Is the GOP listening? They should be...

Dixie said:
Aside from the Defense of Marriage Act, which was a direct result of liberal judicial fiat nationwide, what "draconian" law has been proposed by conservatives, which is based on Christian religion? Roe v. Wade has been allowed to stand, Ginsberg was approved by conservatives to serve on the SCOTUS, Roy Moore was forced to take down his 10 Commandments monument.... so where is this "draconian" effort to rewrite our laws?

In case you haven't noticed (and obviously you haven't) Christianity is under vicious attack by extremists, that is precisely why you see and hear Christian leaders defending their religious practices. They shouldn't fucking have to! This should be protected under the Constitution, but too many complacent people, who have no spiritual foundation, aren't willing to stand up for what is morally right and stand against what is morally wrong.

The very foundation of our government and way of life, is fundamentally rooted in the belief that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUALLY... that means, CREATED BY A CREATOR! Furthermore, we are given the very rights of freedom we claim, not by a court or man, but by THE CREATOR! The Federal Government DOES NOT give us freedom! A president or political party, DOES NOT give us freedom! This is the founding principle which made all of this possible! Without it, we are nothing more than a limited dictatorship, under the tyranny of 9 judges in black robes!

Among our freedoms, is the freedom to believe or disbelieve in this CREATOR, and to believe in whatever form of CREATOR you so desire, if you so desire. It's like, you have the right to free speech, even if it is to speak out against free speech! Nothing is being "forced down your throat" except Atheism and destruction of our very foundation. It's time Americans stood up for principles, and stop being afraid of "religion" or "Christianity" and insist our founding principles be upheld. Christianity is a religion of acceptance, that means, you have to accept Christ into your life, it can't be "forced down your throat" and you can't make someone be a Christian. Fear mongering has cause a lot of people who are ignorant of Christian beliefs, to accept an Atheistic view of the religion itself, and fear some sort of 'theocratic' takeover of government. Nothing could be more ridiculous, it's impossible!
Click to expand...

:lmao:
 
Damocles said:
They did not gain all of the rights that married couples have. For instance. They could not marry somebody in France of the same sex then use their marriage to help them enter the US legally. Even in California (when they could marry) and Massachusetts even married they did not have that right because of the "Defense of Marriage Act" and the fact that the Federal government does not recognize homosexual marriage.

There are several other rights, such as automatic lineage. A civil union does not make it so that a child adopted by one parent, or even one more naturally carried in the womb, will automatically go to the other if that parent dies as it does for a married couple.

We could go on, but it really is unnecessary. The sole reason for such a "law" is reactionary in nature, it is not based on the reason (for a conservative) that the power of government should be brought to bear, that of victims. If two consenting adults agree (or even three or more) their contract should be as legally valid as any other two adults. The government is not in the business of sanctifying your marriage, you are.

It doesn't even matter if they are putting themselves in "more danger" they are the sole determination of how they should be able to live their lives, so long as their choices do not make a victim of another.
Click to expand...


I stipulate that if homosexuals were given the right to green card an immigrant that it still would not be enough rights for them. Since we are speaking about less than 1% of the population I would have no problem with someone immigrating to the US if they had a civil union sponsor.

My opinion is that as individuals’ children should not be played fast and loose with. There are no proofs that children are not psychologically harmed in homosexual families…NONE! There are however numerous studies that show the ideal and optimum outcome for children is in a traditional family. To start creating special rights for homosexuals is not the answer. To protect children based on known quantitative studies is the responsibility of society. To suggest that the homosexuals’ rights on this issue supersede the responsibility to protect children is just wrong.

You introduced the topic in this thread I am arguing my opinions. All law is reactionary in nature. Law specifically sets boundaries on behavior that is its use. That being said, it is the responsibility of government to legitimize or delegitimize law. In our country this is done first through the legislature in accordance with our constitution. The question is; do people have the right to pursue defining marriage? I say that since the traditional idea has been challenged, that they do.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I stipulate that if homosexuals were given the right to green card an immigrant that it still would not be enough rights for them. Since we are speaking about less than 1% of the population I would have no problem with someone immigrating to the US if they had a civil union sponsor.

