View Full Version : How can conservatives use gay marriage to their advantage?
I'll tell you how: in TN (and it's coming elsewhere soon) there are two gay couples "married" in Kali and NY who are suing the state over TN's refusal to recognize gay marriage. Now, it's going under the Equal Protection idea of the Constitution, but could well fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Let's just say we (reluctantly in many folks' cases) admit that sooner or later gay marriage is gonna be rammed down our throat, like it or not. There IS a silver lining, as long as conservatives have the balls to push it. If a state that does not want gay marriage is forced to accept and recognize it under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, guess what other state-issued license HAS to be also recognized?
That's right kids, CONCEALED CARRY LICENSES. If TN has to officially recognize two homos as married from another state then NYC, NJ, Il, and Kali get ready......you'll be having visitors packing heat from out of state! Don't like it? Tough shit. We have to recognize your gay marriage license. Payback's a bitch.
Again, the big part is having conservatives (I don't trust RINO's to take up the mantle) ram the issue with fervor, all the way to the SCOTUS.
Bottom line? There is no freaking difference between forcing a state to accept another's gay marriage license and forcing one to accept another's concealed carry license.
To me the war has already been lost on this. They're going to do whatever the hell they want. Much like the war on healthcare and the incipient war (and IMHO loss) on immigration.
Personally, and for mostly admitted religious reasons, I don't believe in gay marriage. I do believe they should have rights and such (exactly the same rights), but I don't understand why the republicans and bible thumpers didn't go down, and back, the civil union path. I'm pretty damn big on the English language though and also consider it somewhat from a traditionalist "language" view. To me it's like everyone woke up and decided to call ****ing red, blue.
Personally I don't agree with it, more from a nature perspective (i.e. the parts don't fit and it's deviant) than a moral/religious one. However, I really don't care what two consenting adults do in private. I do live in TN because I like it here and like the generally conservative view of things. Therefore if my state is forced to accept something they don't want to then by damned the other blue states better get ready to accept something they don't like.
The libtards better think real hard about what they ask for....they just might get it! ;)
Yeah, I know they'll want their cake and eat it to. They'll come up with some bullshit reason why it's not the same thing, it's not fair, yada yada. We need to not let it go and RAM it down their throats.
Magic_Salad0892
11-08-13, 00:46
I'm all for the homos getting married. Doesn't effect me, and divorce lawyers are gonna make a killing on it. Factor in weddings, and shit, and it could help the economy a little.
However, I'd love to see TN push this.
There is an easy way for conservatives to get homosexuals on their side. Get off the religious high horse and accept them. I know several conservative gay people who side with the Democratic Party because they don't like being treated as second class citizens by the Republicans.
Business_Casual
11-08-13, 07:55
I'm all for the homos getting married. Doesn't effect me, and divorce lawyers are gonna make a killing on it. Factor in weddings, and shit, and it could help the economy a little.
However, I'd love to see TN push this.
The point of gay marriage isn't two dudes getting married, bro. It is a wedge issue.
Nonsense, ones individual right to bare arms is enshrined in the constitution. Gay marriage is not as explicitly addressed, therefore gays are unfairly treated and need special treatment.
Personally I feel the govt has absolutely no business in defining what marriage is or isn't. Likewise that fact that one needs to seek permission and licensure to carry a gun is antithetical to liberty and freedom but whatever..
But seriously if one day we woke up and there were no more tax credits or tangible benefits to being married for anyone, straight, gay, or otherwise this nonsense about equality would disappear in a instant.
There is an easy way for conservatives to get homosexuals on their side. Get off the religious high horse and accept them. I know several conservative gay people who side with the Democratic Party because they don't like being treated as second class citizens by the Republicans.
I am a conservative and have no problem being kind and respectful to homosexuals. This doesn't mean that I support what they do.
Love the person, hate the sin.
C4
theblackknight
11-08-13, 08:13
sooner or later gay marriage is gonna be rammed down our throat, like it or not.
) ram the issue with fervor, all the way to the SCOTUS.
[/B].
DUDE, this is the WRONG THREAD for puns.
Why do conservatives care? Why the intellectual arrogance? I'd really love a day when people can step outside themselves and stop equating "I don't like this" with "shouldn't be legal/should be illegal".
I thought conservatives were all"don't tread on me" "big government is bad" " the state doesn't need to run my life". What gives?
sent from mah gun,using my sights
fwiw I do find it a bit amusing that the same folks who champion govt intrusion into the institution of marriage are the same folks that go ape shit over the gov imposing abortion restrictions. Now that is hypocritical
Business_Casual
11-08-13, 08:35
fwiw I do find it a bit amusing that the same folks who champion govt intrusion into the institution of marriage are the same folks that go ape shit over the gov imposing abortion restrictions. Now that is hypocritical
It is quite simple, actually. Fostering stable marriages is in the interest of the state, because it leads to productive, law-abiding families that support themselves on average. Abortion can lead to women being less interested in finding a husband and relying on the state to provide services instead.
This is basic conservative thought.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-08-13, 09:16
It is wedge issue the GOP rode to get conservatives to the polls that has turned on them.
The gay rights issue is a nihilist progressive attack on organized religion- turn churches that don't accept gays as a new version of the KKK. It is that simple.
In CO, the mag ban is being fought, in part, based on the ADA laws. People with disabilities can't reload as fast, so the mag ban puts them at distinct disadvantage. I wonder of my doc will give me a hang tag for 30rd mags....
brickboy240
11-08-13, 10:44
They really need to let the gay marriage (and abortion) issues go....or they will never win another election.
How many easily winnable seats were lost recently because some uptight candidate just could not let go of the abortion or homo issues? The left knows it is a good wedge issue and uses it every election cycle as a battering ram. It is effective and so many GOP candidates take the bait and get caught in these issues and loses the race.
I don't know about you, but I am tired of seeing the left win, because of those tiny wedge issues. 99.99% of us are NOT affected in any way by abortions or homos in our daily lives. Let it go.
Gays are maybe 3-5% of the population...who cares. Abortions mean fewer govt dependents, criminals and Democrat voters besides...are YOU going to help raise all these unwanted kids? Hell no...so why demand we allow the building of a class of our society that will be our undoing?
Let abortion and homos go....and let's win our country back.
-brickboy240
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-08-13, 10:51
Any other principles you are willing to ditch while we are at it?
A lot of people blame God, Gays AND Guns as losing causes....
Business_Casual
11-08-13, 11:14
They really need to let the gay marriage (and abortion) issues go....or they will never win another election.
How many easily winnable seats were lost recently because some uptight candidate just could not let go of the abortion or homo issues? The left knows it is a good wedge issue and uses it every election cycle as a battering ram. It is effective and so many GOP candidates take the bait and get caught in these issues and loses the race.
I don't know about you, but I am tired of seeing the left win, because of those tiny wedge issues. 99.99% of us are NOT affected in any way by abortions or homos in our daily lives. Let it go.
Gays are maybe 3-5% of the population...who cares. Abortions mean fewer govt dependents, criminals and Democrat voters besides...are YOU going to help raise all these unwanted kids? Hell no...so why demand we allow the building of a class of our society that will be our undoing?
Let abortion and homos go....and let's win our country back.
-brickboy240
Perhaps there is some uncritical thinking here, let's look at the two points you made.
