Conservatives and War

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention gays and race.

YOU were the one who compared gay marriage to civil rights for blacks! I am asking you to explain when homosexuality became a race.

What it all boils down to is two people living together as a romantic couple should not be denied any rights and privileges that any other two people enjoy who live together as a romantic couple. Unless it's specified both situations are the same someone will exploit the difference.

Read my solution again, dimwit... I am not proposing we have a "difference" in anything! We will NO LONGER have "marriage licenses" and in the place of that, we will have "civil union contracts!" And YES, we most certainly DO have laws which "deny the rights" of two people living together as a romantic couple. A brother and sister can not marry, doesn't matter HOW romantic they are, or HOW much they want to! A father can't marry his daughter, is he being "denied his right to romance" or whatever your idiotic point is now?

It's not the best we can do. There are always people who will try and exploit the difference. Besides, there is already a contract in place. It's called marriage. If civil unions are going to be the same as marriage why refer to them by different names?

Yes, it is the best we can do, for society to find a solution which essentially gives every side what they want. You see, your hard-line view of "gay marriage" is not supported by 80% of this country... let me say that another way, since you seem to be too retarded to comprehend... Eight out of ten people do not think marriage should be same sex! Two out of ten agree with your idea! Every time it has been on a ballot, 70+ out of 100 oppose gay marriage or favor traditional marriage, even in the most liberal states! Even your own political leaders, whom you voted for, went clearly on record to support traditional marriage and oppose gay marriage. IS that clear enough?

Exploit the difference? WHAT DIFFERENCE HAVE I PROPOSED? My solution is to take government out of the "MARRIAGE" business... allow them to INSTEAD, issue contracts of civil union between ANY TWO legal age adults. Doesn't matter if they are same sex, related to one another, bible thumpers or Atheists! Doesn't matter if they are fucking every minute, or celibate! A Civil Union contract is simply a contractual agreement which would entitle whoever has one, to the benefits we currently afford married couples. This gives gay people the means to acquire the benefits and "rights" they want, but at the same time, protects the religious sanctity of traditional marriage. Again, for your retarded ass, I am NOT PROPOSING that we have TWO standards! Marriage licenses will no longer be issued by the government, and anyone who already has one, it will be treated as if it is a CU contract.

Again, it has nothing to do with sexual lifestyle. Maybe two people will live together and never have sex. Maybe one can't have sex. After all, gay marriages will have a 100% increase in the chance of erectile dysfunction.

It is you who keeps insisting marriage be based on sex.

Homosexuality is defined by sex! GAY marriage, is by extension, ABOUT sex! More specifically, sexual lifestyle! This is my primary reason for not supporting it, because I don't feel we should base marriage on a sexual lifestyle (like homosexuality). With MY solution, this aspect is completely removed. I am talking about a contract between two legal age adults, regardless of sex, regardless of sexual lifestyle, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. Is that sinking in to your thick head yet, or should I repeat it another 50 times in this thread?

The difference is someone can come along and change laws dealing with marriages and civil unions. They are referred to by different names meaning they are different and that difference can and will be exploited at a later date.

Fucktard.... please READ the goddamn thread! Where have I stated that I want TWO systems? CIVIL UNIONS WOULD REPLACE MARRIAGE LICENSES!

Married gays tend to be monogamous thus cutting down on the transmission of AIDS. As for what's our business we do not force couples to stay married for the sake of the children. Our business is to not interfere in other people's business.

Except for when YOU make the determination something is "detrimental" or "harmful" ...then you have no problem interfering, we've already shown that to be the case!

Your solution is neither rational nor reasonable. As I explained before there will always be someone who will try and exploit the difference in ways we can not imagine today.

My solution is the only one that is ultimately going to work! I think you misinterpreted what I said, and I encourage you to read it again. Let me explain something to you, there are ALWAYS going to be bigoted people, there will always be intolerant people, who don't accept homosexuality or the gay lifestyle, and you will NEVER pass a law against that or one that forces them to accept it!

