News and Politics Forum

devilether96 wrote:

not totally clear, are talking issues like homeland security, economy, terrorism, Iraq, etc.?
Or social/moral issues like gay marriage, abortion?

Or both?

A lot of both. More moral issues I guess, but also economy/taxes, socialized government programs (healthcare), gun control (something of a moral issue in itself), etc. On terror, Kerry just WAS NOT consistent, as much as you might claim he was. And note, it's not just about change, but change that is (or will be) demonstrably for the worse.

The whole conflict can be better thought of in context of the fundamental competing philosophies of Capitalism and Socialism. It's a balance of course, but libs want to push constantly more and more for socialistic government, and the nature of the process is incredibly insidious and scary, the more one studies it.

Gay marriage and aborition were two HUGE moral/social issues this time around - really made it clear where Kerry stood. No person can defend partial birth abortion - it's purely indefensible (life of the mother is a false argument, a red herring). Gay marriage is ONLY about pushing the gay agenda - about attempting to achieve social recognition, validation and legitimization of homosexuality, nothing more. Just my opinion, but I'll bet the vast majority of gays probably aren't even interested in gay marriage. Civil unions perhaps, but defining it as marriage, uh uh.

The mechanism by which this liberalism is viewed as a threat is the incursion of the liberals and liberal philosophies into our government, particularly into our judicial system, where their ideology is being turned into law - legistlating from the bench, as they say. There is ample evidence of these sort of shenanigans going on.

There are a lot of aspects to my point, but that gives a taste. That's why I suggest spending some time, on a regular basis, listening to conservative talk radio - it's just about the only voice of sanity in today's media. It also helps to do a lot of reading. Liberal ideas generally don't hold water, period.

RogueTDI wrote:

if we do benefit years down the road, I WILL thank him.

But good leadership also means smart decision making, and this, just like his support for prematurely building "hydrogen highways" in Cali, demonstrates that he is a liberal-minded politician who believes government programs are generally good. He's not off the deep end, but its really quite simple - if the private sector didnt think this research was worth the risk (and successful biotech and pharmaceutical research rakes in disgusting amounts of profit), then I don't think it's worth dumping Cali into $6B of EVEN MORE debt in our tough times. Completely irresponsible, wreckless and indefensible, and he knows it.

I liked the little back-and-forth between Mel Gibson and Arnie about this. Mel described how Arnie brushed him off when Mel actually pushed for an explanation of his position. Sounds like typical Arnie - I've heard the same exact thing on talk radio straight from Arnie's mouth when he is pushed on tough positions where he's clearly wrong.

Culture war crap?? There is a culture war. And Bush (I presume you are referring to) and conservatives arent trying to force their culture on anyone, but rather are simply defending it from a growing onslaught of [dangerous!] liberalism.

Me personally - I fully agree. Healing and unity. But that doesnt mean compromise of principles. Just make sure you understand the difference.

Ahhh....but you fail to realize the genius of Arnie's moves.  His hydrogen initiative and the stem cell decision will result in a HUGE westward brain drain, as well as an economic one.  This will strenghten the influence of all of their associated institutions, universities, government, and increase their overall significance, just as Silicon Valley did in the 80s and 90s.  As Bush turns the country away from science, and therefore technological breakthroughs, Cali will soldier on--giving new meaning to the phrase "go west young man".

And in case you do not know, the latest lines of stem cells are not eligible for federal funding.  Cali's move all but garantees that ALL U.S. companies will have to go there to do any meaningful future research, and give California an effective monopoly on the technologies it will develop.

You don't think pushing evangelical ideology on a diverse-ideology country is not instigating a culture war?  John Asscrotch's morality I can do without.

RogueTDI wrote:

Way to take the loss. :thumbup:

"And please stop trying to push an evangelical agenda on those of us who are not."

Yeah really. I mean, what are us infanticidal, pro-homosexual, Godless folks supposed to do?   :shrug:

Actually, I agree with iDissent on this. I voted for Bush, and am a registered Republican, but I do not want the christian right making the law in their image any more than I'd want fundamentalist Islam making the law in its image here. You can be insulting all you want, but the truth is, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Oh, and good riddance to Tom Dasshole! :thumbup:

Agreed.