First of all, what elections are lost due to the issues? Elections are only won due to issues. Properly framing them is the difference. There is a very good reason the left calls abortion "pro choice" not killing fetuses.
Secondly, social issues are economic issues, they are the same thing anyway. There is no way to delink them. For instance, if you don't care how many unwed mothers there are, then the left will promote welfare. Ipso facto, you have lost that argument because Santa Claus is better than Scrooge.
Abandon your morals and you will be France - competing to prove who can manage the welfare state more efficiently.
theblackknight
11-08-13, 11:16
Any other principles you are willing to ditch while we are at it?
A lot of people blame God, Gays AND Guns as losing causes....
So gay people shouldnt be allowed to do marriage stuff?
If so, why do you hate personal freedoms and liberty?
They really need to let the gay marriage (and abortion) issues go....or they will never win another election.
I actually tend to agree with this (as a conservative Christian). I would much to prefer to let EACH State decide how they want to handle these issues by having the people VOTE up or down on these issues. Want to live in a State that is ok with abortion and gay marriage? Cool, California is right over! Same goes for me. If I don't like my States laws, I will move to a State that more aligns with my beliefs.
Abortions mean fewer govt dependents, criminals and Democrat voters besides...are YOU going to help raise all these unwanted kids? Hell no...so why demand we allow the building of a class of our society that will be our undoing?
See this is where the problem is. People DO WANT these children. In fact, they want a child so badly that they will travel around the world to adopt one. This is why it is so hard to see people kill them.
C4
The problem as I see it is most of us are in favor of about 3/4 of the same issues. Then we start infighting over these wedge issues that can be decided on a local level after we stop the country from going over the fiscal cliff. We won't have a country to fight about petty issues if we don't save it now.
The problem as I see it is most of us are in favor of about 3/4 of the same issues. Then we start infighting over these wedge issues that can be decided on a local level after we stop the country from going over the fiscal cliff. We won't have a country to fight about petty issues if we don't save it now.
Agree. By having these issues be dealt with at the State level, we remove these dividers at the Presidential level. So then, people wouldn't be put off by a candidate that is against or for gay marriage, but like most everything else about them (as it wouldn't matter).
C4
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-08-13, 13:24
So gay people shouldnt be allowed to do marriage stuff?
If so, why do you hate personal freedoms and liberty?
I was just pointing out that there are a lot of GOPers that aren't that fond of guns and a lot of them see no issue with mag and the AWB coming back. Just because you may draw the line at Abortion and gays doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same.
I only fight straw men with flame throwers. Come back with a coherent argument.
brickboy240
11-08-13, 14:22
We are NOT "abandoning our morals" at all.
If you believe abortion and being gay is wrong...don't do it. If others engage, then God will judge them later...it is not your place to do so.
People need to be free to make their own bad decisions and live with them.
I am tired of watching leftists win with these issues that really have little effect on our daily lives.
I also do not want to live in a theocracy.
-brickboy
The_War_Wagon
11-08-13, 15:01
We don't. Firearms ownership is constitutional; sodomy is NOT. :stop:
Nonsense, ones individual right to bare arms is enshrined in the constitution. Gay marriage is not as explicitly addressed, therefore gays are unfairly treated and need special treatment.
Personally I feel the govt has absolutely no business in defining what marriage is or isn't.
Marriage existed long before the nation state ever came around. Government has neither the competence nor the authority to redefine it.
There is an easy way for conservatives to get homosexuals on their side. Get off the religious high horse and accept them. I know several conservative gay people who side with the Democratic Party because they don't like being treated as second class citizens by the Republicans.
I never understood the whole idea of a "conservative" who does not believe in conserving anything.
A person may experience the desire to sodomize another male, but that does not make that person into "a people". It is not an ontology.
For whatever reason a small percentage of people experience same-sex attraction. No one knows why. Of that small percentage, some experience it early in life and then grow out of it, while others never experience till later in life, and still others experience it their whole lives. Again, no one has any idea as to why any of this happens. But no one every stops being black, or Asian.
Sorry, but absolutely nothing in Obama's, Pelosi's, Bloomberg's, Feinstein's, and Boxer's militant leftist ideological agenda is good for America or for liberty.
I would much to prefer to let EACH State decide how they want to handle these issues by having the people VOTE up or down on these issues. Want to live in a State that is ok with abortion and gay marriage? Cool, California is right over! Same goes for me. If I don't like my States laws, I will move to a State that more aligns with my beliefs.
Exactly!
Guys, this wasn't a debate on gay marriage. It's how to use it as a way to get national "forced" CCW reciprocity when the inevitable push for ALL states having to accept gay marriage from other states happens.
This is a strategy debate, not one on gay marriage itself. It's a pragmatic way to get something WE want for a change on the back of something some of us don't want.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-08-13, 16:17
Exactly!
on the back of something some of us don't want.
And back to gay marriage....
;)
It is a weird time. The problem is that you are assuming that gay marriage is about freedom, when it really is about oppressing others. Once legal, we now have to 'protect' them from homophobic wedding cake makers so they have to become a 'protected' class. It isn't about their right to marry, it is about taking away your right to disagree with it. Once a protected class, it is over. That ends any kind of discussion or debate. And don't forget the alphabet menagerie of transgender, bi, crossdressing and what ever other odd behavior that gets lumped into the LGBTC-LMNOP-XYZ anagram. How many white guys here can talk in any public area about how screwed up the inner city is? How about at work? Just citing statistics will get you labelled a racist. Do it with in ear shot of a protected class person and if you are in any kind of management roll you'll be walking to your car with a copier paper box.
It isn't about freedom, its about oppression and tearing down any kind of socially cohesive system outside of the govt. Therefore these precedents will never be used to actually expand freedom as in the case of CCWs.
Want to let your freak flag fly- let it fly high and proud; just don't expect me to salute it or be the drummer boy.
theblackknight
11-08-13, 16:26
I was just pointing out that there are a lot of GOPers that aren't that fond of guns and a lot of them see no issue with mag and the AWB coming back. Just because you may draw the line at Abortion and gays doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same.
I only fight straw men with flame throwers. Come back with a coherent argument.
Thats a benefit of staying vague, you don't have to defends points you never distinctly make. Notice my post asked to clairification? and then a IF so? IF?
Just like this guy posted
We don't. Firearms ownership is constitutional; sodomy is NOT
So he appears to be ok with Lesbians and gay dudes who never have sex.
Also, since when dose something have to be in the constitution to be legal?
And back to gay marriage....
The problem is that you are assuming that gay marriage is about freedom, when it really is about oppressing others.
It is also about that. Primarily it is simply a government power grab by the same lunatic leftist gun-grabbers.
WHY FIGHT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
perhaps the most important section of the article is this part:
"...By excising sexual difference, with its generative power, it [same-sex marriage] deprives itself of any direct connection to nature. The unit it creates rests on human choice, as does that created by marriage. But whether monogamous, polygamous, or polyamorous, it is a closed unit that reduces to human choice, rather than engaging choice with nature; and its lack of a generative dimension means that it cannot be construed as a fundamental building block.
Institutionally, then, it is nothing more than a legal construct. Its roots run no deeper than positive law. It therefore cannot present itself to the state as the bearer of independent rights and responsibilities, as older or more basic than the state itself. Indeed, it is a creature of the state, generated by the state’s assumption of the power of invention or re-definition. Which changes everything.
