Fiscal Conservatives in - Social Conservatives out.

[WinterBorn]

But it does effect how I live my life if it effects the society I have to raise my children in. That's the whole point. We have all kinds of laws and rules of societal behavior, things we don't allow here... We can't run around naked with bones in our noses, like they do in Africa! We are civilized people, we have a civilized culture, and that culture includes decent moral values.

I get a voice in what rules and guidelines govern my society, because I live in a FREE representative republic which is rooted in the principles of democracy... notice I never said we live in a democracy.

You're an intellectual elitist who thinks we should let 9 judges determine our rules of society, because the people are too stupid and dumb to know what's best for them! You'd rather live in a society where intellectual elitists decide for everyone, instead of a society where the PEOPLE have a voice. I reject that, I think it's absurd, and I think you are a total fool for believing in such an idea.

Quit trying to put words in my mouth, Dixie. Or point out where I said 9 judges should determine our rules of society. But those 9 judges do get to determine whether or not laws are constitutional. That is their job. I am not, nor have I been, in favor of legislation from the bench. But neither am I in favor of some tightass conservatives getting to set rules because they want to pretend Ozzie & Harriet were real.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Quit trying to put words in my mouth, Dixie. Or point out where I said 9 judges should determine our rules of society. But those 9 judges do get to determine whether or not laws are constitutional. That is their job. I am not, nor have I been, in favor of legislation from the bench. But neither am I in favor of some tightass conservatives getting to set rules because they want to pretend Ozzie & Harriet were real.

I don't need to put words in your mouth, you say plenty enough on your own.

I don't need to point out where you said you wanted judges to determine rules of society, there are basically two choices, the people, or activist judges! You seem to be opposed to the idea of the people deciding, so that only leaves judges. Yes, judges get to legitimately apply the constitution and determine if laws are constitutional, I haven't contested that vital function of our system. But the SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate authority!

Again, you do indeed support legislating from the bench, if you oppose The People deciding for themselves! The only other possible logical position would be to favor no one being able to determine the outcome on an issue, and it remaining an issue of perpetual argument! Is that where you're at here? You don't want judges deciding, but you don't want the people deciding either... let's just keep the issue around so we can bash those who have traditional values?

Yeah, when you start yapping, you say quite a lot!

 

[Kamala Trump]

Quit trying to put words in my mouth, Dixie. Or point out where I said 9 judges should determine our rules of society. But those 9 judges do get to determine whether or not laws are constitutional. That is their job. I am not, nor have I been, in favor of legislation from the bench. But neither am I in favor of some tightass conservatives getting to set rules because they want to pretend Ozzie & Harriet were real.

Ummm. Ozzie and Harriet were real.

 

[apple0154]

But it does effect how I live my life if it effects the society I have to raise my children in. That's the whole point. We have all kinds of laws and rules of societal behavior, things we don't allow here... We can't run around naked with bones in our noses, like they do in Africa! We are civilized people, we have a civilized culture, and that culture includes decent moral values.

I get a voice in what rules and guidelines govern my society, because I live in a FREE representative republic which is rooted in the principles of democracy... notice I never said we live in a democracy.

You're an intellectual elitist who thinks we should let 9 judges determine our rules of society, because the people are too stupid and dumb to know what's best for them! You'd rather live in a society where intellectual elitists decide for everyone, instead of a society where the PEOPLE have a voice. I reject that, I think it's absurd, and I think you are a total fool for believing in such an idea.

Dixie, we vote for people to represent our best interests the same way we hire a plumber or doctor. It's silly to expect the average person to know everything concerning what is best for society, as a whole, than it would be to expect the average person to discuss in detail how a doctor will perform an operation.

Just as you are, presumably, trained/educated in your profession you know more about the product/service you offer than the average person would know. Would it make any sense for the average individual to tell you the best way to do your job?

When it comes to voting the only things the average person can draw on to place an informed vote is what they have researched themselves or what they have experienced.

Look at HCR. Research will show every country which implemented a universal plan has kept it, without exception. If HCR is important to someone they will do their own research and not only listen to what politicians in their country say.