Either of you care to cite a source?

devilether96 wrote:

I see what you're saying. Quickly for the record, please don't take me as a democrat, or a "liberal". I like to think of myself as a free-thinking human being, if there is such a thing these days.

I think after this election we can all agree that the fact Kerry was a weak candidate in the first place. It was always an uphill battle and was going to be tough for him to win it. Very telling though how close the race was considering all Bush had going for him was "I'm not Bush".

I agree the capitalism/socialism debate is the core of America's debate right now. Capitalism works well, but at a price. Socialism has great ideas, but many aren't feasible. Can a common ground, happy middle, or any kind of compromise be found? Do people want it to be found? I think, for all its faults, capitalism ultimately works here in America and works damn well. However, I think it does need a close eye kept on it, and has been getting a bit out of control lately.

As far as the moral issues go, I find it interesting that you'd consider the views that aren't yours, dangerous. While I think a woman has a right to choose what she wants to do with her body, I see the gray area so many see, not counting religion, and see where the argument comes from. Gay marriage though, I am still baffled. Pushing the gay agenda? What agenda? That some dudes like dudes, and some chicks like chicks? A big whoop-dee-doo to that. Gay marriage is an interest of the majority of gays for the mere fact that it has become an issue, not just of the marriage of gays, but of their approval in general. The few members of the gay community I have contact with all are not fans of marriage regardless of sexual orientation. They do however have an interest in the gay marriage issues because, to them, it boils down to: is homosexuallity ok?
Asides from religious reasons (which I really don't think should be used when it comes to voting/politics), where is the danger in gay marriage. If you can give me one reason how Joe Smith and John Brown getting married affects my life or yours negatively in any way shape or form that truly matters, I'll be amazed. They want to blow a lot of money for a big celebration? Fine. They want to live together knowing they'll only bang one guy for the rest of their lives, whatever, your problem. They want to have the fun that heterosexuals have been having with marriage these past years, go for it, who cares? If you're going to claim that all are created equal, why must we always make exceptions to the rule?

tuning into conservative talk radio? no thanks. Maybe in a year if they've been called to end the further polarization of this country (i know liberals have their stations, and I won't listen to them either). Maybe Rush Limbaugh, a former drug addict himself, can lecture me on morals  :roll:

I suppose it's smart to avoid being labelled a liberal. I imagine liberals will be come more of an endangered species these days  :laugh:

Yes, Kerry was weak. That he got so close to winning is incredibly disturbing and frightening, and speaks volumes worthy of debate.

As to capitalism getting out of control, I'm not sure what you mean - if it has, it all came out of the 90s (ya know, the Clinton era...). I think we probably agree on the benefits and value of capitalism, and that it works on the whole a lot better than socialism. It of course has its weaknesses, but I personally believe the weaknesses ought to buttressed with moral/ethical laws, not necessarily socialism. I tend to support the notion of faith-based social programs where people help people independent of the government. Otherwise there's ALWAYS the danger of fostering government dependence, and having politicians grow such a constituency of dependence.

I never said views that are not mine are dangerous. I said LIBERAL views are dangerous, both specifically, and in general, per the basic definition of the word. When people give up things that have worked for us in the past (extended history in the case of many liberal agendas, like homosexual marriage), that ALWAYS involves a significant amount of risk - risk of failure. In the specific, there are MANY liberal policies and agendas that are PLAINLY, DEMONSTRABLY dangerous - it's not a prejudicial position I have at all. I give all ideas a fair hearing, but many liberal ones tend to be dangerous.

I'm glad you agree to seeing the undeniable "gray area" on abortion. While I agree that the law cannot force a woman to do something with her body, the personal autonomy/authority of a pregnant woman must at some point confront the reality of a new life having been formed, and needing protection. A simple logical, socratic process easily demonstrates the indefensibility of partial birth abortion. Virtually NOBODY would disagree that a just-born baby is deserving of protection from undue death. The mother has no more right to kill her newborn than she has to kill her 1 year old, or 3 or 5 year old, or any child of hers for that matter - she does not OWN her child - it is a sacred life with undeniable potential (it's often suggested that before a sperm/egg unite, there is potential for life, but it is nowhere close to the guaranteed potential of a living growing individual). Now, anyone who thinks that just prior to birth, something is fundamentally different, would be easily proven wrong by facts. The argument that the baby depends on the mother is false - premature babies can be raised to be healthy people, and born babies are dependent on others for years to come. Thus, we must recognize that a baby in the womb at some point become as valuable as any other child, BEFORE birth. At what point an embryo becomes a "valuable" life is debatable, but we know it must happen after the sperm/egg unite, and before birth - a 9 month window. The only definitive event in that timeline that we are so far capable of knowing is the creation of the embryo. Until we have the capacity to KNOW what human life is, and HOW it forms into something more than a "group of cells" (which we KNOW it does at some point), we are compelled logically, we MUST assume that life starts at conception.