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005), "....is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state."
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex "marriage" does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal."
[/QUOTE]
All the more reason for the state to stay out of it in it's entirety.
Sent from my DROID X2
I think lumping both the gay marriage and the abortion issue into one thing is wrong. Frankly I could give two shits about what two gay people as mentioned do in the privacy of their own house. I really don't care what they do outside of their house either, frankly. As mentioned, in my belief system they will be judged on their own down the road. My only beef is being somewhat of a traditionalist it was called and considered one thing for most all of history, and now everyone jumps up and says no, no it means THIS.
Abortion is a completely DIFFERENT issue only tangentally related in how it's dealt with, or not dealt with, by the state(nation). In my belief they are children at conception, under that premise they are incapable of defending themselves, hence, it falls to me to be their spokesperson in my morality system for them if no one else will.
As mentioned by grant and as someone who is intimitately involved with adopted children, there ARE many people who would love to adopt them. Fix the adoption system so it isn't ran like a corporation where I have to pay 20-30000 for a child to be adopted and many more people would step forward. If there is a set of pearly gates, and that's just fine if you don't want to believe in that, I think there's going to be plenty of room when, and if..... ;p I end up there, due to how most of society either utilizes or supports abortion.
All the more reason for the state to stay out of it in it's entirety.
Sent from my DROID X2
Wrong. Unless you are opposed to the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms and the right for men and women to marry are both fundamental principles derived from Natural Law (as is the right to worship, the right to free speech, etc.) As such they demand of any civilised society in pursuit of liberty two things. 1. Recognition that they do in fact exist. 2. They are not only not infringed upon, but in fact are secured, preserved, and defended.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-08-13, 18:13
Also, since when dose something have to be in the constitution to be legal?
An excellent point in the big picture and why I never warmed to Judge Bork, he seemed to think the constitution gave us rights and I think they are eternal and only acknowledged by the state.
The whole legal vs moral tug of war is interesting. Laws used to be based on morals but we now construe the separation of church and state to mean morals based on religion cannot be the basis for a law, but at the same time we have kept the 'what is legal is moral' framework. Now because something is not prohibited by law, it is seen as moral- but no traditional values or anything related to religion can be the foundation or rationale- but any other belief system is fine. You can base laws on Lenin, but not the Pope.
CCW, hell I'm worried about Castle and SYG surviving.
Wrong. Unless you are opposed to the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms and the right for men and women to marry are both fundamental principles derived from Natural Law (as is the right to worship, the right to free speech, etc.) As such they demand of any civilised society in pursuit of liberty two things. 1. Recognition that they do in fact exist. 2. They are not only not infringed upon, but in fact are secured, preserved, and defended.
Riddle me this, of those two which is in fact explicitly stated and protected in the constitution? You can make any argument you want as to why society should as a collective indeed strive to uphold a particular ideal over another but the fact remains minimizing or eliminating all together government's oversight and regulation of said institution does nothing to infringe upon a individuals liberty, if anything it enhances it. At anyrate what's with your hard on for the whole gay marriage issue?
Sent from my DROID X2
We don't even have straight marriage anymore.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-09-13, 00:47
I will say that straight people have done more damage to marriage (or lack of marriage) than gay marriage ever could.
Riddle me this, of those two which is in fact explicitly stated and protected in the constitution? You can make any argument you want as to why society should as a collective indeed strive to uphold a particular ideal over another but the fact remains minimizing or eliminating all together government's oversight and regulation of said institution does nothing to infringe upon a individuals liberty, if anything it enhances it. At anyrate what's with your hard on for the whole gay marriage issue?
Sent from my DROID X2
In part it is because I actually agree with our Founding Fathers, who if they were alive today many gun hobbyists would no doubt label as Taliban.
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.
John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
George Washington
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
Thomas Jefferson
"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."
Patrick Henry
And in part it is because it is still unbelievable that some people could really be just that utterly clueless and simple minded so as to think that anything Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Mario Cuomo, and Diane Feinstein agree on and are so desperately trying to force society to accept, is good for America, that any part of their lunatic leftist dipshit agenda is good for liberty. The whole controversy this week with Dick Metcalf was because in his simple minded ignorant jackass stupidity, he claimed words meant something they didn't. Yet some gun owners claim that in fact the government has just that power and authority.
So do you also believe in and support homosexual incestuous "marriage", that even two brothers can get "married"? Because there is not one reason for you to oppose it that cannot also be applied to homosexual "marriage".
You seem stuck on this notion that marriage as an institution which is something derived from and influenced by sociocultural factors beliefs, ideologies, etc is somehow within oversight of government and therefore subject to regulation and intrusion. What two consenting adults do is of no business of mind and like everything else the passage of laws and restrictions does nothing to actually curtail a specific behavior, only allow for imposition of sanctions for violations and compliance failures. Regarding marriage what is or is not considered acceptable social practice should be left to the people to decide for themselves. As to your example social stigmatization and admonishment are better regulators of human behavior than a law written in a book, absent situations where harm befalls a persons well-being.
As for the exploitation of marriage by politicians the only reason they are pursuing such endeavors is because LGBTs etc as special interest populations are vulnerable to such political manipulations for the sake control and power retention. Remove government regulation and that exploitation would cease to exist.
I'm no supporter of gay marriage and frankly I think it is simply the manifestation of an underlying mental abberation the origin of which vary, thus I also reject the notion that it is neccesarily a choice as well and should be subject to punishment. But I'm not homophobic about the whole issue either.
Sent from my DROID X2
You seem stuck on this notion that marriage as an institution which is something derived from and influenced by sociocultural factors beliefs, ideologies, etc is somehow within oversight of government and therefore subject to regulation and intrusion.
Just the opposite. Marriage is something that the government has no competence or authority to redefine. But that is not to say that government has no role, and even you have admitted this so I don't see why you are arguing against yourself. Or do you think it should be legal to marry a child, or someone against their will, or one's own sister?
What two consenting adults do is of no business of mind
Why do you restrict the number to two? And why only adults? Do you actually believe that pedophilia is only subjectively immoral? Or do you accept the reality of objective truth and morality?
and like everything else the passage of laws and restrictions does nothing to actually curtail a specific behavior, only allow for imposition of sanctions for violations and compliance failures. To paraphrase W.F. Buckley, I won't actually insult your intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe that bit of abject stupidity.
Regarding marriage what is or is not considered acceptable social practice should be left to the people to decide for themselves.
So if the people (as was in certain places and at certain times in history) considered pedophilia an acceptable social practice, you would then also be against making it illegal?
As for the exploitation of marriage by politicians the only reason they are pursuing such endeavors is because LGBTs etc as special interest populations are vulnerable to such political manipulations for the sake control and power retention.
No, it is in fact they themselves who are attempting to use government to force society to accept their chosen lifestyle and conduct, and to even have it taught in government schools to innocent children.
I'm no supporter of gay marriage and frankly I think it is simply the manifestation of an underlying mental abberation the origin of which vary, thus I also reject the notion that it is neccesarily a choice as well and should be subject to punishment.
All conduct is a choice.
But I'm not homophobic about the whole issue either.
Really? Go post your "I'm no supporter of gay marriage and frankly I think it is simply the manifestation of an underlying mental abberation.." on D.U. or any like message board and see whether or not you would be immediately and by everyone labeled as "homophobic".