Once again, tell me how gay marriage affects you. The examples you gave lead to odors (masturbation) and possible diseases (pissing in the street). What is your objection to gay marriage? It's a simple question.Give me something to work with here. How do two gay people living together as a married couple cause you harm or discomfort? Perhaps if you would be specific I could understand your position.

I've already gone through it, several times... you don't want to listen! I have also shown you why your criteria fails the test of logic. There are MANY things that do not effect me personally, that I am opposed to society adopting as a standard. It doesn't have to cause me harm and discomfort!

I already explained to you about girls marrying too young. Childbearing is too hard on their young bodies.

Okay, but how does that fit your criteria above? How does it harm you or cause you discomfort? It is YOUR opinion, and I am sure some people would disagree with your opinion. Since when in the fuck did YOU become the arbiter of what is too hard on young bodies? Shouldn't that be an individual determination?

As for you pwning the debate it's only in your imagination. Again, give me a reason why you are against gay marriage. Did your best friend run off and get married? Did an EX turn gay after she left you?

As I mentioned previously maybe we can help you face whatever you are in denial about. Your preoccupation with sex and masturbation and urination are definite signs you have some sort of sexual/genital hang up. The case is gay marriage will be legalized across the country. It will just take time. During that time perhaps we should stop arguing about it and deal with your problem. Where would you like to start? Early childhood? Puberty? We're listening.....

In the words of John Wayne in The Shootist, "You're the most long-winded bastard I ever knew!" You just repeat your stupidity over and over, and respond to things that haven't even been posted.

It seems to me, this last retort is full of straw men! Why must you change the topic and try to infer that I have some mental disorder which keeps me from supporting your lunatic ideas? 80% of the country is OPPOSED to what you are in favor of! Has that point not sunk in yet? If one of us has deep-rooted psychological problems, I would suggest it is the one who is on the 20% fringe side of this argument!

No... "GAY MARRIAGE" is NOT going to be passed into law and accepted by society, not when 80% of us are opposed to it! That ain't gonna happen in this world! Sorry! You can call me every name in the book, you can make as many straw men as you like, and you can ignore the facts until you die, but what you are advocating has no chance of becoming standard, and the ONLY way it has become legal anywhere, is through judicial activism, where the will of the people has been overturned. THAT IS NOT FREEDOM!

Again, I will propose my solution... Civil Union Contracts... No more "marriage license" as the government would not be issuing such a license anymore. A CU contract could be entered into by any two legal age parties, regardless of sex, sexuality, religious belief, or relationship to each other. From there, if they want to have a religious ceremony commonly known as "marriage" it is between them and the church, and the government is not involved. Taxes, insurance, etc... would treat CU contracts just as they do a marriage license now, there would be no difference, there would not be TWO things, just CU's!

As I see it, the ONLY reason to be opposed to such an idea, is because you simply want to hurl shit in the face of religion! You want religion to be forced to accept that you have perverted something it holds sacred, and completely disregard the rights of those who practice religion, to have their traditions and religious practices. If you honestly wanted a solution to the problem, to allow gay people to obtain the same benefits as traditional married couples, my solution would accomplish that! If you wanted a solution which considered the point of view from ALL sides, my solution accomplishes that! If you wanted a solution which respects religious sanctity, as well as gay rights, and removes any such connotation from the role of government, my solution accomplishes that.

 

[apple0154]

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. What are we going to do with you?

There is a much higher probability of allowing gays to marry than there is the government getting out of the marriage business. In other words the bigoted, narrow-minded, homophobic folks along with organizations like "Focus on the Family" would go ballistic if the government disassociated itself from marriage.

You get an "F" for effort.

YOU were the one who compared gay marriage to civil rights for blacks! I am asking you to explain when homosexuality became a race.



Read my solution again, dimwit... I am not proposing we have a "difference" in anything! We will NO LONGER have "marriage licenses" and in the place of that, we will have "civil union contracts!" And YES, we most certainly DO have laws which "deny the rights" of two people living together as a romantic couple. A brother and sister can not marry, doesn't matter HOW romantic they are, or HOW much they want to! A father can't marry his daughter, is he being "denied his right to romance" or whatever your idiotic point is now?



