Conservatives and War

[DamnYankee]

either term actually applies. If you'd like to be more specific though, you could apply activism in cases where judges create rights where there are none, and tyranny could apply in cases where judges remove rights where there obviously is one.

Yeah I suppose its the same thing just a matter of degree. *shrug*

 

[apple0154]

Yeah, imagine that? Republican politicians fighting for something 80% of mainstream America wants.... HOW DARE THEY!

I don't know what could possibly posses them to do such a thing, do you?

No, I honestly don't know what would possess them other than simply wanting to tell people what to do. Maybe Repubs have a "dictator" gene. Who knows?

As the Canadian politician, Pierre Trudeau, stated way back in 1969 (if memory serves) "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

He was dating Barbara Streisand at the time. ;-)

Imagine her singing to you after a tough day of dealing politics.

 

[Damocles]

This whole problem of "Gay Marriage" is only a problem because the government stepped in where it didn't belong to begin with. The government has no role in approving what is initially a religious ceremony.

Recognize contracts, don't go and license something like marriage. If such was done the gays would have had their marriages long ago because there are churches that perform ceremonies for them. I can't believe that a government-issued license somehow grants some form of sanctity to the marriage, but churches who perform ceremonies and marry gay people don't...

How the government views gay people's marriages has nothing to do with the sanctity of anything at all, nor does it change the reality of the marriage.

 

[apple0154]

Sometimes minority groups rights are protected to the chagrin of the majority. That is the way our country is SUPPOSED to work. When you don't like it, you call it judicial tyranny.

Exactly! Nicely summed up.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

All this talk of judicial tyranny. I notice that it primarily comes from the political side of the aisle that lost issues like school segregation. The majority of people in America on both sides of the Mason Dixon didn't support desegregation and when the SCOTUS ruled in Brown, that is when we first started hearing about "judicial tyranny." For some reason too many people forget that RIGHTS are not subject to popular vote or even popular support. My bet is the majority of people in the US did not support the things said by the Nazi Party in Skokie IL., but just because the majority does not like the speech of someone, doesn't mean they can stifle it. The purpose of the courts in a representative democracy is to protect the rights of the minority to protect against what Madison talks about in Federalist 10 when he says "A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party." We are NOT a pure democracy. Sometimes minority groups rights are protected to the chagrin of the majority. That is the way our country is SUPPOSED to work. When you don't like it, you call it judicial tyranny.

 

[apple0154]

Marriage isn't a right it's a privilege granted by the State to recognize the importance of a long tradition of marriage and family as the basic building block of a stable society. The State therefor grants a license; and gays are simply not qualified for that license, as a plumber is not qualified for an electrician's license.

And that's what is changing because half the "building blocks" are being split apart and others slowly crumbling.

There was a time when an elderly person starved to death if they didn't have a family to look after them. Now civilized nations have old age pensions.

Social programs are replacing the role that used to be filled by family/marriage. Just another example of the Dems keeping up with the times.

 

[DamnYankee]

And that's what is changing because half the "building blocks" are being split apart and others slowly crumbling.

There was a time when an elderly person starved to death if they didn't have a family to look after them. Now civilized nations have old age pensions.

Social programs are replacing the role that used to be filled by family/marriage. Just another example of the Dems keeping up with the times.

There was a time when neighbors and churches helped the elderly in that predicament. In fact the original "tithe" of 10% handled that burden. Now your church of government takes 50% and tries to do the same thing. *shrug*

 

[Topspin]

Govn is pissing billions away on wars and druds. Shrug

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Marriage isn't a right it's a privilege granted by the State to recognize the importance of a long tradition of marriage and family as the basic building block of a stable society. The State therefor grants a license; and gays are simply not qualified for that license, as a plumber is not qualified for an electrician's license.

I have to disagree, gay people are equally qualified to apply for, and obtain a marriage license. They have not been denied that right, they are welcome to go to any courthouse in any state and obtain a marriage license with someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Subsequently, NONE of us can go get a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex... or a dog, horse, cat, minor child or dead person. Our rights are EXACTLY the same, no one is being given or denied anything that doesn't apply to the other.

 

[DamnYankee]

Good point Dix.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What, exactly, are you being told to do? Did someone say you had to marry a guy? Are abortions mandatory?