Again, I won't insult you by claiming you really believe that bit of breathtaking stupidity either.
Why do conservatives care? Why the intellectual arrogance? I'd really love a day when people can step outside themselves and stop equating "I don't like this" with "shouldn't be legal/should be illegal".
I thought conservatives were all"don't tread on me" "big government is bad" " the state doesn't need to run my life". What gives?
This.
-john
Yawn........
Sent from my DROID X2
You keep bringing up pedophilia. At what age do people become adults? I know legally here in the US it's 18 but that's just a number. Is an 18 year old marrying a 17 year old so horrible? Mental maturity differs between individuals and I personally don't think someone is a true "adult" until probably around early 20s in most cases.
But then again I dont see how what two consenting adults want to do is any concern of the government if it doesn't harm anyone? And further I haven seen any argument against it that doesn't boil down to either A) it's not natural or B) it's against god.
You keep bringing up pedophilia. At what age do people become adults? I know legally here in the US it's 18 but that's just a number. Is an 18 year old marrying a 17 year old so horrible? Mental maturity differs between individuals and I personally don't think someone is a true "adult" until probably around early 20s in most cases.
But then again I dont see how what two consenting adults want to do is any concern of the government if it doesn't harm anyone? And further I haven seen any argument against it that doesn't boil down to either A) it's not natural or B) it's against god.
It is one of his favorite arguments against this topic. He doesn't care that it has no merit. he brings it up every time regardless.
Sadly this is one of those topics that give lie to our cause. Most Conservatives are no more about freedom that liberals are. They are about the freedoms that THEY want and agree with. No more.
And as to why you haven't seen any argument against it besides ones based in religion. That is because there is none. And even the ones based on the bible have to ignore the various writings int he bible that talk about marriage. This whole "redefining marriage" is a great example. Marriage today is nothing like it was in the bible. (Thankfully) If it was this world would be a dark place indeed.
Just be honest with yourself guys. Many of you are not for freedom. You are only for the freedoms that you deem ok or acceptable. In a truly free society there are going to be freedoms and rights that you may not care for.
Just be honest with yourself guys. Many of you are not for freedom. You are only for the freedoms that you deem ok or acceptable.
Yea,..... but I'm ok with that..... ; p
.... I JEST! ; P
1. Active homosexuals make up only about 1.6% of the population, however according to the annual CDC rate of infection report they are responsible for almost 50% of all new cases of HIV transmission in the U.S. You really don't think that does not have any effect on society, on politics, on the cost of health care? Really? You really believe that millions upon millions of deaths because of homosexual acts is not "harming anyone"?
2. It would seem that the reasons you and all the rest of the lunatic left's homosexual agenda supporters deliberately ignore all the information contained in this article are because you cannot actually counter the arguments made, or challenge the historical facts, or counter the reasoning, or deny the conclusions and ramifications.
WHY FIGHT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
"...By excising sexual difference, with its generative power, it [same-sex marriage] deprives itself of any direct connection to nature. The unit it creates rests on human choice, as does that created by marriage. But whether monogamous, polygamous, or polyamorous, it is a closed unit that reduces to human choice, rather than engaging choice with nature; and its lack of a generative dimension means that it cannot be construed as a fundamental building block.
Institutionally, then, it is nothing more than a legal construct. Its roots run no deeper than positive law. It therefore cannot present itself to the state as the bearer of independent rights and responsibilities, as older or more basic than the state itself. Indeed, it is a creature of the state, generated by the state’s assumption of the power of invention or re-definition. Which changes everything.
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005), "....is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state."
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex "marriage" does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal."
And the questions remain. What ever convinced you that any of the lunatic agenda of Obama, Cuomo, Pelosi, Feinstien, Boxer, and Bloomberg,
was good for America and for liberty? What possible reason could you have for fighting on behalf of these idiots on any issue? And do you also support incestuous homosexual marriage? Because there is not one reason you can give to oppose it that cannot also be used to oppose homosexual "marriage"?
It is also not lost on anyone that apparently all of those here who support homosexual "marriage" don't actually believe in God, actually believe the Founding Fathers were profoundly mistaken to claim our rights come from God, and thus don't believe even things like pedophilia to be objectively wrong. But perhaps you can be the first person to explain how you can derive ontological realities such as metaphysical First Principles and objective morality from philosophical materialism.
It is one of his favorite arguments against this topic. He doesn't care that it has no merit. .
I understand that your "debate" tactic is simply to chime in on occasion with what amounts to nothing more than a "nuh-uh", but if for no other reason than variety's sake, perhaps you could shift gears.
Gutshot John
11-09-13, 12:40
It is one of his favorite arguments against this topic. He doesn't care that it has no merit. he brings it up every time regardless.
Sadly this is one of those topics that give lie to our cause. Most Conservatives are no more about freedom that liberals are. They are about the freedoms that THEY want and agree with. No more.
And as to why you haven't seen any argument against it besides ones based in religion. That is because there is none. And even the ones based on the bible have to ignore the various writings int he bible that talk about marriage. This whole "redefining marriage" is a great example. Marriage today is nothing like it was in the bible. (Thankfully) If it was this world would be a dark place indeed.
Just be honest with yourself guys. Many of you are not for freedom. You are only for the freedoms that you deem ok or acceptable. In a truly free society there are going to be freedoms and rights that you may not care for.
Winner!
Though my feeling is that the most virulent of anti-gay vitriol is spouted by those who lack a clear understanding of their own sexuality.
Numerous "conservatives" have proven that over the years.
What is it about government taking a hands off approach to marriage that you find so reprehensible? Why do you feel compelled to impose your beliefs on to others of legal consenting age? You have this twisted sense of equality wherein the government is somehow endowed with the power to define and regulate the former as it sees fit.
What I and others in this thread have said is that we are proponents of treating all persons as equals under the law, not carving out special treatment or exceptions for one population over another, be they gay, straight, or whatever. No benefits, no tax breaks, etc period.
Shocking thought but how about we just leave people of legal consenting age the hell alone. I don't want the government intruding into people's bedrooms same as I don't what it intruding into peoples gun safes.
At the very MOST it should be the prerogative of individual states to decide for themselves. The federal government once again has no business involving themselves in this. As for the politicians you note they are only proponents of these causes under the color of equality because their exist tangible political benefits for them doing so, read VOTES. Remove the special interest element and this fight goes away.
And I stand by my previous assertion as to why homosexuality is not a choice but you would need an understanding of psychology to rationalize this. That and how it is both similar and dissimilar to pedophilia in conceptualization.
Sent from my DROID X2
You have this twisted sense of equality
No, that's you. You have this twisted sense that males sodomizing each other is the equal to the marriage bond between a man and a woman, which is odd since you stated that homosexuality is a "manifestation of an underlying mental abberation."
And I suppose it is safe at this point to conclude that the reason you have not answered the question as to whether or not you also are in favor of incestuous homosexual marriage is in fact because there is no reason you can give that can not also be used to oppose homosexual "marriage".
I understand that your "debate" tactic is simply to chime in on occasion with what amounts to nothing more than a "nuh-uh", but if for no other reason than variety's sake, perhaps you could shift gears.
I have no problem debating with people who are open to an exchange of ideas and using actual facts to determine the validity of an opinion. However I have not seen much of that here.