Regarding the economy it's what the average person has experienced as opposed to researched. Everyone is aware of the wars and near financial collapse so they ask themselves, "Who was at the helm when those things occurred?" To vote for the same party reminds me of Albert Einstein's comment, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Surely even those with minimal brain power know enough not to vote for the same party who was at the helm when those crisis manifested.

Coming back to your comment, "You'd rather live in a society where intellectual elitists decide for everyone, instead of a society where the PEOPLE have a voice" I think it's fair to say everyone would prefer living in a society where knowledgeable people made decisions. Learning and understanding about society does not make someone an intellectual elitist any more then your doctor knowing more about medicine and what is best for your health makes him/her an intellectual elitist.

The judges are there to determine if our representatives have made knowledgeable choices. Just think if no one "reviewed" decisions made by someone like O'Donnell. :eek3: Would you want someone like that to have the final say on anything other than what sweets to serve at a Tea Party?

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't need to put words in your mouth, you say plenty enough on your own.

I don't need to point out where you said you wanted judges to determine rules of society, there are basically two choices, the people, or activist judges! You seem to be opposed to the idea of the people deciding, so that only leaves judges. Yes, judges get to legitimately apply the constitution and determine if laws are constitutional, I haven't contested that vital function of our system. But the SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate authority!

Again, you do indeed support legislating from the bench, if you oppose The People deciding for themselves! The only other possible logical position would be to favor no one being able to determine the outcome on an issue, and it remaining an issue of perpetual argument! Is that where you're at here? You don't want judges deciding, but you don't want the people deciding either... let's just keep the issue around so we can bash those who have traditional values?

Yeah, when you start yapping, you say quite a lot!

Hey Dix...do you support or oppose the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't need to put words in your mouth, you say plenty enough on your own.

I don't need to point out where you said you wanted judges to determine rules of society, there are basically two choices, the people, or activist judges! You seem to be opposed to the idea of the people deciding, so that only leaves judges. Yes, judges get to legitimately apply the constitution and determine if laws are constitutional, I haven't contested that vital function of our system. But the SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate authority!

Again, you do indeed support legislating from the bench, if you oppose The People deciding for themselves! The only other possible logical position would be to favor no one being able to determine the outcome on an issue, and it remaining an issue of perpetual argument! Is that where you're at here? You don't want judges deciding, but you don't want the people deciding either... let's just keep the issue around so we can bash those who have traditional values?

Yeah, when you start yapping, you say quite a lot!

You are really stretching to try to pretend you are right. The people elect the ones who make the laws. So it is not just "either the people make the laws or the judges do", as you claimed. The system works better than any other. I have no desire for "mob rule" as you seem to wish for. If someone thinks there is enough of a populist basis, then go for a cosntitutional amendment.

But this ranting in favor of "traditional values" when the majority would not back you is just whining.

I prefer a free society over what the ultra libs or the social conservatives offer. Both sides think the gov't should make decisions for the people. I think people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Until it directly effects you (and not this "it erodes society" argument) you should simply stay out of it.

What you advocate is no better than the libs who want to legislate high trans fats, smoking, drinking and other unhealthy choices.

 

[/MSG/]

Here is an excellent video that provides a comprehensive solution to social conservatives.

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bsitu_e03

 

[Kamala Trump]

You are really stretching to try to pretend you are right. The people elect the ones who make the laws. So it is not just "either the people make the laws or the judges do", as you claimed. The system works better than any other. I have no desire for "mob rule" as you seem to wish for. If someone thinks there is enough of a populist basis, then go for a cosntitutional amendment.

But this ranting in favor of "traditional values" when the majority would not back you is just whining.

I prefer a free society over what the ultra libs or the social conservatives offer. Both sides think the gov't should make decisions for the people. I think people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Until it directly effects you (and not this "it erodes society" argument) you should simply stay out of it.

What you advocate is no better than the libs who want to legislate high trans fats, smoking, drinking and other unhealthy choices.