I am being told to accept and support with my tax money, something I disagree with and which is an affront to my spiritual beliefs. I am being told this, AFTER myself and a vast majority of others who feel the same, have had our votes overturned by a single authority.

Judges are not ruling law into existence. They are getting rid of laws, ie: allowing freedom. It is their job to interpret law. If they come across a law they impinges on a person's freedom they strike it down as they should.

Again, who's "rights" are being violated? There is no gay litmus test to get a marriage license, they are available to any man and woman who wants to get one, provided they are of legal age.

There are laws that prevent "the people" from making certain laws. That's the Constitution. Otherwise, democracy would be nothing more than mob rule.

No, there are no such laws, there is a Constitution, and we are beholden to it when determining our laws. We can not adopt laws which are unconstitutional, and this is determined by the SCOTUS. Ultimately, we elect presidents who appoint justices, so "the people" are, by extension, still making those choices. That is the textbook definition of "Freedom!"

That's exactly what the judges are opposing, tyranny. They are preventing the people in power from telling everyone else what to do.

No, they are making choices for us, and when they do, we are no longer free. You see, "freedom" means we get to decide, not "they" get to decide.

The will of the people stops at the infringement of others rights. Why should you or anyone else have the right to tell others how to live if it is not interfering with your life? Why do you insist on the right to interfere in other people's lives? Why?

Again, no one is having their rights denied. This is a canard perpetrated by people who want rights we do not have. As a society, we do indeed have the right to tell the rest of society how to live, that's why it's illegal to kill people or molest children! Aren't we telling a nudist what to do and how to live, when we pass public decency laws and make it illegal to be nude in public? Does it effect my personal life if someone is running the streets naked? Why do we "interfere then? Well, it's because we have community standards, things that our community has agreed on as a whole, which we prefer to live by as a group.

If they believed in freedom they would allow the individual to decide and that's exactly what they are doing. Again, what business is it of yours if gays marry?

Which one is it? Individuals get to decide, or courts get to tell us what to do? It seems to me, you want it both ways, but that is not possible. Again, I have no problem, and there is no law on the books, prohibiting homosexuals from obtaining a license to marry someone of legal age and opposite sex, that is what marriage is! People of the same sex can't marry, because that is not what marriage is.

I think it was Lincoln who said something to the effect it doesn't take anything from my pocket or break my leg. Why do you care? What concern is it of yours? Why do you insist on interfering in other people's lives?

Again, because we are a free society, we can make free determinations on what standards we want for the communities we live in. We do this all the time, and to insist we abandon this, is to say you don't believe communities should be free to establish their own standards, and you don't believe in true freedom.

It is you and folks like you who try to upsurp the freedom of people to decide for themselves. Why is a vote necessary? Why do we all have to agree on how a person lives?

Again... the same reason we agree that people should wear clothes in public, or not molest little kids! It doesn't harm me or effect my life in the least, for a pedophile to molest someone's kid, so why should I care about it? Do you not see how stupid your viewpoint is?

Why are you concerned? What harm does it cause you? How does it interfere in your life?

How many times are you going to repeat the same questions? LOTS of things do not interfere with MY personal life! That doesn't mean, as a member of society, I have no right to determine what standards I wish to have in the community in which I live!

Are we going to have an up or down vote on what people can have for dinner? Neither what my neighbor has for dinner nor who he sleeps with makes any difference to me. Well, unless he's sleeping with my wife then, sure, that might qualify as a concern of mine. Of if he BBQs Fido then his dinner becomes my concern but other than that what business is it of mine? Or yours? Or of anyone else?

Why is it YOUR concern if he BBQ's Fido? How does that effect your personal life? Why is it YOUR concern if he sleeps with your wife? Seems that is between him and your wife, and has nothing to do with you. Why do you want to tell others how to live their lives??? NOW, do you see the idiocy of your argument? (I somehow doubt it!)

 

[uscitizen]

Man that was a whole lot of nuthin Dixie.

this is not a term paper, the one with the most words does not win.

the most I got out of that was in essence: I want to be able to tell others how to live their lives even if it does not impact me. the child molestors was a nice touch there dix.

 

[apple0154]

Unfortunately, it is you with the idiocy argument. The actions of ones wife and what happens to their dog (BBQ) affects them. How do gay couples affect you?

A child molester not only affects another human being but might molest other children in the neighborhood.

