Is the GOP listening? They should be...

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...

You state it harms no one because you feel no harm. The undermining of marriage and what it traditionally represents in societies is under attack by a group who have no demonstrated need to change the traditional ideal.

A homosexual couple can love one another, they can have a ceremony to celebrate that love. In Ca they had all the rights they claimed to have wanted. Now they want to change a legal statute that intrudes on religious belief and what constitutes the best ideal for children. The reaction by those who wish to draw a line in the sand is not evil or ignorant, it has precedent and merit.

I disagree with those who claim it harms no one, and for many centuries, every society that has existed agrees. When families fail societies follow suit. I believe that societies set the standard for how its citizens conduct themselves. That does not mean being overlty intrusive, only that society has the onus of setting the standard.

The biologic make-up of men and women is most obviously one that reflects natures intention of how families are created. The deviation from that norm is not a reason to change societal laws that reflect the naturally intended progress of human developement.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You state it harms no one because you feel no harm. The undermining of marriage and what it traditionally represents in societies is under attack by a group who have no demonstrated need to change the traditional ideal.

A homosexual couple can love one another, they can have a ceremony to celebrate that love. In Ca they had all the rights they claimed to have wanted. Now they want to change a legal statute that intrudes on religious belief and what constitutes the best ideal for children. The reaction by those who wish to draw a line in the sand is not evil or ignorant, it has precedent and merit.

I disagree with those who claim it harms no one, and for many centuries, every society that has existed agrees. When families fail societies follow suit. I believe that societies set the standard for how its citizens conduct themselves. That does not mean being overlty intrusive, only that society has the onus of setting the standard.

The biologic make-up of men and women is most obviously one that reflects natures intention of how families are created. The deviation from that norm is not a reason to change societal laws that reflect the naturally intended progress of human developement.
Click to expand...

Hello dancer, welcome! I haven't seen you on here before, I don't hang her much, but more lately, anyway....

You most be against divorce then, since it soes far more harm to society then gay marriage ever could!

If people aren't planning to have a family, should they not be allowed to marry?

What about sterile people, should they be allowed to marry?

What about people past child bearing age, should they be allowed to marry?

If marriage is for the creation of children, then it seems we have a whole lot of oppressing to do!

thanks
 
froggie said:
Hello dancer, welcome! I haven't seen you on here before, I don't hang her much, but more lately, anyway....

You most be against divorce then, since it soes far more harm to society then gay marriage ever could!

If people aren't planning to have a family, should they not be allowed to marry?

What about sterile people, should they be allowed to marry?

What about people past child bearing age, should they be allowed to marry?

If marriage is for the creation of children, then it seems we have a whole lot of oppressing to do!

thanks
Click to expand...

Divorce certainly harms people, especially children, and in fact it used to be quite painful/difficult to obtain one. That is not an argument for homosexual marriage, but against divorce.

I have not argued that having children is a pre-requisite for marriage, but that marriage between men and women is traditionally held by societies as the norm for creating families, as natures unique and compelling evidence of the male/female dichotomy argues for.
 
Ice Dancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is most certainly NOT the state's job to ensure "ideal" parents for each child, nor could they ever. The only appropriate role for the state is to ensure that children are not being abused/neglected (or committing crimes themselves).
 
Southern Man said:
The GOP is ripe for another takeover by it's despised conservative wing. We need someone really nasty and brash to lead it, just like the Democrats did with whats-his-face from Vermont, the screamer.
Click to expand...

Do that and the Republican party will go from being a regional party of the south to being a regional party of Alabama.
 
Ice Dancer said:
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?
Click to expand...
Until there are kids that have no other choice its best to have qualified married normal couples take care of them. Anyone can make a study say whatever they want. Common sense prevails here.
 
Mottleydude said:
Do that and the Republican party will go from being a regional party of the south to being a regional party of Alabama.
Click to expand...
Micky lost because a lot of conservatives stayed home, not because moderate republicans voted for a far-left liberal. Just look at the numbers and that should be obvious to anyone.
 
I mean, only 130 million people showed up to vote on Nov. 4. It set a record for the number of votes in a presidential race ever, but really people just stayed home. That's why he lost.
 
Southern Man said:
Until there are kids that have no other choice its best to have qualified married normal couples take care of them. Anyone can make a study say whatever they want. Common sense prevails here.
Click to expand...