You're so perfect in your own eyes, but the truth is you want to destroy the american people with internationalist fascism, aka "the new normal", aka the new world order, aka globalist stupidity.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are really stretching to try to pretend you are right. The people elect the ones who make the laws. So it is not just "either the people make the laws or the judges do", as you claimed. The system works better than any other. I have no desire for "mob rule" as you seem to wish for. If someone thinks there is enough of a populist basis, then go for a cosntitutional amendment.

But this ranting in favor of "traditional values" when the majority would not back you is just whining.

I prefer a free society over what the ultra libs or the social conservatives offer. Both sides think the gov't should make decisions for the people. I think people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Until it directly effects you (and not this "it erodes society" argument) you should simply stay out of it.

What you advocate is no better than the libs who want to legislate high trans fats, smoking, drinking and other unhealthy choices.

Let's be clear, if Obama had not embraced "traditional values" he couldn't have been elected. This is why he and Biden didn't support Gay Marriage. This is why, when you corner a liberal on the abortion issue, they pretend that abortions are bad and they wish they didn't happen. They all realize the nation as a whole, endorse 'traditional values' and they can't get elected to power otherwise. You see exceptions, but they are from districts where the population is largely liberal progressive, and they don't have to embrace 'traditional values' to get elected.

The People elect those who make the laws which The People want made! We don't elect people to decide what's best for the people against their will. But you see.... things like your personal pet issue "Gay Marriage" are not left to the representatives we've elected... I think most social conservatives would be fine with allowing those people to legislate a solution to the issue, but you don't want that. You want the court to step in and tell the people what they have to accept against their will. On this particular issue, you don't want the people to decide, either directly, or through their elected representatives, you don't like this "system that works better than any other" in the case of Gay Marriage, you prefer judicial fiat.

If you are so ignorant of history not to understand how "society erodes" when it abandons decency, go study up on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. As society becomes more decadent and distanced from moral values, it becomes more corrupt and vile, and eventually collapses as a result. Maintaining some semblance of decency and morality as a society, is what distinguishes the civilized world from the uncivilized. Not only do we have a right to support that, we have an OBLIGATION to do so. And I don't give a damn how many times you want to tell me to sit down and shut up... I don't plan to do that! Neither do MOST Americans!

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's be clear, if Obama had not embraced "traditional values" he couldn't have been elected. This is why he and Biden didn't support Gay Marriage. This is why, when you corner a liberal on the abortion issue, they pretend that abortions are bad and they wish they didn't happen. They all realize the nation as a whole, endorse 'traditional values' and they can't get elected to power otherwise. You see exceptions, but they are from districts where the population is largely liberal progressive, and they don't have to embrace 'traditional values' to get elected.

The People elect those who make the laws which The People want made! We don't elect people to decide what's best for the people against their will. But you see.... things like your personal pet issue "Gay Marriage" are not left to the representatives we've elected... I think most social conservatives would be fine with allowing those people to legislate a solution to the issue, but you don't want that. You want the court to step in and tell the people what they have to accept against their will. On this particular issue, you don't want the people to decide, either directly, or through their elected representatives, you don't like this "system that works better than any other" in the case of Gay Marriage, you prefer judicial fiat.

If you are so ignorant of history not to understand how "society erodes" when it abandons decency, go study up on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. As society becomes more decadent and distanced from moral values, it becomes more corrupt and vile, and eventually collapses as a result. Maintaining some semblance of decency and morality as a society, is what distinguishes the civilized world from the uncivilized. Not only do we have a right to support that, we have an OBLIGATION to do so. And I don't give a damn how many times you want to tell me to sit down and shut up... I don't plan to do that! Neither do MOST Americans!

The worst part about what you propose is that you think people are somehow saved by your actions. That people are good and decent unless those vile decadent liberals remove traditional values. That is as naive as any idea out there. They dothe same things. Its just that more lives are ruined by the justice system.

I have traditional values. I value my family, my faith, and justice above all other things. The fact that a gay man marries, a woman spends money in a casino, a man pays a hooker for a blowjob, a stripper feeds her family from tips, or whatever other "sinful" activities happen, my values do not change.

If you want to know what is wrong with our society, you have onlyto look in the mirror. If people spent as much time taking care of their own as they do worrying about what their neighbors are doing, we wouldn't have these problems.