Your argument boils down to you don't like them and they make up a small percentage of the population so they don't matter. You then use half truth and partial statistics to try and back up your pre established view. In stead of looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion you have started with the conclusion and gone digging to find anything to back it up.
You don't want to debate. You want to shove your views on everyone else and then argue with those who don't agree with you.
If a person is unwilling to change their stance on a topic when presented with factual data that contradicts their view then they are a danger to society. Those people represent what is most wrong in our world. The inability to think. The inability to look outside what they have been shown and see for themselves. It makes us stagnant and a stagnant society dies.
Jeesh......the trouble I've started!
Once again, I didn't mean to turn this into a pissing contest over gay marriage. I personally don't agree with it and will not condone or "celebrate" it, but really don't care what two consenting adults do in private.
The purpose was to look at REALITY. We can all talk "Hands off marriage by the state" or "It is immoral", whatever. It IS out there and IS gonna get rammed down our throats whether we live in a state that wants it or not (or so I predict). Forget whether you agree with state-sanctioned marriage or not or whether you think gay marriage itself is an abomination; use the REALITY of the situation to our advantage.....that's all I'm saying.
What I am suggesting is to recognize this inevitability and inextricably link it to something we can all agree upon (I think?): national CCW reciprocity, which just like gay marriage will have to be recognized by states that don't want it whether they like it or not. It will have to be done on the same Constitutional grounds that will undoubtedly be used to justify nationally recognized gay marriage (Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, etc.). We must hold conservative's feet to the fire and FORCE them to take up the issue, all the way to the SCOTUS as will no doubt be required. The old adage "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" comes to mind.
No, that's you. You have this twisted sense that males sodomizing each other is the equal to the marriage bond between a man and a woman, which is odd since you stated that homosexuality is a "manifestation of an underlying mental abberation."
And I suppose it is safe at this point to conclude that the reason you have not answered the question as to whether or not you also are in favor of incestuous homosexual marriage is in fact because there is no reason you can give that can not also be used to oppose homosexual "marriage".
And again I stand by my assertion. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness and therefore subject to intervention and treatment. What changed was society has become more tolerant of such individuals and as a result those operating in clinical circles moved away away from such labels and diagnoses. The fundamental premise behind the manifestation of such behavior hasn't changed, only societies collective response to it. Hence the sociocultural element I mentioned earlier.
If two dudes or gals want to get married or even if a guy wants to marry his garden tractor then so be it. Marriage as an institution exists or should exist outside the scope of the states control. One should not have to seek permission or consent to enter into the union of marriage from the government, period.
As for your example history of man is riddled with time periods when such behavior was considered socially acceptable and the norm. Would I support such an arrangement? Nope. But what two consenting adults of sound mind do is none of my business and writing a law to that affect won't curb their behavior, social condemnation and the prospect of being shunned notwithstanding.
Sent from my DROID X2
Your argument boils down to you don't like them
No, you reduce it to that either out of intellectual laziness, an utter inability to actually grasp rather uncomplicated concepts and principles, or you simply have nothing whatsoever to actually counter.
And again I stand by my assertion.
Your assertion that those who call themselves "homosexual" suffer from a "manifestation of an underlying mental aberration"? You mean that assertion?
Again, go and post that on D.U. and see how fast you are banned as a hate mongering gay bashing homophobe.
If two dudes or gals want to get married or even if a guy wants to marry his garden tractor then so be it.
Meaning in fact that you are not even opposed to incestuous homosexual "marriage", which was my point.
Jeesh......the trouble I've started!
Once again, I didn't mean to turn this into a pissing contest over gay marriage. I personally don't agree with it and will not condone or "celebrate" it, but really don't care what two consenting adults do in private.
The purpose was to look at REALITY.
Fair enough. But that position begs the obvious question.
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.
John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
George Washington
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
Thomas Jefferson
"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."
Patrick Henry
If these sentiments of the Founders are true, if they are in fact the reality, does government redefining marriage to include males sodomizing other males, while moral relativists either advocate for, or remain indifferent to, that agenda, advance liberty or extinguish it?
Business_Casual
11-09-13, 16:11
And as to why you haven't seen any argument against it besides ones based in religion. That is because there is none.
I already made an argument for marriage and the state's interest in it, you just ignored it.
To reinforce it, here is a quote that can hardly be accused of right-wing or religious bias:
Kids better off in two-parent families
Sharon Jayson
USA TODAY
Sept. 13, 2005 12:00 AM
Staying together for the sake of the children might not be such a bad idea after all, a report suggests.
Children from two-parent families are better off emotionally, socially and economically, according to a review of marriage research released Tuesday in The Future of Children, a journal published jointly by the non-partisan Brookings Institution and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.
Only in recent years has research shown the benefits of couples staying together; long-term studies on the children of divorce were not available earlier. But Census data show that single-parent families have increased while two-parent families have decreased.
advertisement
"What parents want and what's good for kids isn't always the same," says Kathryn Edin, a University of Pennsylvania sociologist whose research is in the journal.
Gutshot John
11-09-13, 18:31
Why are you conflating two-parent homosexual families with single-parent families? How do you make that mistake?
The study you're referring to makes no statement WHATSOEVER about homosexual vs. heterosexual.
The study says children are better off with "two-parent" families, in aggregate sure I'll buy that. If however you're using that study as some sort of standard, than a single heterosexual parent would undoubtedly be worse than two homosexual parents.
To even get to that point where you could make such a claim, you would have to compare the outcomes of two-parent homosexual families with two-parent heterosexual families. Oh right the study doesn't even mention it, referring only to one parent vs. two parents. Likewise I know single-parents who are far more devoted to their children than many two-parent assholes.
Even if that was the case, I know shitloads of "two parent" heterosexual families that I wouldn't trust with a nickel.
Lastly the whole pedophilia stupidity is a exactly that. The vast majority of convicted pedophiles are heterosexual. It's always funny how people rely on that trope in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Totally disingenuous.
Business_Casual
11-09-13, 19:57
It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive search of the pertinent literature, John. FFS.
Gutshot John
11-09-13, 20:17
It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive search of the pertinent literature, John. FFS.
Oh so it was meant to muddy the waters with a complete non-sequitur.
Got it.
Business_Casual
11-09-13, 20:33
Oh so it was meant to muddy the waters with a complete non-sequitur.
Got it.
Is this ban 2 or 3 coming up? I can't remember.
Anyway, John, I realize you are one of the slower members of the class, but two members of the same sex cannot product offspring.
That said, a man and a woman can and often do produce offspring, which are also referred to as children. When the man and the woman vow to stay together and raise the offspring,
referred to as marriage by many people, this leads to stable, productive societies. Sometimes, as you pointed out in your brick-throwing post above, a man and a woman do not do a good job raising children. However, this tiny element of the population is swamped by the huge majority of married men and women that raise children that manage to stay out of jail and contribute to society. Many of them post here. Perhaps you know some of them yourself.