Yes, it is the best we can do, for society to find a solution which essentially gives every side what they want. You see, your hard-line view of "gay marriage" is not supported by 80% of this country... let me say that another way, since you seem to be too retarded to comprehend... Eight out of ten people do not think marriage should be same sex! Two out of ten agree with your idea! Every time it has been on a ballot, 70+ out of 100 oppose gay marriage or favor traditional marriage, even in the most liberal states! Even your own political leaders, whom you voted for, went clearly on record to support traditional marriage and oppose gay marriage. IS that clear enough?

Exploit the difference? WHAT DIFFERENCE HAVE I PROPOSED? My solution is to take government out of the "MARRIAGE" business... allow them to INSTEAD, issue contracts of civil union between ANY TWO legal age adults. Doesn't matter if they are same sex, related to one another, bible thumpers or Atheists! Doesn't matter if they are fucking every minute, or celibate! A Civil Union contract is simply a contractual agreement which would entitle whoever has one, to the benefits we currently afford married couples. This gives gay people the means to acquire the benefits and "rights" they want, but at the same time, protects the religious sanctity of traditional marriage. Again, for your retarded ass, I am NOT PROPOSING that we have TWO standards! Marriage licenses will no longer be issued by the government, and anyone who already has one, it will be treated as if it is a CU contract.



Homosexuality is defined by sex! GAY marriage, is by extension, ABOUT sex! More specifically, sexual lifestyle! This is my primary reason for not supporting it, because I don't feel we should base marriage on a sexual lifestyle (like homosexuality). With MY solution, this aspect is completely removed. I am talking about a contract between two legal age adults, regardless of sex, regardless of sexual lifestyle, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. Is that sinking in to your thick head yet, or should I repeat it another 50 times in this thread?




Fucktard.... please READ the goddamn thread! Where have I stated that I want TWO systems? CIVIL UNIONS WOULD REPLACE MARRIAGE LICENSES!




Except for when YOU make the determination something is "detrimental" or "harmful" ...then you have no problem interfering, we've already shown that to be the case!



My solution is the only one that is ultimately going to work! I think you misinterpreted what I said, and I encourage you to read it again. Let me explain something to you, there are ALWAYS going to be bigoted people, there will always be intolerant people, who don't accept homosexuality or the gay lifestyle, and you will NEVER pass a law against that or one that forces them to accept it!



I've already gone through it, several times... you don't want to listen! I have also shown you why your criteria fails the test of logic. There are MANY things that do not effect me personally, that I am opposed to society adopting as a standard. It doesn't have to cause me harm and discomfort!



Okay, but how does that fit your criteria above? How does it harm you or cause you discomfort? It is YOUR opinion, and I am sure some people would disagree with your opinion. Since when in the fuck did YOU become the arbiter of what is too hard on young bodies? Shouldn't that be an individual determination?




In the words of John Wayne in The Shootist, "You're the most long-winded bastard I ever knew!" You just repeat your stupidity over and over, and respond to things that haven't even been posted.

It seems to me, this last retort is full of straw men! Why must you change the topic and try to infer that I have some mental disorder which keeps me from supporting your lunatic ideas? 80% of the country is OPPOSED to what you are in favor of! Has that point not sunk in yet? If one of us has deep-rooted psychological problems, I would suggest it is the one who is on the 20% fringe side of this argument!

No... "GAY MARRIAGE" is NOT going to be passed into law and accepted by society, not when 80% of us are opposed to it! That ain't gonna happen in this world! Sorry! You can call me every name in the book, you can make as many straw men as you like, and you can ignore the facts until you die, but what you are advocating has no chance of becoming standard, and the ONLY way it has become legal anywhere, is through judicial activism, where the will of the people has been overturned. THAT IS NOT FREEDOM!

Again, I will propose my solution... Civil Union Contracts... No more "marriage license" as the government would not be issuing such a license anymore. A CU contract could be entered into by any two legal age parties, regardless of sex, sexuality, religious belief, or relationship to each other. From there, if they want to have a religious ceremony commonly known as "marriage" it is between them and the church, and the government is not involved. Taxes, insurance, etc... would treat CU contracts just as they do a marriage license now, there would be no difference, there would not be TWO things, just CU's!