Worry about the things that harm us. Obama care will harm us. The economy in the tank will harm us. over taxation will harm us. An inferior education system will harm us.

Hookers, gay marriage, and gambling don't harm us. They are just distractions your conservative masters use to keep you from seeing that they are fucking you royally.

 

[Kamala Trump]

The worst part about what you propose is that you think people are somehow saved by your actions. That people are good and decent unless those vile decadent liberals remove traditional values. That is as naive as any idea out there. They dothe same things. Its just that more lives are ruined by the justice system.

I have traditional values. I value my family, my faith, and justice above all other things. The fact that a gay man marries, a woman spends money in a casino, a man pays a hooker for a blowjob, a stripper feeds her family from tips, or whatever other "sinful" activities happen, my values do not change.

If you want to know what is wrong with our society, you have onlyto look in the mirror. If people spent as much time taking care of their own as they do worrying about what their neighbors are doing, we wouldn't have these problems.

Worry about the things that harm us. Obama care will harm us. The economy in the tank will harm us. over taxation will harm us. An inferior education system will harm us.

Hookers, gay marriage, and gambling don't harm us. They are just distractions your conservative masters use to keep you from seeing that they are fucking you royally.

You seem worried about dixie's views. Why don't you take your own advice and stfu.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/248993

October 7, 2010 12:30 A.M.
Economic Issues at the Forefront
This election season, fiscal conservatives own the GOP grassroots.

The coalition Ronald Reagan assembled of fiscal and economic conservatives, evangelicals, and national-security advocates has always been dominated by the social issues at the grassroots level. While free-market economic conservatives lived in New York and dutifully attended their Club for Growth meetings and national-security types inhabited Washington, the Republican social conservatives dominated the grassroots of the party. They alone could turn out the numbers to rallies and to the polls on primary or Election Day.

Now, all that has changed. It is the fiscal conservatives and free-market supporters who own the Republican streets. Through the Tea Party, they have come to dominate the grassroots of the GOP. It is as if an invisible primary were held for supremacy at the grassroots and the Tea Party won.

And social issues are nowhere on the Tea Party agenda. I recently participated in a conference call with tea-party affiliates throughout the country. During the question period that followed my speech, one leader of a local tea-party group asked a question about abortion. The conference-call leader jumped in before I could answer and ruled the query out of order. “Our priorities are to oppose taxes, support fiscal conservatism, and advance free-market principles,” she scolded the questioner. “We do not take a position on social issues like abortion,” she added.

Along with this change has come a shift in what it takes to turn the litmus paper red enough to win Republican primaries. It used to be that abortion, gun control, and gay marriage were the hot-button issues, and anyone straying from orthodoxy was targeted in the primary and handicapped in the general election by a lackluster turnout. Now, a candidate’s social positions rarely even come up. It is fiscal and economic purity that rules the day. Anyone who voted for cap-and-trade is targeted in the primary. And there is no place for a candidate who ever backed a tax increase. Every candidate has to sign the no-tax pledge that Grover Norquist formulated for Americans for Tax Reform.

Where Republican politicians were once terrified to move to the left on social issues, they are now more frightened of retribution for departures from fiscal orthodoxy. The once-elitist demands of the Club for Growth are now echoed throughout America by the surging Tea Party movement.

A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 71 percent of all Republicans regarded themselves as Tea Party supporters, far more than would identify themselves as pro-life or opposed to gay marriage.

This shift in Republican priorities is opening up the way for social moderates and libertarians to back Republican candidates in the 2010 elections. The libertarian strain in the American electorate has long been neglected by the mainstream media. But, through the Tea Party, it has gained ascendancy on the right. Those who want the government to stay out of both boardrooms and bedrooms have come to dominate the party and its nominating process.

Ironically, this change in the Republican grassroots has come at a time when abortion is falling into disrepute and larger numbers of Americans report themselves as being pro-life. This swing of voter sentiment might reflect the growth of the evangelical community of believers or simply the aging of the baby-boomer population. But even as the right to lifers move toward a national majority, their clout at the grassroots level of the Republican party is waning.

