be advocating for "universal" privledges against the state's power, and tax exemptions. We should advocate for them for every breathing individual until we are all immune from the state's authority and don't have to surrender one red cent to them(or perhaps even begin to wonder what we keep them around for anyway).

Every tax should be fought. Every penalty on civil liberties should be given battle and defeated. Sometimes these taxes and infringments are against a group. Does that mean we are asking for "group rights" by fighting against them? No. It means we oppose taxes and infringments against our rights. Because no matter who is under attack, we are all one group. Humans.

edit: There are many who want to wait outside and attempt to not participate in the system in the hopes that it will disolve all on its own. These people like to take principaled stands and say "No special privledges for anyone!" My belief is that this view is a pipe dream. As someone once said, those who do not live by the sword may still die by the sword.

Political power is like a gun. Just because you choose not to arm yourself doesn't mean you won't be a victim of politics. You can't simply opt out of the system. Sooner or later you will be targetted by the system, which if unopposed by those willing to play the game, will grow boundlessly. In the end, the former philosophy will probably be our only chance if the later fails. But we may attempt both. The view I advocate will be the far safer, less bloody route if it works. If it fails, option 2 will be waiting.

uhm

If Marriage is religeous, how come im married and have a marriage certificate even though im not religeous, and there was no religeon involved in my ceremony which took place in a hotel before a judge? Im sure at some point in the past, and to some people currently, "traditional marriage" is religeous. But so far, I don't see any christian groups trying to use government to block non-religeous people from getting married.

Because it's a state recognized religious institution. How is that hard to understand? The way the state recognizes it is irrelevant. You can also get married in front of a priest, it doesn't matter because the state is involved. For someone who wants to abolish the state institution you sure are defending its tenants pretty hard.

I'm not going to argue against the hypocrisy of those you speak of in this country, because it isn't the argument and is basically a red herring.

Also, you're mistaken in that I think we should CONSTANTLY be advocating for "universal" privledges against the state's power, and tax exemptions. We should advocate for them for every breathing individual until we are all immune from the state's authority and don't have to surrender one red cent to them(or perhaps even begin to wonder what we keep them around for anyway).

I'm saying your incrementalism doesn't work. It reinforces the notion of group rights and gives them legitimacy, regardless of your intentions.

There are many who want to wait outside and attempt to not participate in the system in the hopes that it will disolve all on its own. These people like to take principaled stands and say "No special privledges for anyone!" My belief is that this view is a pipe dream. As someone once said, those who do not live by the sword may still die by the sword.

Political power is like a gun. Just because you choose not to arm yourself doesn't mean you won't be a victim of politics. You can't simply opt out of the system. Sooner or later you will be targetted by the system, which if unopposed by those willing to play the game, will grow boundlessly. In the end, the former philosophy will probably be our only chance if the later fails. But we may attempt both. The view I advocate will be the far safer, less bloody route if it works. If it fails, option 2 will be waiting.

You're conflating the idea that people shouldn't advocate for group rights with political isolation. These are two totally different ideas. You can be politically active and stand up for the individual against the collective. To say you have to play politics and legitimize group rights is totally antithetical liberty. Even Rand who people here seem to hate for playing politics is advocating for the individual by delegitimizing group rights.

Besides I never said people should opt out, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, and that is another straw man.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

watch out for THIS GUY at Adam Kokesh's rally!

....he's a protestor-ACTOR, an agent-provocateur!

Purveyors of hate.

Accusing the opposition of hate and murder is the number one tactic of the pro homosexual crowd. They con ignorant people into sympathy by making their straw man arguments and labeling decent honest people as the haters. He was the only one who showed violence while the ones he accuse showed admirable restraint. He was baiting them plain and simple and if anyone of those guys had pushed him like he did them then I guarantee there would have been charges filed.