As I see it, the ONLY reason to be opposed to such an idea, is because you simply want to hurl shit in the face of religion! You want religion to be forced to accept that you have perverted something it holds sacred, and completely disregard the rights of those who practice religion, to have their traditions and religious practices. If you honestly wanted a solution to the problem, to allow gay people to obtain the same benefits as traditional married couples, my solution would accomplish that! If you wanted a solution which considered the point of view from ALL sides, my solution accomplishes that! If you wanted a solution which respects religious sanctity, as well as gay rights, and removes any such connotation from the role of government, my solution accomplishes that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. What are we going to do with you?

There is a much higher probability of allowing gays to marry than there is the government getting out of the marriage business. In other words the bigoted, narrow-minded, homophobic folks along with organizations like "Focus on the Family" would go ballistic if the government disassociated itself from marriage.

You get an "F" for effort.

There is NO probability (or hope) for "gay marriage" ever becoming legal and commonplace in America. Not as long as 80% of the country is opposed to it. My solution directly answers the concerns of the "religious right" or those you judge as being "homophobic, narrow-minded, and bigoted." It allows them to keep traditional marriage and family values, but it also allows gay couples the "rights" they claim to want. Most importantly, it removes all aspects of religion, sexuality, and lifestyle, from the purview of the government, as it should be, and should have been all along. In addition, it also provides another extra benefit... it allows non-sexual partners, like a son and mother, daughter and father, two sisters, best friends, etc... to 'join forces' so to speak, and save money on taxes, etc. I think that could be very useful in our society, and a huge advantage to my solution.

The problem is activists like yourself, and those on the extreme right, who keep the issue alive because it is volatile and emotive, and they can gain sympathy from a contingent of people who will go to polls and "vote for a cause" ...if the issue were settled, there would be no such motivation. Do you understand what I am saying? Because you won't budge on your viewpoint, because you want to attack me and what I have proposed, this issue will never be resolved. You will never be able to ram 'gay marriage' down the throat of the general public, because too many of them totally oppose it! However, a sensible alternative, something that addresses the concerns of ALL sides, well... that should be obvious to even someone like you, that it would have a huge chance for success... sure there will be a few on the fringe of your side and the right, who would stand firmly on principle and be opposed to my solution, but I think a majority of America could support something like I proposed, and would support it, if given that chance.

 

[uscitizen]

"There is NO probability (or hope) for "gay marriage" ever becoming legal and commonplace in America. "

Ohh ye of little foresight. We would never break the sound barrier, let women vote, free the slaves, have cell phones, let alone phones, etc

I have seen many changes in my life and I will not likely see gay marriage/contracts become common place but I am already seeing the beginning.
But most on here will live to see it happen.

 

[DamnYankee]

"There is NO probability (or hope) for "gay marriage" ever becoming legal and commonplace in America. "

Ohh ye of little foresight. We would never break the sound barrier, let women vote, free the slaves, have cell phones, let alone phones, etc

I have seen many changes in my life and I will not likely see gay marriage/contracts become common place but I am already seeing the beginning.
But most on here will live to see it happen.

I hope you liberals try it. Talk about lighting a fuse....

 

[apple0154]

There is NO probability (or hope) for "gay marriage" ever becoming legal and commonplace in America. Not as long as 80% of the country is opposed to it. My solution directly answers the concerns of the "religious right" or those you judge as being "homophobic, narrow-minded, and bigoted." It allows them to keep traditional marriage and family values, but it also allows gay couples the "rights" they claim to want. Most importantly, it removes all aspects of religion, sexuality, and lifestyle, from the purview of the government, as it should be, and should have been all along. In addition, it also provides another extra benefit... it allows non-sexual partners, like a son and mother, daughter and father, two sisters, best friends, etc... to 'join forces' so to speak, and save money on taxes, etc. I think that could be very useful in our society, and a huge advantage to my solution.

