Is the GOP listening? They should be...

Ice Dancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

The tradition of marriage has changed over time, we just have this current version and it too can change to be inclusive of everyone who wants to have a family and share their property!
 
Solitary said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, marriage has changed and will continue to change!
 
froggie said:
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!
Click to expand...


The entire problem with liberal thinking is, you assume collective social moral constraint is equivalent to government telling you what to do. Unfortunately, human beings are not always responsible, if they were, perhaps we could all live in a society without laws, where we could all decide what's best for ourselves. That is not the case, so we can't live in such a society without eventual collapse from moral decay.

We as a societal community, have an obligation and responsibility to set boundaries and establish our laws of order based on those boundaries. This collective moralist view is apparent in many of the laws we have today, and I don't see you proposing we abandon these. This indicates you do see the value in having some moral boundaries and limitations, and being responsible as a society, but the complaint you make is a direct contradiction to this principle.

I don't want the state to decide I can't operate a motor vehicle while drinking a beer. I don't want the state to decide I have to wear a seat belt while driving with my beer. I want to decide for myself... are you okay with that? Is society okay with that? Apparently not, because we have established laws against it. However, it is the same argument you are making.

What I don't want, as a Republican who believes in originalist views regarding the Constitution, is for 9 people in black robes, deciding what is best or worse for me. I had rather have a referendum on a ballot and allow the people of my community to make a collective moral social judgment on the issue. I don't want you and your liberal judicial fiat to decide for me!
 
Dixie said:
The entire problem with liberal thinking is, you assume collective social moral constraint is equivalent to government telling you what to do. Unfortunately, human beings are not always responsible, if they were, perhaps we could all live in a society without laws, where we could all decide what's best for ourselves. That is not the case, so we can't live in such a society without eventual collapse from moral decay.

We as a societal community, have an obligation and responsibility to set boundaries and establish our laws of order based on those boundaries. This collective moralist view is apparent in many of the laws we have today, and I don't see you proposing we abandon these. This indicates you do see the value in having some moral boundaries and limitations, and being responsible as a society, but the complaint you make is a direct contradiction to this principle.

I don't want the state to decide I can't operate a motor vehicle while drinking a beer. I don't want the state to decide I have to wear a seat belt while driving with my beer. I want to decide for myself... are you okay with that? Is society okay with that? Apparently not, because we have established laws against it. However, it is the same argument you are making.

What I don't want, as a Republican who believes in originalist views regarding the Constitution, is for 9 people in black robes, deciding what is best or worse for me. I had rather have a referendum on a ballot and allow the people of my community to make a collective moral social judgment on the issue. I don't want you and your liberal judicial fiat to decide for me!
Click to expand...

Would you put free speech on the ballot?
 
Watermark said:
Would you put free speech on the ballot?
Click to expand...

Nope, I believe it is a Constitutional right we are endowed with by our Creator. Would I put some restriction or limitation of free speech on the ballot? You bet! And we have done so numerous times. You can't yell "fire" in a theater, you can't perpetrate a 'slander' on another citizen, you can't use your free speech to incite a riot... there are some restrictions, boundaries and limitations, even to 'free speech.'
 
Dixie said:
Nope, I believe it is a Constitutional right we are endowed with by our Creator. Would I put some restriction or limitation of free speech on the ballot? You bet! And we have done so numerous times. You can't yell "fire" in a theater, you can't perpetrate a 'slander' on another citizen, you can't use your free speech to incite a riot... there are some restrictions, boundaries and limitations, even to 'free speech.'
Click to expand...

:lmao:

What a dumbass. :lolup:
 
There is nothing "dumbass" in my response. Rather than illustrating your profound ignorance and hurling meaningless insults at people, why don't you actually try to articulate a point... tell us why you find it "dumbass" what was posted. Perhaps it's because you are a pathetic little emo kid without a clue, and all you can do it post ad homenim attacks and insults?

Let me ask you something Waterhead, do you think it somehow bothers me or frustrates me to be called names? Because I can assure you, I have a fairly thick skin, and name calling really doesn't effect me at all. If that is all you have to say, you could save yourself the trouble of responding.
 
Dixie said:
There is nothing "dumbass" in my response. Rather than illustrating your profound ignorance and hurling meaningless insults at people, why don't you actually try to articulate a point... tell us why you find it "dumbass" what was posted. Perhaps it's because you are a pathetic little emo kid without a clue, and all you can do it post ad homenim attacks and insults?

Let me ask you something Waterhead, do you think it somehow bothers me or frustrates me to be called names? Because I can assure you, I have a fairly thick skin, and name calling really doesn't effect me at all. If that is all you have to say, you could save yourself the trouble of responding.
Click to expand...

:cof1:
 
ironhead said:
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).
Click to expand...

That's not what I stated, this is; "Right, we all understand that the ideal is not always available, but the states job is to ensure that it is the goal, not just an option." Big difference. Kind of like our constitution granting the right to "pursue" happiness, not guarenteeing we'll obtain it. The goal of society with respect to protecting children should always be ensuring their best interest, which studies conclusively state with regards to parenting, is a father and a mother.
 
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...

The studies I mention are by specialists who have concluded exactly that. And for Solitary; they are supported by reasearch.
 
Dixie said:
By the way, I never said those examples were ever put on the ballot. Try READING!
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
Would I put some restriction or limitation of free speech on the ballot? You bet! And we have done so numerous times. [...] blah blah [...]
Click to expand...

Try not saying what you don't mean then. This isn't a reading comprehension problem. This is an "I don't know how to write to say what I mean" problem on your part.
 
froggie said:
Absolutely, marriage has changed and will continue to change!
Click to expand...

polyamorous relationships where three or more adults enter into a marriage will also emerge

heterosexual, homosexual and bi-sexual marriage too

since the evolution into voluntary conception (effective birth control), various forms of adult relationships have evolved

control (or lack thereof) of sexually transmitted diseases has done a lot to promote fidelity in sexual relationships
 
ironhead said:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html?eref=rss_politics

From the article:

Commentary: GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track
by Ron Paul

(CNN) -- The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?

Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?

But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

Once it's figured out what is fundamentally wrong with our political and economic system, solutions can be offered. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the policy changes needed, then the party can be rebuilt.

In the rise and fall of the recent Republican reign of power these past decades, the goal of the party had grown to be only that of gaining and maintaining power -- with total sacrifice of the original Republican belief in shrinking the size of government...
Click to expand...

Ron just doesn't get it either. People are not looking for differant directions or ideology. They want sound effective goverment that respects our individual rights and liberties.

Paul is just giving more lame libertarian "Less government for the sake of less government" which is just as stupid as progressives "change for change sake".
 
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...

Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reposted for Mott's incompetent ass.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Dixie, none of those things you mentioned were ever on a ballot. They were all decided by ACTIVIST JUDGES! OMG!@
Click to expand...
Only after laws that were passed by people on a ballot, or with specific ballot, like an Amendment in CO and somebody was either arrested or charges were brought using the law.
 
Damocles said:
Only after laws that were passed by people on a ballot, or with specific ballot, like an Amendment in CO and somebody was either arrested or charges were brought using the law.
Click to expand...

You think yelling fire in a theater was ever on a ballot anywhere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top