Now, partly for reasons I just illuminated, partial birth abortion is wrong. This is much more supported by simple rationale - if a mother cannot make this choice, difficult as it may be, within 4-6 months (first 2 terms), she has had more than a fair chance, and ought have no right to kill her child in the 3rd term. The details of this can be emphasized further in the pro-life direction, but I've said enough on this point here.

As to the gay agenda - it speaks for itself. What agenda you ask? Are you kidding?? What, you think gay marriage is just a given??

I have nothing against homosexuals as individuals, nor need I to hold the following view (which many homosexuals surely share, and none can really deny).

Here's the thing with homosexual marriage, and for me (and frankly any rational person capable of independent thought, as far as I'm concerned) this is final. Your comments and experiences only agree and support my position - the gay marriage agenda is about forcing people (Americans in particular right now) to accept, and in the process validate, and ultimately sanction, homosexuality as a whole. Homosexual "marriage" will NEVER equate to heterosexual marriage. Realize that's not a devaluation of anyone's feelings - it's simply a matter of fact. And fact is, marriage isn't about feelings, so anyone that thinks as much reveals the weakness of their position, and betrays any authority on the matter they think they have. Marriage is about commitment, for the purpose of raising children, and building the fundamental social unit of our society.  What homosexual marriage advocates are trying to do is convince people that their "feelings" or version of commitment is the same as that between a man and a woman. IT WILL NEVER BE. Homosexual marriage goes against nature (God's plan, Darwinism if you like - that which helps humanity grow and thrive), and a tradition that has existed for all of recorded history in every society.    Homosexuals cannot and will not ever be able to procreate (barring mad science), and in that fact alone can NEVER be of the same value to society as the marriage of and commitment between a man and a woman, and it's propensity to produce healthy children, and I've heard several gay's who understand this. A gay couple raising an adopted child will NEVER have the capacity to raise as healthy a child as a heterosexual couple raising a child (this has been borne out with studies mind you, at least with respect to single parents vs married) - exposure to role models of both sexes, and their interaction, in an intimate personal context, is necessary and inherently better for a child's personal growth and welfare than being raised by a single sex. Legal marriage is also not just a matter of religion as many perceive, but very much a matter of what values we as a country CHOOSE to sanction and promote - homosexuality will never be one of those values, because it has no REDEEMING value, no more than two same-sex roommates living together. And regardless of how they may feel, homosexuality will always be a choice, just as it is my choice to obey laws though I may feel a desire to break them. The gay marriage agenda is an expression of the insecure gay vocal minority seeking a social/legal validation - the [likely silent] majority of gays today probably realize that the gay marriage agenda is hurting perception of gays, not helping, and I've heard a few start to speak out on this. The insecurity of this minority in itself says a lot and begs the question - if so sure and comfortable with your homosexuality, why do you need this validation so much?? And it's not about gay protections - there are laws that exist (and rightfully so) to protect ALL individuals, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. Any laws, eg "hate crime" legislation, that give special consideration to gays inherently violate equal protection.

On civil unions, here's my position: If there are legitimate rights being denied to homosexuals, I might support civil unions to the extent such rights are protected. However, I have yet to hear of any undeniably legitimate rights being denied. Many of the "rights" being claimed are simply the advantages this society offers to married couples as an incentive to marry. Perhaps we as a society will choose to recognize gay relationships with some form of civil union. Regardles, people must realize it will NEVER be equal to the sacred value of heterosexual marriage, no matter how much some may want it to be. On a personal aside, I certainly cannot claim to know how two gays feel about one another, and I wouldnt presume to know that my feelings for a woman are the same.