Common sense should prevail over research?

500 years ago common sense said the world was flat.

200 years ago common sense said white men had a manifest destiny to expand as far as they could.

100 years ago common sense said that women should not have a vote.

50 years ago common sense said that different races should remain separate.




When people learn to accept that change is inevitable, they will be more comfortable with the changes that happen whether they like it or not.

Banning gay marriage is a temporary thing at best. Gay marriage WILL happen. The only thing that you can do now is bang you head against the wall and complain.
 
One thing that is certain about Common Sense. Basically it is saying that we should use the knowledge base of the average person.

I'd rather not, the average person really isn't that fantastically supersmart...
 
Southern Man said:
Micky lost because a lot of conservatives stayed home, not because moderate republicans voted for a far-left liberal. Just look at the numbers and that should be obvious to anyone.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. According to a far right extremist, like you, a left of center moderate, like Obama, would seem to be a far left liberal.

McCain lost this election because American wised up and has rejected the far right extremism that you and the Republican party represents.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
One thing that is certain about Common Sense. Basically it is saying that we should use the knowledge base of the average person.

I'd rather not, the average person really isn't that fantastically supersmart...
Click to expand...

"Common Sense" is one of my favorite oxymorons. There's nothing common about sense.
 
Mottleydude said:
Wrong on all counts. According to a far right extremist, like you, a left of center moderate, like Obama, would seem to be a far left liberal.

McCain lost this election because American wised up and has rejected the far right extremism that you and the Republican party represents.
Click to expand...

IF this were true, wouldn't Obama have far surpassed the vote totals of GWB in 2004?

2004 Bush 62,040,610
2008 Obama 62,704,840

Now, this is with McCain running the most incompetent campaign in modern political history, and Bush running with the brilliance of Karl Rove. This is with the 'rock star' status of Obama and overwhelming majority of the black vote who voted for Obama because he is a black man. This is with more money spent on a presidential campaign in history. This is with the media's clear and unadulterated bias in favor of Obama and negative stories on McCain. And this is also with 4 more years of population growth and unprecedented number of voters and voter turnout.

So you can think that America "wised up and rejected" conservatism if you like, but the statistics do not conclude this. Not by a long shot.

As for voting records, McCain is a 'moderate centrist' by every definition of the word, while Obama is clearly liberal. We can go down the long list of things McCain has broken from his own party to support, and we can go down the long list of liberal Obama accomplishments, but most people who aren't brain-dead morons, know that Obama is more left than McCain was right.
 
Solitary said:
If a person uses their faith to guide them in their decisions, as long as they obey the US Constitution, I have no problem with religious people in power.

I think there is a huge difference between having your faith guide you and trying to make laws or constitutional amendments based solely on one religion's beliefs.

I have no problem with anyone having beliefs and faith. I simply have a problem with ANY faith demanding that the rest of us follow those beliefs.
Click to expand...

Nicely stated and I agree...
 
Ice Dancer said:
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?
Click to expand...

Special rights, how ridiculous! Another Republican catch phrase!
 
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...

Does the state also know what is best for you and you as a Republican want the state to decide your personal issues?

Wow! I never want the state to decide what is RIGHT for me! I can decide for myself, thanks!
 
Ice Dancer said:
You state it harms no one because you feel no harm. The undermining of marriage and what it traditionally represents in societies is under attack by a group who have no demonstrated need to change the traditional ideal.

A homosexual couple can love one another, they can have a ceremony to celebrate that love. In Ca they had all the rights they claimed to have wanted. Now they want to change a legal statute that intrudes on religious belief and what constitutes the best ideal for children. The reaction by those who wish to draw a line in the sand is not evil or ignorant, it has precedent and merit.

I disagree with those who claim it harms no one, and for many centuries, every society that has existed agrees. When families fail societies follow suit. I believe that societies set the standard for how its citizens conduct themselves. That does not mean being overlty intrusive, only that society has the onus of setting the standard.

The biologic make-up of men and women is most obviously one that reflects natures intention of how families are created. The deviation from that norm is not a reason to change societal laws that reflect the naturally intended progress of human developement.
Click to expand...

Marriage has changed through the ages, they use to be arranged, woman use to be property. In some cultures men have several wives. The rules aren't set in stone. They have changed through the centuries!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top