The problem is activists like yourself, and those on the extreme right, who keep the issue alive because it is volatile and emotive, and they can gain sympathy from a contingent of people who will go to polls and "vote for a cause" ...if the issue were settled, there would be no such motivation. Do you understand what I am saying? Because you won't budge on your viewpoint, because you want to attack me and what I have proposed, this issue will never be resolved. You will never be able to ram 'gay marriage' down the throat of the general public, because too many of them totally oppose it! However, a sensible alternative, something that addresses the concerns of ALL sides, well... that should be obvious to even someone like you, that it would have a huge chance for success... sure there will be a few on the fringe of your side and the right, who would stand firmly on principle and be opposed to my solution, but I think a majority of America could support something like I proposed, and would support it, if given that chance.

There are already a number of States that have OK'd gay marriage and more will follow. You'll see.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There are already a number of States that have OK'd gay marriage and more will follow. You'll see.

Correction: There are already a few states where the JUDGES decided to OK gay marriage, against the will of the people. As you said before, that isn't FREEDOM! What you will see more of, is things like the Defense of Marriage Act, and perhaps a Constitutional Amendment. That's what "We The People" do when activist judges usurp our freedom.

I'm telling you in the nicest way possible, if you keep trying to shove this down the throat of America, you'll regret it. I gave you a reasonable solution, and I believe a majority of Americans would go for it, because it makes sense, it addresses all issues from every side. All you are going to do with this judicial activism method, is piss 80% of the people off. Can you afford to do that? It remains to be seen, but I think not.

 

[maineman]

Correction: There are already a few states where the JUDGES decided to OK gay marriage, against the will of the people.

did judges pass the law in Maine? did judges pass the law in Vermont? did judges pass the law in New Hampshire?

 

[Rune]

Sorctease Rules!

Sorctease owned this thread!

Thanks Sorctease.

Dixe lost, Dammed Yankee lost, only Damo kept his head above water.

 

[Rune]

Hey Dumb Yankee, when you asked me why I became a lib after having been a republican, I wish I had known about this thread. The answer is in the first post. Unlike Sorctease, though, I decided to actualy work against the sickening evil and corruption; sure I appreciate the logic of the libertarian but theory and practice are two different things. By actualy voting against the shit stain that is todays GOP I can think I am acomplishing something.

 

[NOVA]

Hey Dumb Yankee, when you asked me why I became a lib after having been a republican, I wish I had known about this thread. The answer is in the first post. Unlike Sorctease, though, I decided to actualy work against the sickening evil and corruption; sure I appreciate the logic of the libertarian but theory and practice are two different things. By actualy voting against the shit stain that is todays GOP I can think I am acomplishing something.

And I guess the pinheads that got us into the Vietnam War that costs us over 50,000 dead were your heros....thats the party you're now voting for....? Good ,,, they deserve you.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Sorctease Rules!

Sorctease owned this thread!

Thanks Sorctease.

Dixe lost, Dammed Yankee lost, only Damo kept his head above water.

curious...a new member grave digs this thread....why?

and what about the nobel peace prize winner obama going to war with libya?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There is NO probability (or hope) for "gay marriage" ever becoming legal and commonplace in America. Not as long as 80% of the country is opposed to it. My solution directly answers the concerns of the "religious right" or those you judge as being "homophobic, narrow-minded, and bigoted." It allows them to keep traditional marriage and family values, but it also allows gay couples the "rights" they claim to want. Most importantly, it removes all aspects of religion, sexuality, and lifestyle, from the purview of the government, as it should be, and should have been all along. In addition, it also provides another extra benefit... it allows non-sexual partners, like a son and mother, daughter and father, two sisters, best friends, etc... to 'join forces' so to speak, and save money on taxes, etc. I think that could be very useful in our society, and a huge advantage to my solution.

