Conservatives and War

Dixie said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, Dixie. It's not a double standard.

The examples you gave involve people interacting with my family. Gay couples are not interacting with my family.

Wanking off in public is similar to spitting or peeing on the street. It's littering, for lack of a better term. Then there's the odor.

How do gay couples interfere in your life? Be specific.
 
apple0154 said:
No, Dixie. It's not a double standard.

The examples you gave involve people interacting with my family. Gay couples are not interacting with my family.

Wanking off in public is similar to spitting or peeing on the street. It's littering, for lack of a better term. Then there's the odor.

How do gay couples interfere in your life? Be specific.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, I haven't advocated a ban on gay couples or homosexuality.

Secondly, the scenarios I introduced, would not necessarily involve you or your family, but even if they did, what business is it of YOURS personally? That was your argument, correct? If it doesn't effect me personally, why should I care? And how does me BBQing my dog have anything to do with you or your family?

Wanking in public, again, doesn't affect you personally, I am not forcing you to wank in public! Littering? Again, why do YOU get to tell me not to litter? Why must you tell other people how to live? Huh? Huh? My litter isn't bothering you, it's not effecting your life in any way, you don't have to litter if you don't want to, I won't make you! Seems like you just want to tell people what to do and how to live!

Odor? From masturbation? Hmmm, that's a new one on me... never realized there was an "odor" problem, but really... you could stand down wind if it bothers you... not like that is a big deal.... you don't have a "right" to non-offensive smells... ever been to Newark? What if public masterbators carried a can of Lysol and some Kleenex? Would you still be forcing your moral views on them, making them live by YOUR standards?
 
....And I am a taxpayer, my tax money paid for the streets... why can't I pee and spit in them whenever and wherever I want to? Why must YOU tell ME how to live my life? How is my peeing in the street effecting your personal life?

Boy it sure sounds like a "double-standard" to me! You want to confine ME to all these rules governing how I live MY life, yet they don't really effect YOU!
 
Dixie said:
That is what you originally said, and what I responded to. Now you come back with...

"Mainstream America and the Dems may not be for gay marriage and abortion but they are not fighting against it like the Repubs do. That is the difference."

No "may not" about it, mainstream America, nearly 80% of mainstream America, is OPPOSED to gay marriage and partial birth abortion. It is REPUBLICANS who are on the side of MAINSTREAM, and Democrats who side with the other 20%, and seek to implement their view through judicial activists on the bench who RULE things into law AGAINST the will of 80% of mainstream America.
Click to expand...

So YOU don't hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You subscribe to collectivism; the state should supersede the creator and adopt the will of the mob...
 
Bfgrn said:
So YOU don't hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You subscribe to collectivism; the state should supersede the creator and adopt the will of the mob...
Click to expand...

LOL...


I hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and have the same right to marry a woman, and all women are created equal and have the same right to marry a man, and they are endowed other unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, without being told what to accept by a judge on court bench, who is not the Creator which endowed us, and has no authority to determine my endowed rights.

I subscribe to Democracy and Freedom. Nothing supersedes the Creator, including Supreme Court justices, which is why it is still wrong to murder innocent unborn babies.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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."

Yes, that's what a lot of us said about our tax money being used to go fund bush's illegal, immoral pre-emptive war.

"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!"

We adopted a number of laws which were later ruled unconstitutional, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sanford, to name two. We also amended the Constitution when it prohibited equal rights to all. 13th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th amendments.

"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."

By any definition marriage is more than the union of a man and a woman.

mar⋅riage

–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
 
apple0154 said:
If mainstream America felt strongly enough about those things they wouldn't have voted for Obama. Mainstream folks believe in freedom. There are things they may never do themselves but they do not believe it's right to tell other people what to do.

It's the "they do not believe it's right to tell other people what to do" philosophy that is mainstream. Abortion and gay marriage does not interfere in the lives of those not directly involved so while people may personally not agree with them their belief in freedom is stronger than their objection to them.

It goes way past individual issues. It's the concept of freedom. Just because some folks don't approve of something as long as it doesn't directly affect them then they mind their own business.

Most main stream Americans believe in freedom and mind their own business and the Dems agree with that. That is being in touch. That is representing the people. It is a belief system that governs all issues.
Click to expand...

It's a sad state of affairs when you aren't even familiar with what the platform and issues of the current President you spout off about ad nauseum are, Apple. Obama was with 80% of mainstream America and if you would have truly known your candidate, you would have left this the hell alone.

Cripes Apple!
 
Marriage confers on the couple a great many rights, including taxes, pension benefits, healthcare benefits, monetary/property rights, and sibling rights. Gay marriage is simply a civil rights issue that is slowly be corrected. Arguing with those opposed is like arguing with a person who thinks the earth is flat, useless. Change will come and soon no one will notice.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/p/ProGayMarriage.htm
Amazon.com: CASE FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment: William N. Eskridge: Books
 
christiefan915 said:

"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."

By any definition marriage is more than the union of a man and a woman.

mar⋅riage

–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
Click to expand...


Seems to me, by EVERY definition of legal marriage pertaining to people, it is between a man and woman.