As for nudity North American society has a sex phobia.

Have you noticed places are now allowing woman to breast feed their child in public? Do you have a problem with that? I certainly don't.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I am being told to accept and support with my tax money, something I disagree with and which is an affront to my spiritual beliefs. I am being told this, AFTER myself and a vast majority of others who feel the same, have had our votes overturned by a single authority.



Again, who's "rights" are being violated? There is no gay litmus test to get a marriage license, they are available to any man and woman who wants to get one, provided they are of legal age.



No, there are no such laws, there is a Constitution, and we are beholden to it when determining our laws. We can not adopt laws which are unconstitutional, and this is determined by the SCOTUS. Ultimately, we elect presidents who appoint justices, so "the people" are, by extension, still making those choices. That is the textbook definition of "Freedom!"



No, they are making choices for us, and when they do, we are no longer free. You see, "freedom" means we get to decide, not "they" get to decide.



Again, no one is having their rights denied. This is a canard perpetrated by people who want rights we do not have. As a society, we do indeed have the right to tell the rest of society how to live, that's why it's illegal to kill people or molest children! Aren't we telling a nudist what to do and how to live, when we pass public decency laws and make it illegal to be nude in public? Does it effect my personal life if someone is running the streets naked? Why do we "interfere then? Well, it's because we have community standards, things that our community has agreed on as a whole, which we prefer to live by as a group.



Which one is it? Individuals get to decide, or courts get to tell us what to do? It seems to me, you want it both ways, but that is not possible. Again, I have no problem, and there is no law on the books, prohibiting homosexuals from obtaining a license to marry someone of legal age and opposite sex, that is what marriage is! People of the same sex can't marry, because that is not what marriage is.



Again, because we are a free society, we can make free determinations on what standards we want for the communities we live in. We do this all the time, and to insist we abandon this, is to say you don't believe communities should be free to establish their own standards, and you don't believe in true freedom.



Again... the same reason we agree that people should wear clothes in public, or not molest little kids! It doesn't harm me or effect my life in the least, for a pedophile to molest someone's kid, so why should I care about it? Do you not see how stupid your viewpoint is?



How many times are you going to repeat the same questions? LOTS of things do not interfere with MY personal life! That doesn't mean, as a member of society, I have no right to determine what standards I wish to have in the community in which I live!



Why is it YOUR concern if he BBQ's Fido? How does that effect your personal life? Why is it YOUR concern if he sleeps with your wife? Seems that is between him and your wife, and has nothing to do with you. Why do you want to tell others how to live their lives??? NOW, do you see the idiocy of your argument? (I somehow doubt it!)

 

[apple0154]

Man that was a whole lot of nuthin Dixie.

this is not a term paper, the one with the most words does not win.

the most I got out of that was in essence: I want to be able to tell others how to live their lives even if it does not impact me. the child molestors was a nice touch there dix.

Folks like Dixie always like to add a little drama. Play on people's emotions. Like the last eight years of being told the boogie man was coming to get us.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I have to disagree, gay people are equally qualified to apply for, and obtain a marriage license. They have not been denied that right, they are welcome to go to any courthouse in any state and obtain a marriage license with someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Subsequently, NONE of us can go get a marriage license to marry someone of the same sex... or a dog, horse, cat, minor child or dead person. Our rights are EXACTLY the same, no one is being given or denied anything that doesn't apply to the other.

That's the same racist bullshit logic you southern nazi's used to deny interracial couples, like my wife and I, marriage licenses and you ended up losing that battle against freedom too.

This is just another example of why reactionaries like ya'll are on the losing end of history. You just don't comprehend what freedom is and why it will always win out over your antidiluvian brand of ignorance and intolerance. It's why ya'll have to make so much noise to be heard, you're that irrelevant. Well if making a lot of noise and getting last word makes ya'll feel better, more power to ya.

Personally I prefer freedom but hey, that's just me.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Folks like Dixie always like to add a little drama. Play on people's emotions. Like the last eight years of being told the boogie man was coming to get us.

Fear, it's what conservatives are having for dinner tonight.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's the same racist bullshit logic you southern nazi's used to deny interracial couples, like my wife and I, marriage licenses and you ended up losing that battle against freedom too.