How does gay marriage affect my life or yours? Not directly, to be sure. But true to the archetypal trait of a contemporary liberal, your comments don't consider the ethical consequences. Gay marriage undeniably  affects our society, slowly, insidiously, and moves it in a direction most people could not agree with. So, please don't play the red herring argument of "what harm can it do." It only betrays a lack of morality, of righteous concern for consequence. There are other rhetorical arguments/examples that support this. Why stop at 2 men or 2 women? How about a brother and sister? What about me and my dog? Or sheep? Or whatever?? Gays might say it's a ridiculous suggestion (I've heard several  self-proclaimed spokespeople for the gay community say as much). LOL - excuse me, but in that case, gay marriage is ridiculous, so let's not get semantical. The fact is, marriage is a matter of definition, and if we change it to accept homosexuals, we could just as arbitrarily and absurdly include and validate bestiality as well.

As to the danger of gay marriage - I think I just made that clear. It would be a devaluation of the institution of marriage, its meaning, its sanctity, and overall value to society, because it would be EQUATING two things that are absolutely NOT EQUAL. It would be dangerous in the same way some liberals constantly try to validate criminal rights over victims rights - it's dangerous thinking, dangerous precedent, which emphasizes FLAWED values. If one cannot comprehend the danger in that, well, they are part of the problem.

You amazed yet? Or do you not trust your own brain, which if working correctly must recognize the logic and reality of what I am saying.

A marriage ceremony just a big celebration to you? That's not what it is, and again, youre proving that youre not getting it.

Yeah, look, if 2 guys want to live together - I may have a personal problem with it, but that's not legitimately my personal business. However, I DO think society reserves the right to enforce rules against it. Do I advocate that? I suppose at this time I don't think it's really necessary, and I CERTAINLY get as uncomfortable as you or anyone else when the government thinks it can enter my bedroom and define what I can do in it. Then again, I cannot commit murder in my bedrooom, even if my "victim" is a willing participant (remember that sick case in Germany - guy eats another guy's penis, victim is willing? Talk about moral depravity! And you wonder why people are concerned about how gay marriage might lead to a worse society??) We as a people have a right and obligation to do what is morally best for future generations. One person's view/opinion is not necessarily as equally valuable as another's - THERE IS RIGHTEOUSNESS - THERE IS RIGHT AND WRONG. Wanna know why the left failed in this election, and continues to fail?  That's why - the recognition, or lack thereof, of right and wrong, of good and evil, choosing instead to grab hold of secular self-defined (Godless) values, which of course cannot compete. As long as the Left ignores the reality of a higher authority - of a right and wrong - they will continue to "not get it" and continue to lose and fail in this country.

I don't think anyone claims we are created equal in the sense of a cooky cutter equal. But we are all individuals with certain rights under God. We are all God's creatures and each deserve and reserve the "right" of redemption and salvation. Thus I love all my fellow "men." If they are following morally questionable paths in life, I don't hate them for it, but I hate the act, the evil (wrongness) that consumes them. They have lost their way (which we are all in danger of), and need to be guided out of the darkness by (I hate to sound like a religious fanatic, because I was never one, but this just really fits the bill) God's light.

I agree conservative talk radio can be pretty painful to listen to sometimes (a lot of the time with the tension in this election, lol), but it is by far the best place to find REAL genuine discussions and debates of the issues that face us, things you simply will not find in mass media. And I'm talking local talk especially, not necessarily national shows like Rush Limbaugh, which tend to be more restricted or politically motivated in where they will go. Local talk is usually the most honest, and because I cannot promise great content every time you tune in, I suggest a listening regime, not simply a one-time try-out.

And btw, I'd think Rush being an addict would make his persective even more valuable. And being addicted to prescription drugs is hardly the same as snortin coke, or smokin pot, or otherwise getting high. It can happen to anybody. Addiction isnt and was never claimed to be an immoral act.

adoniram7 wrote:

OK, here's my take.  We're only going to get more conservative for 2008.
Why?

Well, gay marriage, political correctness, courts playing gods with the law,
affirmative action, welfar, reparations, something-for-nothing, porn friggin'
everywhere (really ugly, awful stuff, like scary-end-of-Roman-civilization
stuff), I'm OK, You're OK (which just doesn't work), making spanking in
public illegal, photo cameras, safety laws for everything....