Secondly, as previously mentioned, two people of the same sex (not gender, gender refers to plants and nouns) cannot produce children. Can they raise them? Probably, but as is also pointed out above, gay people are a tiny (that mean very small) percentage of the population. Therefore, one might conclude, without having an Internet commando throw forum bricks at them, that having the state encourage traditional marriage is a good thing and having the state condone non-traditional marriage a less desirable thing. In other words, upsetting the apple cart, merely because "you don't care" what "people do in their private lives" ON BALANCE (note that it isn't an absolute but a condition) isn't a good enough reason to destroy traditional families and the institution of marriage by allowing two dudes to be recognized as married. Also, I am aware of the literature that says that gays can parent as effectively as traditional families. See? I do actually read all the literature before throwing bombs. But I also know that the studies were not corrected for income - in other words rich people can mitigate the impact of their lifestyles on their children by living in low-crime, high quality school areas. Duh, as my professors might have noted.
Sorry about that.
So, fire away with your latest round of bricks, bro.
:-)
Gutshot John
11-09-13, 20:41
Is this ban 2 or 3 coming up? I can't remember.
I've never been banned from this site. So either you can't read or you can't count.
That would account for your inability to understand the study you quoted.
But by all means, please point to the place in the study you quoted where it refers to children with homosexual parents?
I'm always fascinated by conservatives who talk a good game about liberty, but are as quick to be tyrants when it suits their purposes.
Fascinated but not surprised, thanks for proving that point.
RogerinTPA
11-09-13, 20:50
I'll tell you how: in TN (and it's coming elsewhere soon) there are two gay couples "married" in Kali and NY who are suing the state over TN's refusal to recognize gay marriage. Now, it's going under the Equal Protection idea of the Constitution, but could well fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Let's just say we (reluctantly in many folks' cases) admit that sooner or later gay marriage is gonna be rammed down our throat, like it or not. There IS a silver lining, as long as conservatives have the balls to push it. If a state that does not want gay marriage is forced to accept and recognize it under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, guess what other state-issued license HAS to be also recognized?
That's right kids, CONCEALED CARRY LICENSES. If TN has to officially recognize two homos as married from another state then NYC, NJ, Il, and Kali get ready......you'll be having visitors packing heat from out of state! Don't like it? Tough shit. We have to recognize your gay marriage license. Payback's a bitch.
Again, the big part is having conservatives (I don't trust RINO's to take up the mantle) ram the issue with fervor, all the way to the SCOTUS.
Bottom line? There is no freaking difference between forcing a state to accept another's gay marriage license and forcing one to accept another's concealed carry license.
I hear what your saying and it makes sense for that reason alone, however, from a pure conservative stand point, I don't see why conservatives should, or even bother since they aren't a mainstream conservative's view at all, and their population is statistically insignificant. Conservatives would be better off courting and trying to convert woman, college age youth, latinos and blacks to it's point of view. If for some reason you want to court the gay vote, you might as well court leprechauns, unicorns and mermaids, as they too are statistically insignificant...
Business_Casual
11-09-13, 21:21
I've never been banned from this site. So either you can't read or you can't count.
That would account for your inability to understand the study you quoted.
But by all means, please point to the place in the study you quoted where it refers to children with homosexual parents?
I'm always fascinated by conservatives who talk a good game about liberty, but are as quick to be tyrants when it suits their purposes.
Fascinated but not surprised, thanks for proving that point.
I was referring to my ban a while ago from the Obersharfuhrer.
Ha! As always, unable to address the issue, so you resort to tossing bricks. I don't have to go look up the study on single-sex parenting, I've already read it and noted the flaws. Again, duh.
Let me try it this way: can a college drop-out become a billionaire ? Yes, ask Bill Gates. Does that mean the state should encourage people to drop out of college? Hopefully you can answer that on your own...
SeriousStudent
11-10-13, 01:15
Tempers are starting to get a bit too warm. I'm seeing a lot of comments that are being personally directed at posters, rather than discussing the issues of state reciprocity agreements.
Lower the temperatures, gentlemen. Or this one will go to the Old Thread's Retirement Home very quickly.
DUDE, this is the WRONG THREAD for puns.
Why do conservatives care? Why the intellectual arrogance? I'd really love a day when people can step outside themselves and stop equating "I don't like this" with "shouldn't be legal/should be illegal".
I thought conservatives were all"don't tread on me" "big government is bad" " the state doesn't need to run my life". What gives? Agreed, and that's how our side has been losing for the last couple of decades, because it becomes painfully obvious when hypocrisy is exposed AND they don't actually achieve the things they say they're for. Smaller government? Oh yeah, when was the last time when federal and state governments spent a dime less than they did the year before? When was there fewer laws at the end of the year than the preceding one? They never call the enemy out on their blatant and worse hypocrisy because it's too easy to shut them up by pointing this stuff out. We need them to throw massive rocks at the other side so they've got to finally drag themselves outside of the glass house first.
I'll tell you how: in TN (and it's coming elsewhere soon) there are two gay couples "married" in Kali and NY who are suing the state over TN's refusal to recognize gay marriage. Now, it's going under the Equal Protection idea of the Constitution, but could well fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Let's just say we (reluctantly in many folks' cases) admit that sooner or later gay marriage is gonna be rammed down our throat, like it or not. There IS a silver lining, as long as conservatives have the balls to push it. If a state that does not want gay marriage is forced to accept and recognize it under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, guess what other state-issued license HAS to be also recognized?
That's right kids, CONCEALED CARRY LICENSES. If TN has to officially recognize two homos as married from another state then NYC, NJ, Il, and Kali get ready......you'll be having visitors packing heat from out of state! Don't like it? Tough shit. We have to recognize your gay marriage license. Payback's a bitch.
Again, the big part is having conservatives (I don't trust RINO's to take up the mantle) ram the issue with fervor, all the way to the SCOTUS.
Bottom line? There is no freaking difference between forcing a state to accept another's gay marriage license and forcing one to accept another's concealed carry license.
Good luck having an intelligent conversation with the average sheeple when they believe "It's not the same thing, guns kill can kill people." It's like trying to have a debate with a 4 year old.
Just be honest with yourself guys. Many of you are not for freedom. You are only for the freedoms that you deem ok or acceptable. In a truly free society there are going to be freedoms and rights that you may not care for.
This.
Republicans stance on gay marriage has only hurt they're chances in elections. The government needs to stay the **** out of people's bedrooms. As much as I don't agree with homosexuality, it's not my prerogative to say it right or wrong. It has no bearing on my life and is a major distraction from much more important things that need to be addressed.
Good luck having an intelligent conversation with the average sheeple when they believe "It's not the same thing, guns kill can kill people." It's like trying to have a debate with a 4 year old.
I'm not talking about convincing the sheeple (who I utterly despise because of their stupidity and willful ignorance). I'm talking a legal argument that will end up at SCOTUS no doubt. THEN it will be thought out, most likely to our advantage if SCOTUS remains with the same judges as we have now. If one or more are replaced by libtards then all bets are off.
Gutshot John
11-10-13, 10:02
I'm not talking about convincing the sheeple (who I utterly despise because of their stupidity and willful ignorance). I'm talking a legal argument that will end up at SCOTUS no doubt. THEN it will be thought out, most likely to our advantage if SCOTUS remains with the same judges as we have now. If one or more are replaced by libtards then all bets are off.
On its face I think you're quite correct in your interpretation, though I have no doubt that some form of legal contortionism will be embraced in order to get the results the left wants.
On its face I think you're quite correct in your interpretation, though I have no doubt that some form of legal contortionism will be embraced in order to get the results the left wants.