Marriage confers on the couple a great many rights, including taxes, pension benefits, healthcare benefits, monetary/property rights, and sibling rights. Gay marriage is simply a civil rights issue that is slowly be corrected. Arguing with those opposed is like arguing with a person who thinks the earth is flat, useless. Change will come and soon no one will notice.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, it is being "corrected" by overthrowing the will of the people and ruling it into law by judicial fiat. It's not a civil rights issue, it's a sexual lifestyle issue conflicting with religious beliefs and rights. Everything you mentioned can be addressed with Civil Unions, taking the government out of the "Marriage License" business, and removing all sexual lifestyle and religious aspects. 80% of us disagree strongly with redefining marriage based on sexual lifestyle, and 20% applaud judicial tyranny. I think it will be a long ass time before that changes.
 
"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."

Yes, that's what a lot of us said about our tax money being used to go fund bush's illegal, immoral pre-emptive war.
Click to expand...

No, actually it's NOT. Most of your senators and representatives voted (for you) to authorize the use of force in Iraq. And we all know, the vast majority of Democrats don't pay their taxes. So... stfu!
 
Dixie said:
Well first of all, I haven't advocated a ban on gay couples or homosexuality.

Secondly, the scenarios I introduced, would not necessarily involve you or your family, but even if they did, what business is it of YOURS personally? That was your argument, correct? If it doesn't effect me personally, why should I care? And how does me BBQing my dog have anything to do with you or your family?

Wanking in public, again, doesn't affect you personally, I am not forcing you to wank in public! Littering? Again, why do YOU get to tell me not to litter? Why must you tell other people how to live? Huh? Huh? My litter isn't bothering you, it's not effecting your life in any way, you don't have to litter if you don't want to, I won't make you! Seems like you just want to tell people what to do and how to live!

Odor? From masturbation? Hmmm, that's a new one on me... never realized there was an "odor" problem, but really... you could stand down wind if it bothers you... not like that is a big deal.... you don't have a "right" to non-offensive smells... ever been to Newark? What if public masterbators carried a can of Lysol and some Kleenex? Would you still be forcing your moral views on them, making them live by YOUR standards?
Click to expand...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You truly are a fruitcake.
 
Dixie said:
Seems to me, by EVERY definition of legal marriage pertaining to people, it is between a man and woman.

Trouble is, it is being "corrected" by overthrowing the will of the people and ruling it into law by judicial fiat. It's not a civil rights issue, it's a sexual lifestyle issue conflicting with religious beliefs and rights. Everything you mentioned can be addressed with Civil Unions, taking the government out of the "Marriage License" business, and removing all sexual lifestyle and religious aspects. 80% of us disagree strongly with redefining marriage based on sexual lifestyle, and 20% applaud judicial tyranny. I think it will be a long ass time before that changes.
Click to expand...

Sexual lifestyle issue? Where have you been all your life? According to statistics most married people are not having sex. The wife isn't in the mood. The guy is staying late at the office. Google, my man. Google. Anyone who marries thinking it's about sex is in for a hell of a surprise.

What was the question, again? :duel:
 
apple0154 said:
Sexual lifestyle issue? Where have you been all your life? According to statistics most married people are not having sex. The wife isn't in the mood. The guy is staying late at the office. Google, my man. Google. Anyone who marries thinking it's about sex is in for a hell of a surprise.

What was the question, again? :duel:
Click to expand...

Do you even KNOW what the fuck you're talking about anymore, idiot?

Marriage is currently the union of a man and woman! I didn't say a damn thing about it being about sex! You and your pinhead butt buddies want to CHANGE the fucking definition, to INCLUDE a sexual lifestyle! Homosexuality, to be specific... look it up on Google, you doofuss!

Now, I haven't advocated, and would not ever support, a ban or outlawing of homosexual activity. It is your business and "freedom" I suppose, to do whatever you want to do in the privacy of your bedroom, as long as it doesn't involve minor children or adults who didn't consent. If two homosexuals want to live with each other, I have not said a damn thing against that, and I wouldn't advocate banning such a thing, again... it's your freedom to do as you please. Even if two homosexuals want to dress up and have a ceremony with cake and rice, etc.... I don't care! They can even go buy a wedding album and rings... fine with me!

The ONLY thing I am opposed to, is codifying in law, the parameters which define traditional marriage, to include a sexual lifestyle. Is that clear to your stupid ass? Stop trying to turn this into something it's not! Stop trying to paint ME as some kind of intolerant bigot who hates gays! Nothing I have ever said or advocated, is even remotely close to that, and to continue to paint that picture, is factually dishonest.

All the way down the line in this debate, you've lied, distorted, mislead, and continue to infer things that aren't so. Whenever challenged or corrected, you slither away or run around in circles, trying to lie and distort something else! You're a fucking piece of liberal garbage who doesn't really give a shit about what other people think or want, you will lie and manipulate, and do whatever you have to, in order to get your way and have what YOU want forced on the rest of us against our will, and you have the unmitigated nerve to wave the banner of "Freedom" and pretend that's what you're about! You don't give two shits about freedom, you're a fascist totalitarian nitwit who supports judicial tyranny to get your way.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

THIS!
 
Dixie said:
This is incorrect as well! It was DEMOCRATS who supported school segregation! Stop the fucking lying, asshole!
Click to expand...
no it was conservatives, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were some of those democrats back then that supported segregation. Nixon's whole southern strategy was to lure disaffected democrats from the south that hated that the federal government told them to go to school with blacks. Your post is intellectually dishonest and you and every other person that posts here knows this.
 
Dixie said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is even beneath you. Your intellectual dishonest has run amok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top