But despite this growing support for pro-life policies, no Republican candidate is basing his or her insurgency against an incumbent Democratic congressman, senator, or governor on social issues. There are no ads urging the ouster of a Democrat for his pro-choice policies or backing of gay marriage. All the ads and the rhetoric are devoted to fiscal transgressions like support of the stimulus package, the TARP bailout, or Obamacare.

The failure of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to win the GOP nomination in 2008 was, in retrospect, a harbinger of this grassroots shift. Governor Huckabee starred in the Republican debates with his witty sallies against big government and his commonsense folk wisdom. He capitalized on this strong performance to build mighty field organizations in Iowa and other early primary states. He looked like a real contender.

But the attacks on his spending programs in Arkansas by the Club for Growth — often inaccurate or exaggerated — undermined his ability to reach beyond the confines of the evangelical ghetto and doomed his candidacy to a regional one. He won state after state in the South but had trouble making inroads in the northeast. (If Huckabee runs again in 2012, it will be interested to see how his hosting of a weekend show on Fox News will affect his standing.)

But the Tea Party has flourished in all regions, drawing libertarians in the North and evangelicals in the South, all committed to its agenda of reduced spending, limited taxation, balanced budgets, and free-market economics. It is the new mantra of the Republican grassroots and has a lot to do with the massive gains the party will win on November 2.

– Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are the authors of 2010: Take Back America: A Battle Plan and founders of www.dickmorris.com.

What the Republican party needs is less of either. Social conservatives are a bunch of knuckle dragging reactionaries who want to turn the clock back to an imaginary never-never land that's never existed.

These so-called Reagan style, supply siders, "fiscal conservatives" are an obscene joke. It's just a ruse they use on unsophisticated rubes to grant them unneeded tax breaks and to widen the wealth gap in this nation. How anyone can call these borrow and spend supply siders "fiscal conservatives" is beyond me.

Both groups are in fact a bunch of narcissist who oppose implementing any program that does not directly benefit them and who oppose eliminating any program which does directly implement them.

If the Republican party was truly interested in the best interest of our nation they would vest control in true Rockefeller style conservative Republican and marginalize the Barry Goldwater crowd cause that group is either only interested in protecting the vested interest of a handful of plutocrats or are the tools of said plutocrats.

Hell, I'd go so far as saying that the knuckle dragging social reactionaries are far less of a threat to the well being of this nation then the supply side plutocrats are by far. Fiscal conservatives my ass!

 

[WinterBorn]

You seem worried about dixie's views. Why don't you take your own advice and stfu.

If thats what you think, you missed the point of the discussion.

I have no problem with Dixie's views or values. What I am arguing against is Dixie trying to legislate his values into law. That is the point. Social conservatives don't give a damn about allowing someone their own views. They demand that the nation follow their values.

 

[Kamala Trump]

If thats what you think, you missed the point of the discussion.

I have no problem with Dixie's views or values. What I am arguing against is Dixie trying to legislate his values into law. That is the point. Social conservatives don't give a damn about allowing someone their own views. They demand that the nation follow their values.

And you do too.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If thats what you think, you missed the point of the discussion.

I have no problem with Dixie's views or values. What I am arguing against is Dixie trying to legislate his values into law. That is the point. Social conservatives don't give a damn about allowing someone their own views. They demand that the nation follow their values.

No, the OPPOSITE is true, you are trying to legislate YOUR social views into law, but the legislators are reluctant because the vast majority oppose your view, so you accept judicial activist judges legislating your view into law. The problem is, you would be totally opposed to a Federal judge ruling against homosexual partnerships, that would not be something you could accept. So you become a two-faced hypocrite, who wants to have things your way, and to hell with the rest of us!

I've never stated that I want to legislate MY views into law! NEVER SAID THAT! EVER! ALL I have EVER advocated, is allowing THE PEOPLE to decide these issues on their own, without judicial fiat, without courts ruling something into law against the will of the people. If Californians want to adopt Gay Marriage, have a referendum and I will live with the results... you don't want to do that, because you know you will lose, as you have lost in every attempt to do so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is why, when you corner a liberal on the abortion issue, they pretend that abortions are bad and they wish they didn't happen.