The problem is activists like yourself, and those on the extreme right, who keep the issue alive because it is volatile and emotive, and they can gain sympathy from a contingent of people who will go to polls and "vote for a cause" ...if the issue were settled, there would be no such motivation. Do you understand what I am saying? Because you won't budge on your viewpoint, because you want to attack me and what I have proposed, this issue will never be resolved. You will never be able to ram 'gay marriage' down the throat of the general public, because too many of them totally oppose it! However, a sensible alternative, something that addresses the concerns of ALL sides, well... that should be obvious to even someone like you, that it would have a huge chance for success... sure there will be a few on the fringe of your side and the right, who would stand firmly on principle and be opposed to my solution, but I think a majority of America could support something like I proposed, and would support it, if given that chance.

You keep using that "80%" as fact; but when I asked you to show some proof of it, you refused and stated that you didn['t need to prove it.

 

[Rune]

curious...a new member grave digs this thread....why?

and what about the nobel peace prize winner obama going to war with libya?

Your king has a link to it in his signature line and refered to it in Dumb Yankee's social conservatism thread, dumbass.

Oh, wait, no, it is because I am the ghost of trolls past, present and future.

 

[Rune]

Umm, no, I don't think the party of 50 years ago is the same party I am voting for now, idiot. Nor is the GOP.

 

[PraiseKek]

First of all the article was written Mar 11, 2004 before Obama was elected and Democrats had control of either house...

I am part JFK liberal and part Goldwater libertarian, and I can tell you there are things Barnwell writes that I don't agree with. And if you visit Lew Rockwell.com, there will be things you agree with and things disagree with. I supported Ron Paul who is a libertarian in the beginning of the primaries...and I don't agree with all his views...

I can also tell you that Goldwater Republicans are the MOST vocal about the current state of the GOP...they had their party hijacked by the far right Christian hawks and the far left Trotskyist hawks (the neocons)...

The GOP has moved to the extreme right...THAT is why they had their heads handed to them in '06 and '08...and the "base" wants to PURIFY the party... get rid of all the moderate Republicans... sounds like the Nazi party!

You say there are no libertarians that voted for Obama? How about Republicans and TRUE conservatives... Colin Powell, Susan Eisenhower and Christopher Buckley, son of William F...Chris said: "Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon." Just to name a few...

“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”
William F. Buckley Jr.

Those aren't "real republicans," and can't be considered conservative in any shape, matter, or form, conservative republicans don't vote for Saul Alinsky identity politics spewing socialists over milktoast moderates like McCain and Romney. If you voted for Obama you are not a republican or a libertarian so stop deluding yourself.

 

[Nordberg]

Gay marriage cannot become common . Gays are about 8 percent of the population . It will always be exotic to most people. However the right to marry and enjoy the rights and privileges that the other people have, is just being fair. They are simply acting as they were made. If you believe in god, you have to admit god makes some people gay. They are simply being who they are. There is no justification for punishing them.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Sorry, but I refuse to read threads which begin with a flat out lie.

NO ONE LIKES WAR DUMBASS!

Only idiots who have never been in combat think war isn't so bad.

 

[Nordberg]

Like I said, if it begins with a lie, I refuse to read on. Chances are, the whole thing is full of the same kind of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations. No one LOVES war, that should be a given, and if the author is too intellectually biased to admit that, I have no use to read a damn thing he/she writes. Sorry!

Have someone read it to you. Then have someone read Eisenhowers farewell address. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm The military is destroying the US from the inside. Want to know where your health care is? Want to know where the high class schools went? Want to know where your infrastructure is? It went to almost 900 military bases, a huge army that is always fighting. A huge amount of money on weapons . It went into the CIA and secret wars. We are destroying ourselves for imaginary safety. North Korea is showing you the truth. Security comes from being a good and honest neighbor, not a bully.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Have someone read it to you. Then have someone read Eisenhowers farewell address. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm The military is destroying the US from the inside. Want to know where your health care is? Want to know where the high class schools went? Want to know where your infrastructure is? It went to almost 900 military bases, a huge army that is always fighting. A huge amount of money on weapons . It went into the CIA and secret wars. We are destroying ourselves for imaginary safety. North Korea is showing you the truth. Security comes from being a good and honest neighbor, not a bully.

Just curious; but how long ago did your Physiatrist determine that as long as you're on your meds, that you're not a threat to yourself or others and release you from the treatment center.