Fiscal Conservatives in - Social Conservatives out.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am in favor of allowing gay marriages. That has no effect on you. You, on the other hand, want to legislate what people cannot do. The difference is profound.

And I am in favor of allowing people to run around nude in public and be able to masturbate while watching your wife jog. That has no effect on you. Doesn't harm you or your wife to let people do that! So what's your problem, you just an uptight 'religious nut' or something?

You see... there are behaviors of a sexual nature you aren't comfortable with allowing to be legitimized in our society, because you don't want to live in that disgusting environment or raise children in it. I don't have any problem whatsoever with you engaging in homosexual activity... if that's what you want to do, you are more than welcome to do it, in the privacy of your own home, away from me and my children... I don't care! I have not proposed we outlaw that behavior, or prohibit you from engaging in all the butt sex your gay little heart desires. But you are NOT going to change our laws and customs to LEGITIMIZE the behavior at the expense of religious traditions and traditional values. SORRY... YOU'RE JUST NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT!

 

[Timshel]

There is a profound and fundamental disconnect when it comes to the non-social conservative understanding of social conservatives in general. You have essentially become bigoted in your views of social conservatives, and think of them as some radical religious wing that wants to impose their religious dogma on the rest of society. While there may be a fringe element who feel that way, by-and-large, most social conservatives simply oppose the federal government intrusion on their social conservative values. We don't want federal courts deciding these issues for us! Most of us are perfectly willing to put ANY of these social issues on the ballot, and allowing the people of the state to decide for themselves. Whether it's gambling, prostitution, legalizing pot, abortion, gay marriage... just let THE PEOPLE decide! Where is that not conducive with civil libertarianism? Shouldn't the PEOPLE get to have a say in these things? Why should social conservatives be squelched and denied any voice in the process? This is our country too!

Leaving civil liberties of minority groups up to the whims of the majority has obvious problems. It has not worked well in the past and there is no reason to expect it will in the future.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Leaving civil liberties of minority groups up to the whims of the majority has obvious problems. It has not worked well in the past and there is no reason to expect it will in the future.

But those civil liberties are not left up to "whims" as has been demonstrated in the past. THE PEOPLE protest, rally around the cause, advocate for change, and eventually, change comes. What hasn't worked historically in the past, in other parts of the world, is authoritarian totalitarianism.

 

[Timshel]

And I am in favor of allowing people to run around nude in public and be able to masturbate while watching your wife jog. That has no effect on you. Doesn't harm you or your wife to let people do that! So what's your problem, you just an uptight 'religious nut' or something?

You see... there are behaviors of a sexual nature you aren't comfortable with allowing to be legitimized in our society, because you don't want to live in that disgusting environment or raise children in it. I don't have any problem whatsoever with you engaging in homosexual activity... if that's what you want to do, you are more than welcome to do it, in the privacy of your own home, away from me and my children... I don't care! I have not proposed we outlaw that behavior, or prohibit you from engaging in all the butt sex your gay little heart desires. But you are NOT going to change our laws and customs to LEGITIMIZE the behavior at the expense of religious traditions and traditional values. SORRY... YOU'RE JUST NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT!

Allowing homosexuals to marry equals public sex?

That is just non sequitur bullshit.

 

[Timshel]

But those civil liberties are not left up to "whims" as has been demonstrated in the past. THE PEOPLE protest, rally around the cause, advocate for change, and eventually, change comes. What hasn't worked historically in the past, in other parts of the world, is authoritarian totalitarianism.

The change has come primarily through the courts. The legislative actions that followed were not state referendums. They were acts of congress.

Your state finally repealed it's miscegenation laws in 2000. If minority civil rights were left to the idiot masses of Alabama Jim Crow would likely still be alive.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The change has come primarily through the courts. The legislative actions that followed were not state referendums. They were acts of congress.