It's really a retarded strategy. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong with abortions and they have many beneficial practical effects.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, the OPPOSITE is true, you are trying to legislate YOUR social views into law, but the legislators are reluctant because the vast majority oppose your view, so you accept judicial activist judges legislating your view into law. The problem is, you would be totally opposed to a Federal judge ruling against homosexual partnerships, that would not be something you could accept. So you become a two-faced hypocrite, who wants to have things your way, and to hell with the rest of us!

I've never stated that I want to legislate MY views into law! NEVER SAID THAT! EVER! ALL I have EVER advocated, is allowing THE PEOPLE to decide these issues on their own, without judicial fiat, without courts ruling something into law against the will of the people. If Californians want to adopt Gay Marriage, have a referendum and I will live with the results... you don't want to do that, because you know you will lose, as you have lost in every attempt to do so.

Hey Dix, you keep exhibiting an ignorance to how the court system works. ANY citizen can appeal a case and it's possible that appeal may go all the way to the Supreme Court. It is a RIGHT, not a privilege.

We current have an extremely activist Supreme Court, but it is the conservatives that are legislating from the bench. We just witnessed one of the MOST activist decisions in history with Citizens United v. FEC

The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled; dismissed the legitimacy of laws enacted over a century by Congress and state legislatures; equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences; and provided not a shred of evidence of new conditions or harmful effects that justified imposing their own ideological preferences on a body of settled law and social tradition.

The decision makes a mockery of Chief Justice Roberts' pious statements during his confirmation hearing that he embraced judicial modesty and constitutional avoidance. His concurring decision to respond to his critics was defensive and lame.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/26/82982/commentary-citizens-united-is.html#ixzz11tEKdqdY

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The worst part about what you propose is that you think people are somehow saved by your actions. That people are good and decent unless those vile decadent liberals remove traditional values. That is as naive as any idea out there. They dothe same things. Its just that more lives are ruined by the justice system....I have traditional values. I value my family, my faith, and justice above all other things. The fact that a gay man marries, a woman spends money in a casino, a man pays a hooker for a blowjob, a stripper feeds her family from tips, or whatever other "sinful" activities happen, my values do not change.

I don't care about "sinful activities" ...if that were the case, I would be advocating that we BAN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR! Have I argued that? NOPE! Have I argued that we should ban or outlaw ANYTHING? NOPE! So this is NOT about me wanting to force you to live by my moral standards. This is about "societal standards" and the effects of immoral behavior being legitimized through law, on the rest of society as a whole. We can't 'knock down the door' to socially acceptable 'moral' behavior, or we will have all kinds of immoral indecent behaviors legitimized into the law of the land, and it will happen rather quickly once the door is busted down. Your naivete seems to be, not understanding that very crucial point. You dismiss this as 'slippery slope' arguments, or ridicule it as 'paranoia' from the other side. It's the foundational tenant of the social conservatives argument, and it's most certainly legitimate.

We have a Constitution which guarantees everyone the same equality and protections under the law. If we establish that a certain particular sexual behavior is legitimate to alter laws and make exceptions, then we MUST, BY THE WORD OF THE CONSTITUTION, afford that SAME right to ALL similar behaviors.

There is no way around that, it's written in the Constitution! Yes, a LOT of social conservatives oppose this because of their religious beliefs, but so what? They are entitled to use their spiritual beliefs to establish a viewpoint on our laws. Sorry if you don't like that, but to attempt to divorce people from their religious morals when making laws, is a sure fire way to legalize pure EVIL! Every law we have, is rooted in someone's spiritual belief system! There is just NOT a way around that, unless you just want to live in a society with no morals, boundaries, or standards, where whateverthefuck goes!