My opinion is that as individuals’ children should not be played fast and loose with. There are no proofs that children are not psychologically harmed in homosexual families…NONE! There are however numerous studies that show the ideal and optimum outcome for children is in a traditional family. To start creating special rights for homosexuals is not the answer. To protect children based on known quantitative studies is the responsibility of society. To suggest that the homosexuals’ rights on this issue supersede the responsibility to protect children is just wrong.

You introduced the topic in this thread I am arguing my opinions. All law is reactionary in nature. Law specifically sets boundaries on behavior that is its use. That being said, it is the responsibility of government to legitimize or delegitimize law. In our country this is done first through the legislature in accordance with our constitution. The question is; do people have the right to pursue defining marriage? I say that since the traditional idea has been challenged, that they do.
Click to expand...


But the reality is they do not have the same rights, regardless of your stipulations.
 
Ice Dancer said:
There are no proofs that children are not psychologically harmed in homosexual families…NONE!
Click to expand...

This is really the only thing worth reading because it's such an amazing insight into this moron's mind.

Conservatives never understand the idea of science and proof and how they relate. First of all, don't you need proof that something is harmful before you take away one's ability to do it? Wouldn't that be the most logical thing to do instead of making them prove it's not harmful?

Secondly, you simply cannot prove a negative. That's why this statement is so fucking retarded and yet so perfectly incapsulates the conservative mind. You can prove that it IS bad for children by studying data and coming to a statistical conclusion. So far, nobody's managed to do that.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I cannot marry someone of the same sex, neither can they. I can marry someone of the opposite sex, so can they.
Click to expand...

But you can marry who you love, they cannot. Special rights go to your partner in a marriage, their partners do not have the same rights.

Save your word games for some damn fool.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I stipulate that if homosexuals were given the right to green card an immigrant that it still would not be enough rights for them. Since we are speaking about less than 1% of the population I would have no problem with someone immigrating to the US if they had a civil union sponsor.

My opinion is that as individuals’ children should not be played fast and loose with. There are no proofs that children are not psychologically harmed in homosexual families…NONE! There are however numerous studies that show the ideal and optimum outcome for children is in a traditional family. To start creating special rights for homosexuals is not the answer. To protect children based on known quantitative studies is the responsibility of society. To suggest that the homosexuals’ rights on this issue supersede the responsibility to protect children is just wrong.

You introduced the topic in this thread I am arguing my opinions. All law is reactionary in nature. Law specifically sets boundaries on behavior that is its use. That being said, it is the responsibility of government to legitimize or delegitimize law. In our country this is done first through the legislature in accordance with our constitution. The question is; do people have the right to pursue defining marriage? I say that since the traditional idea has been challenged, that they do.
Click to expand...
You stipulate in this long-winded tirade that their rights are not equal and they won't be if you have your say, because it is icky and you can't prove that they don't hurt their own children.

So, because you think it is icky and might be psychologically upsetting to kids, although we can't prove that, we will just assume that icky is enough and will therefore get all reactionary and emotive and without any evidence we will change laws. Can you see that this is not a conservative ideal? That this has nothing to do with "personal responsibility", it is simply a reaction to an emotion. You think it is icky, therefore you should make them go somewhere else.

The truth of it is far more children are psychologically damaged by hetero couples getting divorces than ever will be by gays getting married. Nor were you ever guaranteed by our constitution to never be forced to face the ick factor in your life. I'm sure lesbians seeing hairy man faces pressed against the lips of hot chicks are quite icked out as well. It is likely you and your spouse have icked out quite a few homosexuals...
 
AssHatZombie said:
But you can marry who you love, they cannot. Special rights go to your partner in a marriage, their partners do not have the same rights.

Save your word games for some damn fool.
Click to expand...

You stated they don't have the same rights, you were wrong. What you ask is that the state involve themselves in granting special rights.
If you don't want my replies then why respond to my posts?
 
Damocles said:
You stipulate in this long-winded tirade that their rights are not equal and they won't be if you have your say, because it is icky and you can't prove that they don't hurt their own children.