Don't they always?
The two issues have to be somehow legally "coupled" together (pun intended) time-wise. None of that "We'll just approve the national gay marriage thing and get to national CCW later" horseshit.
I'm not talking about convincing the sheeple (who I utterly despise because of their stupidity and willful ignorance). I'm talking a legal argument that will end up at SCOTUS no doubt. THEN it will be thought out, most likely to our advantage if SCOTUS remains with the same judges as we have now. If one or more are replaced by libtards then all bets are off.
Ahh, gotcha.
two members of the same sex cannot product offspring.
That said, a man and a woman can and often do produce offspring, which are also referred to as children. When the man and the woman vow to stay together and raise the offspring, referred to as marriage by many people,
Which leads to the child having a father and mother and being raised in his or her natural family, something the pro-homosexual marriage supporters apparently think is irrelevant to the child. And you're right, when someone makes the deliberate and wilful choice to enter into a homosexual relationship, they are stating that they in fact never want to create a family from that intrinsically always sterile relationship.
Again the quotes from the Founders:
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.
John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
George Washington
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
Thomas Jefferson
"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."
Patrick Henry
Remember, many of the pro-homosexual agenda supporters by their own admission as being militant atheists reject this. Thus it seems that what we have here are those more philosophically aligned with the French Revolution and its ideals, than with the Founding Fathers and their beliefs. The Founders believed our rights come from the hand of God, however the pro-homosexual "marriage" advocates here do not. They are mostly, if not entirely, atheists, like the French Revolutionaries. Benjamin Franklin however boasted that atheism was unknown in America. The Founders rejected monarchy as form of government, but believed in a natural hierarchy as well as objective truth and morality. The French Revolutionaries rejected all that and instead their ideal was moral and social "equalitate". Hence the pro-homosexual "marriage" supporters, in keeping with French Revolutionaries, claim that males sodomizing each other is the moral equal of the marriage bond between a man and a woman, and why the French Revolutionaries rejected the traditional (i.e. Christian) family and therefore did away with the laws against homosexual sodomy as well as incest. After all, if there is no God, then not only is homosexual sodomy not objectively wrong and immoral, but neither is incestuous homosexual sodomy.
As for their advice that if we, like they, only become a little more ideologically kindred to Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Pelosi, and Clinton, and abandon the principles of the Founding Fathers, equate homosexuals sodomizing each other to the marriage bond between a man and a woman, and support the merciless butchering of tens of millions of unborn children, then the very liberty that Thomas Jefferson said was only a gift of God will then, somehow, grow, I think I will have to pass.
If that is the type of country you want then I suggest you go create your Theocracy. The United states was set up as a Secular country. You can quote mine all you want but the documents written by these men make this fact abundantly clear.
You can not base laws on any religion. Doing so goes against the very ideals our country was founded on.
And by your reasoning a sterile couple gives up their rights as well. Your view is that only those who hold the same vies as you are acceptable. And as I stated earlier that is the same view that the people you so obviously hate hold. The only difference is what you find acceptable.
Abundantly clear that you are simply and predictably regurgitating post-modern deconstructionist lunatic leftist revisionist boiler plate drivel, and nothing more, which is why you don't actually deny that you do in fact completely reject the principles of the Founding Fathers concerning the intrinsic relationship between belief in God, religion, morality, and liberty, and instead are indeed a fundamentalist adherent to the ideals of the atheist French revolutionaries.
Approval rating for Republicans is very low. Unless it's raised, the R party has little or no chance of winning congressional seats. Only a well thought out and competently implemented strategy can pull us out of the ditch that we've fallen into. We must pick battles that we can win. Butt sex issues, abortion, and draconian immigration proposals are losers. We very well could let this stuff fragment and therefore defeat us.
Whenever immigration enforcement is stepped up, lobbyists connected with farming and ranching and the construction and restaurant industries complain. Banks with loans to these enterprises get nervous. Their holding companies begin to squeal. Enforcement slows down. So, until the USA ceases to employ illegal immigrants, they will continue to come in droves. Big money talks, and bullshit walks.
When quoting the Founding Fathers, remember that they argued like hell among themselves. Quoting one doesn't mean that the others agreed(or disagreed)with him. Be aware that their quotes are not seen in the Constitution's narrative and should not give weight to what is and is not constitutional.
Amazing how you will just throw out insults instead of actually discussing a topic. I am trying to think of a way you could have put more buzz words into your post but am really failing to come up with any. It is really a pretty transparent attempt to get others to lover themselves to the level of mud slinging.
The founding fathers spoke quite often on the topic of religion. Strangely enough they spoke as much about the dangers of religion. You see, while most did indeed believe in a god they did not have much love for religion, and instead felt that a persons choice of faith should be personal not public.
Much like the reference to a god in the pledge of allegiance, the other intrusions of religion into government are actually a pretty modern anomaly. One that does however, have terrifying consequences if it continues. We are a country made up of thousands of cultures and faiths. Who are you to determine that yours is more valid than any other and should be the one we govern by.
Belloc, you and a couple others have made it clear that you are not interested in contributing to this forum. Even taking it to the point where you removed past contributions. There are a few people who exist here only to stir the pot here in GD. Posting half truths and topics that are known to be controversial with the apparent cause of just starting up a fight. It only diminishes the board as a whole. Because while open and constructive debate improves us all, closed mined insults only harm the board. I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror and a little closer look at that book you claim to live your life by.
Interestingly enough there is a constitutional amendment proposed here in Indiana. It is called HJR-6.
HJR-6 has passed one vote. It has to go through another and then will be placed on the ballot for public vote. We are a red state. However the reaction this this proposed amendment has been so overwhelmingly negative that it has shocked the legislature. Major business, the Chamber of Commerce, Colleges, and GOP activists have all rallied against it. I just put my name beside about two dozen others who have held positions on the state board, all of us opposing the amendment. There was a lot of discussion. And what it came down to is this: The ones who propose such bans are a very vocal minority. One that has cowed the majority into silence. Once it came to a closed vote the numbers who are really in favor are in the low teens. And this is in party leadership within a red state.
The tide is changing. If you don't think the Civil rights movement, the pro gun movement, and the LGBT movement are all pretty much the same fight, then you aren't paying attention. They are all fights for freedom. Different freedoms to be sure, but freedoms none the less. Every one of them has it's fringe group, and its more rational members. Every one of them is demonized by the opposition. And if you deny any of them their rights then you don't deserve the rights you claim to champion.
Amazing how you will just throw out insults instead of actually discussing a topic.
But they are not "insults", but facts. You do in fact support much of the fanatical leftist social agenda of Obama, Pelosi, Cuomo, Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, and Bloomberg. You don't even deny this. You do in fact utterly reject the bedrock principle of the Founding Fathers that our rights come from the hand of God. Something again you don't even remotely deny. And you do in fact philosophically adhere to the atheist ideals of the French Revolution. And now you are actually complaining about others not bringing anything to the debate, when everyone can clearly see for themselves the fact that you have not actually even attempted to refute or even address any of the salient points or arguments made by those who steadfastly oppose Obama's and Pelosi's, moronic leftist militant homosexual agenda, but instead sob about how if someone does not also follow you and get behind those leftist socialist moronic idiots on this, then they are not really "for freedom". Brilliant. :rolleyes:
The tide is changing. If you don't think the Civil rights movement, the pro gun movement, and the LGBT movement are all pretty much the same fight, then you aren't paying attention.