This is just another example of why reactionaries like ya'll are on the losing end of history. You just don't comprehend what freedom is and why it will always win out over your antidiluvian brand of ignorance and intolerance. It's why ya'll have to make so much noise to be heard, you're that irrelevant. Well if making a lot of noise and getting last word makes ya'll feel better, more power to ya.

Personally I prefer freedom but hey, that's just me.

No, it's really not the same "racist logic" at all. We've had this debate before, but we can have it again if you like. The opposition to interracial marriage was wrong, because it was based solely on race of the individuals. If you were one color, you could obtain a marriage license, if you were the wrong color, you couldn't. In the case of gay marriage, no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex because that isn't marriage. It doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, black, or white... marriage doesn't change, and the law regarding it is applied equally to all.

What you keep attempting to do, is draw a false parallel to garner an emotive response. No one is getting a right that someone else isn't, marriage is not discriminatory toward anyone, homosexuals included. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and it doesn't matter if they are hetro or homo sexual. You simply want to change the meaning of marriage to include something that is not marriage.

What IF someone wanted to change the word "mentor" to mean, and adult having sexual relations with teen boys and girls? Would you be okay with that change in the word? Why not? It's the same thing as you are doing here! You want to turn marriage into something defined by sexual lifestyles, and that isn't what marriage is.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

All this talk of judicial tyranny. I notice that it primarily comes from the political side of the aisle that lost issues like school segregation.

This is incorrect as well! It was DEMOCRATS who supported school segregation! Stop the fucking lying, asshole!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Unfortunately, it is you with the idiocy argument. The actions of ones wife and what happens to their dog (BBQ) affects them. How do gay couples affect you?

It doesn't effect YOU if I want to BBQ MY dog! What business is it of YOURS? What gives you the right to tell me what to do or how to live? Same with your wife... if she wants to fuck me and I want to fuck her, what business is it of YOURS? Why do you want to tell people how to live their lives? It's not depriving you of your rights at all!

A child molester not only affects another human being but might molest other children in the neighborhood.

Well now you are passing judgment on people. It's none of YOUR business! It doesn't effect YOUR life! Why must you tell other people how to live? What right do you have to interfere with how others chose to live? Shouldn't you keep your nose out of it, and allow people to do as they please?

As for nudity North American society has a sex phobia.

Have you noticed places are now allowing woman to breast feed their child in public? Do you have a problem with that? I certainly don't.

I don't have a problem with anything, I think we should allow people to run around naked in the streets... breast feed? Hell, let them masturbate in public too! Why not? It's not infringing on YOUR rights, is it? Why must you tell people how to live? Why do you insist on making laws to deny people the right to live their lives as they please? I say, just let them sit outside your house and watch your wife while they wank off! It's not harming you to allow that, is it? Why can't you allow people the freedom they want?

 

[apple0154]

It doesn't effect YOU if I want to BBQ MY dog! What business is it of YOURS? What gives you the right to tell me what to do or how to live? Same with your wife... if she wants to fuck me and I want to fuck her, what business is it of YOURS? Why do you want to tell people how to live their lives? It's not depriving you of your rights at all!

Well now you are passing judgment on people. It's none of YOUR business! It doesn't effect YOUR life! Why must you tell other people how to live? What right do you have to interfere with how others chose to live? Shouldn't you keep your nose out of it, and allow people to do as they please?

I don't have a problem with anything, I think we should allow people to run around naked in the streets... breast feed? Hell, let them masturbate in public too! Why not? It's not infringing on YOUR rights, is it? Why must you tell people how to live? Why do you insist on making laws to deny people the right to live their lives as they please? I say, just let them sit outside your house and watch your wife while they wank off! It's not harming you to allow that, is it? Why can't you allow people the freedom they want?

AHAHAHAHAHAHA You're nuttier than a fruit cake.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

AHAHAHAHAHAHA You're nuttier than a fruit cake.

No I'm not, I was just illustrating how "nutty" you people are! You keep throwing this stupid argument out there, about how it's none of my business what other people do or how they live, and why do I want to tell people what they can do, etc. Well, it applies in a whole bunch of scenarios, as I demonstrated. You want to suspend all laws based on "morality" or "decency" and claim it's not my right to decide what kind of community standards I have to live in, well fine... let's do it up right! Why is it okay for you to make that argument in one instance, but not in the others? I don't get that... it wouldn't be a "double-standard" would it?