So, because you think it is icky and might be psychologically upsetting to kids, although we can't prove that, we will just assume that icky is enough and will therefore get all reactionary and emotive and without any evidence we will change laws. Can you see that this is not a conservative ideal? That this has nothing to do with "personal responsibility", it is simply a reaction to an emotion. You think it is icky, therefore you should make them go somewhere else.

The truth of it is far more children are psychologically damaged by hetero couples getting divorces than ever will be by gays getting married.
Click to expand...

My response, not tirade, was no more long winded than yours. Enjoy your attack mode response, you are bound to even recieve some much enjoyed applause for it.

What I have argued, and without insult, is a fair and balanced argument. You obviously don't agree, but you have failed to dismantle it.

The argument about children that I made, is not what has harmed children, but what the state KNOWS is best for them.
 
Ice Dancer said:
My response, not tirade, was no more long winded than yours. Enjoy your attack mode response, you are bound to even recieve some much enjoyed applause for it.

What I have argued, and without insult, is a fair and balanced argument. You obviously don't agree, but you have failed to dismantle it.

The argument about children that I made, is not what has harmed children, but what the state KNOWS is best for them.
Click to expand...
You have failed to make an argument. Yes, the response was as long-winded as the tirade, mostly because I was answering your assertions and pointing out the failed analogy and fallacies in your "argument".

They can't prove a negative so we should take their rights?

You can't prove you won't psychologically damage your children. I guess we should have long ago stopped you from having kids. It's about the most inane argument ever.

It was not a "fair and balanced" way, it was full of fallacies and failed analogies.
 
Damocles said:
You have failed to make an argument.

They can't prove a negative so we should take their rights?

You can't prove you won't psychologically damage your children. I guess we should have long ago stopped you from having kids. It's about the most inane argument ever.

It was not a "fair and balanced" way, it was full of fallacies and failed analogies.
Click to expand...

I defended the rationale for the states responsibility with regards to children. It is their argument.

I was speaking about my argument in relation to the debate over a defense of traditional marriage. Which you introduced into the thread.

Which fallacy and which failed analogies did I use?
 
Ice Dancer said:
I defended the rationale for the states responsibility with regards to children. It is their argument.

I was speaking about my argument in relation to the debate over a defense of traditional marriage. Which you introduced into the thread.

Which fallacy and which failed analogies did I use?
Click to expand...

:lmao:

What a dumbass. :lolup:
 
Southern Man said:
Kids deserve to have both a normal mother and normal father. Why shoot for a target that is less than ideal?
Click to expand...

Right, we all understand that the ideal is not always available, but the states job is to insure that it is the goal, not just an option.

Have you ever read any of the studies provided by NARTH?
 
AssHatZombie said:
But you can marry who you love, they cannot. Special rights go to your partner in a marriage, their partners do not have the same rights.

Save your word games for some damn fool.
Click to expand...

Dammit asshat, just when I write you off as a total idiot, you go and post something like this.

THIS is what seems to be forgotten. Its not about sex. Its not about whether their goodies look alike or different.

Its about two people in love. Its about the government granting privileges to some and not to all.
 
Solitary said:
Dammit asshat, just when I write you off as a total idiot, you go and post something like this.

THIS is what seems to be forgotten. Its not about sex. Its not about whether their goodies look alike or different.

Its about two people in love. Its about the government granting privileges to some and not to all.
Click to expand...

How does the law prevent them from loving one another?
 
Ice Dancer said:
How does the law prevent them from loving one another?
Click to expand...

Its about being able to marry the one you love without forfeiting the benefits granted married people.

Its about people working so hard to prevent something that does no one any harm.

Its about the government deciding who gets to share all the benefits and who doesn't, and basing that decision on something sa trivial as genitalia.
 
Solitary said:
Its about being able to marry the one you love without forfeiting the benefits granted married people.

Its about people working so hard to prevent something that does no one any harm.

Its about the government deciding who gets to share all the benefits and who doesn't, and basing that decision on something sa trivial as genitalia.
Click to expand...

When you put it that way it sounds even more ridiculous! Good for you Sol!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top