No, sorry, but if you really believe that abandoning the core beliefs of the Founding Fathers and adhering to the political ideals of the French Revolution, post-modern deconstructionist atheism, the militant leftist homosexual agenda of Obama, Pelosi, Cuomo, Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, and Bloomberg, and every time tried every time failed moral relativism, puts us on the path to greater freedom and liberty, then you have completely loosed your grip on reality. But don't worry, as history shows us time and again, objective reality never allows itself to be so mocked, ridiculed, and denied, for long.
Therefore while you rather foolishly gloat that the "tide is changing", what you might want to consider is that what you are actually cheering on is the tide of reason, truth, and critical thinking, once again receding from civilisation, the end result being, as ever, the certain return of a colossal tsunami created as a result of such wilful abject stupidity and contemptible moral relativism, speeding back and laying waste to everything in its path.
At the end of the day, what you are actually, and as it were, incredibly, saying, is that those who wrote the Constitution and the Second Amendment were absolutely and fundamentally wrong about the metaphysical origins of all our inalienable rights, and it is the very same socialist Constitution ignoring, 2nd Amendment denying, gun grabbers like Obama, Clinton, and Boxer, who once you get past their gun-grabbing, are the ones to whom we all need to hitch our ideological wagons.
platoonDaddy
11-11-13, 03:56
If the 96%ers vote based on race or single issue, it won't happen. For example:
White Repub. tricks black voters into thinking he's black, and wins
http://www.khou.com/news/local/White-guy-wins-after-leading-voters-to-believe-hes-black-231222981.html
This is a debate for the Anderson Pooper show.
brickboy240
11-11-13, 10:58
Keep hating on the homos and we will keep losing elections to the left.
Keep hating on the homos and we will keep losing elections to the left.
Keep saying we need to adopt the ideology of the left to win elections and it won't make the slightest bit of difference.
brickboy240
11-11-13, 11:07
Let people make their own bad decisions and live with it. God will judge them later for their poor choices. That goes for gays and abortion.
We stand the very real chance of losing gun rights and the rest of what is left of our free society because some want to control who others diddle and sleep with. Losing this is NOT a good trade off for keeping homos from marrying each other....sorry.
If gays are a "threat to your marriage" then your marriage is not very strong to begin with.
If you truly believe in personal liberty...you will allow others to freely make their poor decisions and live with them. That is not necessarily an endorsement of gays, abortion or smoking pot for that matter.
-brickboy240
The reason you have not ever even attempted to challenge the historical facts or the logical conclusions in this article, is because you know you can't.
WHY FIGHT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
"...By excising sexual difference, with its generative power, it [same-sex marriage] deprives itself of any direct connection to nature. The unit it creates rests on human choice, as does that created by marriage. But whether monogamous, polygamous, or polyamorous, it is a closed unit that reduces to human choice, rather than engaging choice with nature; and its lack of a generative dimension means that it cannot be construed as a fundamental building block.
Institutionally, then, it is nothing more than a legal construct. Its roots run no deeper than positive law. It therefore cannot present itself to the state as the bearer of independent rights and responsibilities, as older or more basic than the state itself. Indeed, it is a creature of the state, generated by the state’s assumption of the power of invention or re-definition. Which changes everything.
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005), "....is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state."
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex "marriage" does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal."
And as for your advice to become left in order to prevent the left from winning elections, well, I will let the breathtaking stupidity of that suggestion speak for itself.
Belloc I didn't bother to deny some of what you said because it is so far outside the realm of reality that it doesn't bear acknowledging.
You are hung up on the idea the LGBT rights are a leftist issue and that we were not established as a secular nation. It is my view, and the view of many others that you are wrong on both of these points.
No where in our governing documents is there any reference to christianity, a christian god, or indeed any other gods. This was not an oversight. It was quite intentional.
Marriage” was now a legal fiction
It has always been a legal fiction.
It is no more natural than the house you live in.
Belloc I didn't bother to deny some of what you said because it is so far outside the realm of reality that it doesn't bear acknowledging.
Is that right? Then go ahead and prove that this is not simply a patently dishonest statement.
brickboy240
11-11-13, 11:28
What you posted goes into detail on kids. Well..we already allow gays to adopt kids and some have them through a sperm donor....isn't that cat out of the bag? Do you feel we should outlaw gays from adopting kids or having them through a sperm donor?
I honestly think that the state has NO BUSINESS in the marriage business at all.
The left will continue to use the issue of gay marriage as a bludgeon to beat conservatives candidates with and handily beat them in elections forever...if we allow them to do so. They use the issues of abortion and gay marriage as distraction issues...to distract from more important issues like monetary policy, taxation and the economy.
Currently, we are left to deal with the fallout of Obamacare and restrictive gun control laws in certain states because some conservative candidates just could not let the issues of abortion and homos alone. Leftists won their seats and they will continue to use homos and abortion to win elections from here on out because it works.
Sorry...I am just not cool with that. Call me stupid all you want but I am tired of losing and I am honest enough to admit that homos and abortion have ZERO impact on my daily life. However, the decisions made by leftist lawmakers WILL have long term and damaging impact on my daily life.
I am tired of losing to leftists that should never win the position of dog catcher, let alone Senator, Representative or even Mayor.
-brickboy240
Business_Casual
11-11-13, 12:34
So let me get this str... er, correct - the cool kids don't care if someone is gay but at the same time conservatives will lose elections because of it? Huh?
It has always been a legal fiction.
It is no more natural than the house you live in.
Meaning of course that you also believe the 2nd Amendment to be nothing more than a "legal fiction, yet again displaying the intellectually fruitless harvest of public schooling.
brickboy240
11-11-13, 13:33
Well...conservatives have ALREADY lost races because of stupid comments and actions on gays, abortion, contraception and rape...have they not?
That means more "D's" to vote for things like gun control, tax raises, Obamacare and debt ceiling raises.
I think you confuse "conservatives" with Libertarians.
Libertarians believe that you should be free to make your own decisions...bad or otherwise...and live with them. They believe in the power and importance of the individual over the group.
Many so called "conservatives" will waive the flag and talk about freedom and yet they would vote to end choice on abortion, ban books, movies, music they don't deem "fit for society" and yes...keep gays from living together or getting married. They are not really lovers of freedom but merely tyrants of a different stripe. They will allow you to keep your guns but wish to control what you see, hear or do in the privacy of your own home.
So we really cannot lump all "conservatives" into one pile like we do liberals. This seems to be the real fight going on with the GOP and the right - the establishment types and Bible thumpers versus the Tea Party/Libertarians. The left has taken total advantage of this in-fighting and this is how we end up with things like Obamacare and 16 trillion in debt.
The establishment GOP fails to realize that they are on the verge of extinction. That their numbers are shrinking. They blow off the Tea Party/Libertarian types and in doing so, they are speeding towards a permanent minority opposition party status.
The truth is that most Americans are NOT die hard leftists nor are they die hard evangelicals....they are mostly Libertarians but most fail to recognize this within themselves.
-brickboy240
SeriousStudent
11-11-13, 14:54
And we're done here. Some people cannot listen to directions, and like to fling personal attacks. The next time you do, you're going away.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.