Your state finally repealed it's miscegenation laws in 2000. If minority civil rights were left to the idiot masses of Alabama Jim Crow would likely still be alive.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Congress, not a court. Civil rights were indeed left to the masses, and eventually civil rights for minorities prevailed. Jim Crow couldn't possibly still be alive because the CRA of 1964, passed by Congress, completely outlawed it. Civil Rights for black minorities did not happen because some mystical liberal force prevailed over the will of the people... if you want to fantasize and believe that to be the case, that's up to you and your ignorance, I happen to know better. It was a result of whites and blacks speaking out through civil disobedience and protests, which eventually changed our policies. THE PEOPLE prevailed.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Congress, not a court. Civil rights were indeed left to the masses, and eventually civil rights for minorities prevailed. Jim Crow couldn't possibly still be alive because the CRA of 1964, passed by Congress, completely outlawed it. Civil Rights for black minorities did not happen because some mystical liberal force prevailed over the will of the people... if you want to fantasize and believe that to be the case, that's up to you and your ignorance, I happen to know better. It was a result of whites and blacks speaking out through civil disobedience and protests, which eventually changed our policies. THE PEOPLE prevailed.

I think you're wrong dixie. The national guard had to be called in to integrate that college in mississippi or wherever it was.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think you're wrong dixie. The national guard had to be called in to integrate that college in mississippi or wherever it was.

The National Guard is often called in to enforce Federal laws. These Federal laws are passed by Congress, who answer directly to the people they represent. This is how a Representative Republic works.

 

[Timshel]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Congress, not a court. Civil rights were indeed left to the masses, and eventually civil rights for minorities prevailed. Jim Crow couldn't possibly still be alive because the CRA of 1964, passed by Congress, completely outlawed it. Civil Rights for black minorities did not happen because some mystical liberal force prevailed over the will of the people... if you want to fantasize and believe that to be the case, that's up to you and your ignorance, I happen to know better. It was a result of whites and blacks speaking out through civil disobedience and protests, which eventually changed our policies. THE PEOPLE prevailed.

You are an idiot who insists on practicing ignorance. Jim Crow WAS the result of allowing state majorities to dictate civil rights. The CRA was FEDERAL legislation, not a state referendum. Further, it may have never passed without the the court starting the process of bringing Jim Crow to an end.

State sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals will not effectively end until the majority supports ending it. But the courts will push the envelope and help to bring that majority about. By thwarting the efforts of homophobes to dig in they will prepare the ground for the inevitable enlightenment of the masses.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You are an idiot who insists on practicing ignorance. Jim Crow WAS the result of allowing state majorities to dictate civil rights. The CRA was FEDERAL legislation, not a state referendum. Further, it may have never passed without the the court starting the process of bringing Jim Crow to an end.

State sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals will not effectively end until the majority supports ending it. But the courts will push the envelope and help to bring that majority about. By thwarting the efforts of homophobes to dig in they will prepare the ground for the inevitable enlightenment of the masses.

But that move toward enlightenment that came from above is now starting to head towards a new dark ages direction. Freedom for blacks was truly moral. But the revenge oriented policies of affimative action is past the zenith of morality, and is just new racist regime in it's nascent stage.

The power from above is also anti-science, as it claims that fetuses are not alive, even though life beginning at conception is biology 101. And it also throws it's weight behind all climate alarmism propaganda; thats also anti scinece.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are an idiot who insists on practicing ignorance. Jim Crow WAS the result of allowing state majorities to dictate civil rights. The CRA was FEDERAL legislation, not a state referendum. Further, it may have never passed without the the court starting the process of bringing Jim Crow to an end.

State sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals will not effectively end until the majority supports ending it. But the courts will push the envelope and help to bring that majority about. By thwarting the efforts of homophobes to dig in they will prepare the ground for the inevitable enlightenment of the masses.

I know you like to compare sexual deviants to black people, but race and sexual perversion are two entirely different things. I think you're completely full of shit if you don't think the 80% of America who opposes "gay marriage" will not ratify a Constitutional amendment to stop it.

 

[Timshel]

I know you like to compare sexual deviants to black people, but race and sexual perversion are two entirely different things. I think you're completely full of shit if you don't think the 80% of America who opposes "gay marriage" will not ratify a Constitutional amendment to stop it.

We are talking about your idiotic notion that civil rights of a minority are safely entrusted to the majority of toothless Alabama morons. History shows that it is not.

There is no 80%. It is becoming very bizarre that you continue to throw this number around which you have admitted you made up and for which you have no proof. You are clearly becoming more and more delusional.