We've got Big Mother, not Big Brother, and Big Mother is apparently going
to take care of you, keep you comfortable and safe within the womb.

So now, the pendulum is going back the other way, and has a long way
to go, too, since it's been going in one direction for 30 years now.  The
children of the Baby Boomers have figured out that a lot of the 60s stuff
was wrong, that the whole Hollywood anti-war crowd has gone off the
deep end, and the results are finally starting to show.

Did you know that it's becoming the "in" thing in the public schools to
be a conservative?  Just because when you're young, it's always the
"in" thing to be counter-culture.  This should give you all an idea just
how far the pendulum swung in one direction.

The popularity of South Park should also give everyone a big friggin'
clue.

The other thing I believe people figured out is that what the Democrats
attempted to paint the Republicans as is no longer true.  Democrats used
to be for personal liberties, but they have completely betrayed their own
on this issue, and now the Republicans have successfully taken on that
mantle.  And there are a lot of other now-passe prejudices against
Republicans that, like the old South, are no longer true.

Hold on to your hats:  it's going to be an interesting couple of decades
ahead.

:thumbup:

Bingo. Well stated, especially this:

"The children of the Baby Boomers have figured out that a lot of the 60s stuff was wrong, that the whole Hollywood anti-war crowd has gone off the deep end, and the results are finally starting to show. "

RogueTDI wrote:

Here's the thing with homosexual marriage, and for me (and frankly any rational person capable of independent thought, as far as I'm concerned) this is final. Your comments and experiences only agree and support my position - the gay marriage agenda is about forcing people (Americans) to accept, and in the process validate, and ultimately sanction, homosexuality as a whole. Homosexual "marriage" will NEVER equate to heterosexual marriage.

Even HETERO marrige doesn't equasl your ideal of it. and no two marriages are alike. MY marriage doesn't affect YOUR marrige any more or less than two lesbians getting married would.  Likewise YOUR marriage does not define mine in any way. but it seems your more than willing to insult me with your commentary, and insult my marriage, so I will return the favor.

Marriage is about commitment, for the purpose of raising children, and building the fundamental social unit of our society. 

This is the largest load of bullshit anyone here has spewed yet. Next up it'll be not allowing older people to get married. Or you will not allow mariages when one or the other cannot have children, by choice or by natural reasons. Or people who simply don't WANT children.

YOU can define YOUR marriage that way, but you better NOT start to define MINE that way.

What homo marriage advocates are trying to do is convince people that their "feelings" or version of commitment is the same as that between a man and a woman. IT WILL NEVER BE.

Again, bullshit you fucking narrowminded shitforbrains. The sense of commitment between ANY two people is different. Between you and your wife, it may be different than between Bill and Hillary, or between Seabird and HIS wife, or between myself and MY wife. You're fucking ignorant if you think otherwise! And you don't even NEED marriage to be commited to someone else, as many couples have demonstrated over the years. the piece of paper is a legal formality, but commitment comes from inside you and is borne out by what you do, not by what a marriage license says. What that license does is legally prove that commitment. And it does so even if that commitment is not there, as way to many hetero couples prove. If your contention about commitment was true, then NO FUCKING HETERO COUPLES WOULD EVER SPLIT UP, HAVE AFFAIRS, ETC!!!!!!!  WHY? Because it would be ingrained in to the "natural" male/female dynamic.

Homosexual marriage goes against nature (God's plan, Darwinism if you like - that which helps humanity grow and thrive), and a tradition that has existed for all of recorded history in every society.

People said the same thing about interracial mariages, going so far as to claim that God's plan was to separate the races on different continents so they wouldn't interbreed. iut was ignorant then, and it's ignorant now, no matter WHO you aim it at.

Homosexuals cannot and will not ever be able to procreate (barring mad science), and in that fact alone can NEVER be of the same value to society as the marriage of a man and a woman

I can't and will not procreate. So now you tell me I'm of no value you inslting POS???? Older couples can't, either. In fact, "god's plan" was not to have us live as long as we do. Are you going to say you are all for not allowing elderly couples to get married after child bearing age you arrogant fuckstick?

A gay couple raising an adopted child will also NEVER have the capacity to raise as healthy a child as a heterosexual couple raising a child - exposure to role models of both sexes, in a personal context, is necessary and inherently better for a child's personal growth and welfare than being raised by a single sex.