No one here would ever argue that I am not a social conservative... I think that is pretty much a universal agreement... so let me tell you what THIS social conservative believes... I think "gay marriage" should be determined by the people of the states who issue marriage licenses. If we are going to do ANYTHING on a national level, we should separate Federal government from any association with "marriages" of any kind, and maintain a mutual understanding this is a respected religious custom, and should be handled by churches and individuals, not by the State. If we are going to need some measure to deal with benefit equality or whatever, this can be done through Civil Union contracts. Now.... what part of that sounds like a social conservative dictating what morals or lifestyle you live?

 

[apple0154]

I don't care about "sinful activities" ...if that were the case, I would be advocating that we BAN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR! Have I argued that? NOPE! Have I argued that we should ban or outlaw ANYTHING? NOPE! So this is NOT about me wanting to force you to live by my moral standards. This is about "societal standards" and the effects of immoral behavior being legitimized through law, on the rest of society as a whole. We can't 'knock down the door' to socially acceptable 'moral' behavior, or we will have all kinds of immoral indecent behaviors legitimized into the law of the land, and it will happen rather quickly once the door is busted down. Your naivete seems to be, not understanding that very crucial point. You dismiss this as 'slippery slope' arguments, or ridicule it as 'paranoia' from the other side. It's the foundational tenant of the social conservatives argument, and it's most certainly legitimate.

We have a Constitution which guarantees everyone the same equality and protections under the law. If we establish that a certain particular sexual behavior is legitimate to alter laws and make exceptions, then we MUST, BY THE WORD OF THE CONSTITUTION, afford that SAME right to ALL similar behaviors.

There is no way around that, it's written in the Constitution! Yes, a LOT of social conservatives oppose this because of their religious beliefs, but so what? They are entitled to use their spiritual beliefs to establish a viewpoint on our laws. Sorry if you don't like that, but to attempt to divorce people from their religious morals when making laws, is a sure fire way to legalize pure EVIL! Every law we have, is rooted in someone's spiritual belief system! There is just NOT a way around that, unless you just want to live in a society with no morals, boundaries, or standards, where whateverthefuck goes!

No one here would ever argue that I am not a social conservative... I think that is pretty much a universal agreement... so let me tell you what THIS social conservative believes... I think "gay marriage" should be determined by the people of the states who issue marriage licenses. If we are going to do ANYTHING on a national level, we should separate Federal government from any association with "marriages" of any kind, and maintain a mutual understanding this is a respected religious custom, and should be handled by churches and individuals, not by the State. If we are going to need some measure to deal with benefit equality or whatever, this can be done through Civil Union contracts. Now.... what part of that sounds like a social conservative dictating what morals or lifestyle you live?

Am I correct in understanding you believe each State should be able to decide if it wants to legitimize gay marriage but you don't want the Federal Government to do so? If so, are you saying you want to live in a State where gay marriage is not legitimized but if other States wish to do so it's fine with you? If those statements are correct wouldn't the fact other States legalized gay marriage lead to "social lawlessness" or the "slippery slope" in the country anyway?

In other words how would you living in a State which outlawed gay marriage save the country? What difference would it make if your State outlawed it but other States allowed it? What would happen as far as the "slippery slope" is concerned?

I'm having difficulty understanding how you would be satisfied with your State outlawing gay marriage while other States allowed it. Wouldn't that eventually doom the country to moral collapse, as well? Or do you just care about the State in which you live?

 

[WinterBorn]

No, the OPPOSITE is true, you are trying to legislate YOUR social views into law, but the legislators are reluctant because the vast majority oppose your view, so you accept judicial activist judges legislating your view into law. The problem is, you would be totally opposed to a Federal judge ruling against homosexual partnerships, that would not be something you could accept. So you become a two-faced hypocrite, who wants to have things your way, and to hell with the rest of us!

I've never stated that I want to legislate MY views into law! NEVER SAID THAT! EVER! ALL I have EVER advocated, is allowing THE PEOPLE to decide these issues on their own, without judicial fiat, without courts ruling something into law against the will of the people. If Californians want to adopt Gay Marriage, have a referendum and I will live with the results... you don't want to do that, because you know you will lose, as you have lost in every attempt to do so.

I am in favor of allowing gay marriages. That has no effect on you. You, on the other hand, want to legislate what people cannot do. The difference is profound.