Again, there are plenty of examples of this being a complete load of Grade A rubbish. And plenty of examples of poorly raised children of HETERO couples. Until heteros can get their shit right, don't even start talking about others not being able to. Especially not using it as a basis for legislation.

And are you honestly implying that a single parent should be forced to marry a partner of the opposite sex or risk having the child removed from them just to fit YOUR view of a "real" family? The arrogance inherent in your statements is incredible. By sying that we should legislate what a family cannot be on the basis of only haveing parents of one sex, how DO you legally, without discrimination, draw the line between one parent and two of the same sex? You cannot, as it is as inherently harmful in your mind to have one parent, without influence of the opposite sex, as to have two parents of the same sex...

Legal marriage is also not just a matter of religion as many perceive, but very much a matter of what values we as a country CHOOSE to sanction and promote - homosexuality will never be one of those values, because it has no REDEEMING value, no more than two same-sex roommates living together.

Why doesn't it physically hurt to be this closed minded and arrogant? the same arguement was used to promote racism and make interracial marriage illegal. See my comment above about that one, you sanctimonious prick.

RACING cars has no socially redeeming value, yet we have no problem with THAT activity even though it wastes fuel and resources to do nothing but run around in circles just to say you beat someone else with an unnatural skill (think God's plan included cars, asshole?). From my POV there is NO difference.

On civil unions, here's my position: If there are legitimate rights being denied to homosexuals, I might support civil unions. However, I have yet to hear of any legitimate rights being denied.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention. I listed them in previous threads on the subject. The problem is, like any good conspiracy theorists, you simply choose to ignore that which doesn't fit with your theory.

Gays are citizens. And there are no rights or priviledges granted US citizens that can be defined around which hole their dick goes into in private.

Hey Seth, where's that dead horse smilie?

ChrisV wrote:

RogueTDI wrote:

Here's the thing with homosexual marriage, and for me (and frankly any rational person capable of independent thought, as far as I'm concerned) this is final. Your comments and experiences only agree and support my position - the gay marriage agenda is about forcing people (Americans) to accept, and in the process validate, and ultimately sanction, homosexuality as a whole. Homosexual "marriage" will NEVER equate to heterosexual marriage.

Even HETERO marrige doesn't equasl your ideal of it. and no two marriages are alike. MY marriage doesn't affect YOUR marrige any more or less than two lesbians getting married would.  Likewise YOUR marriage does not define mine in any way. but it seems your more than willing to insult me with your commentary, and insult my marriage, so I will return the favor.

Marriage is about commitment, for the purpose of raising children, and building the fundamental social unit of our society. 

This is the largest load of bullshit anyone here has spewed yet. Next up it'll be not allowing older people to get married. Or you will not allow mariages when one or the other cannot have children, by choice or by natural reasons. Or people who simply don't WANT children.

YOU can define YOUR marriage that way, but you better NOT start to define MINE that way.

What homo marriage advocates are trying to do is convince people that their "feelings" or version of commitment is the same as that between a man and a woman. IT WILL NEVER BE.

Again, bullshit you fucking narrowminded shitforbrains. The sense of commitment between ANY two people is different. Between you and your wife, it may be different than between Bill and Hillary, or between Seabird and HIS wife, or between myself and MY wife. You're fucking ignorant if you think otherwise! And you don't even NEED marriage to be commited to someone else, as many couples have demonstrated over the years. the piece of paper is a legal formality, but commitment comes from inside you and is borne out by what you do, not by what a marriage license says. What that license does is legally prove that commitment. And it does so even if that commitment is not there, as way to many hetero couples prove. If your contention about commitment was true, then NO FUCKING HETERO COUPLES WOULD EVER SPLIT UP, HAVE AFFAIRS, ETC!!!!!!!  WHY? Because it would be ingrained in to the "natural" male/female dynamic.

Homosexual marriage goes against nature (God's plan, Darwinism if you like - that which helps humanity grow and thrive), and a tradition that has existed for all of recorded history in every society.

People said the same thing about interracial mariages, going so far as to claim that God's plan was to separate the races on different continents so they wouldn't interbreed. iut was ignorant then, and it's ignorant now, no matter WHO you aim it at.

Homosexuals cannot and will not ever be able to procreate (barring mad science), and in that fact alone can NEVER be of the same value to society as the marriage of a man and a woman

I can't and will not procreate. So now you tell me I'm of no value you inslting POS???? Older couples can't, either. In fact, "god's plan" was not to have us live as long as we do. Are you going to say you are all for not allowing elderly couples to get married after child bearing age you arrogant fuckstick?

A gay couple raising an adopted child will also NEVER have the capacity to raise as healthy a child as a heterosexual couple raising a child - exposure to role models of both sexes, in a personal context, is necessary and inherently better for a child's personal growth and welfare than being raised by a single sex.

Again, there are plenty of examples of this being a complete load of Grade A rubbish. And plenty of examples of poorly raised children of HETERO couples. Until heteros can get their shit right, don't even start talking about others not being able to. Especially not using it as a basis for legislation.

And are you honestly implying that a single parent should be forced to marry a partner of the opposite sex or risk having the child removed from them just to fit YOUR view of a "real" family? The arrogance inherent in your statements is incredible. By sying that we should legislate what a family cannot be on the basis of only haveing parents of one sex, how DO you legally, without discrimination, draw the line between one parent and two of the same sex? You cannot, as it is as inherently harmful in your mind to have one parent, without influence of the opposite sex, as to have two parents of the same sex...

Legal marriage is also not just a matter of religion as many perceive, but very much a matter of what values we as a country CHOOSE to sanction and promote - homosexuality will never be one of those values, because it has no REDEEMING value, no more than two same-sex roommates living together.

Why doesn't it physically hurt to be this closed minded and arrogant? the same arguement was used to promote racism and make interracial marriage illegal. See my comment above about that one, you sanctimonious prick.

RACING cars has no socially redeeming value, yet we have no problem with THAT activity even though it wastes fuel and resources to do nothing but run around in circles just to say you beat someone else with an unnatural skill (think God's plan included cars, asshole?). From my POV there is NO difference.

On civil unions, here's my position: If there are legitimate rights being denied to homosexuals, I might support civil unions. However, I have yet to hear of any legitimate rights being denied.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention. I listed them in previous threads on the subject. The problem is, like any good conspiracy theorists, you simply choose to ignore that which doesn't fit with your theory.

Gays are citizens. And there are no rights or priviledges granted US citizens that can be defined around which hole their dick goes into in private.

Despite my initial compulsion to tell you shower you with explitives, I think I'll just try to maintain some civility and explain instead.

I've heard your first argument - I never said hetero marriage always pans out to the ideal. That's why we have ideals - to live up to them. If ideals were reality, we'd never get anywhere. I explained how gay marriage hurts society, and ultimately the individual. It's not about my marriage directly affecting your marriage or whatever, at this moment in time.  I'm sorry to hear you have a problem realizing the logic and rationale I presented, and that you find it insulting dude, but I'm not sorry for it - that's your damn problem.

Ah, marriage being a fundamental and critical component of our society is a load of bullshit? LMAO! Great comeback - way to strengthen your position. A marriage without children is not ridiculous because the alternative is that people who marry must be forced to raise children, which I wouldnt agree with, as I detail later below. The values equation still is intact. I've heard the arguments before - not persuasive. I have no problem saying that i think a married couple who has children and raises a family IS more valuable to society than a married couple which does no such thing.

Woah - looks like I'm pissing you off now. Your moral deficiency and ineptitude is frankly pitiful, but please, I'm not trying to instigate a divide. Calm the hell down.

I'm not talking about the "sense" of commitment. I'm talking about the importance and value of ANY commitment that lasts, thus the reason for the emphasis of marriage throughout history. Your personal feelings are yours and yours alone, between you and your wife, but that's not what marriage is about.

The paper is not a legal formality - it is a contract, legally binding. It takes two to legally end a marriage, and that's why that contract means something, and carries authority.


Ah yes, the rhetorical argument that no hetero's ought to ever split. Again, missing the point entirely - see comments above.

Homosexuality and racial mixing are two completely different issues. This isnt an attempt to pull the same "shit" you are referring to. And frankly, many, if not most, people today, of ANY race, still have strong feelings about NOT mixing the races. I STILL am uncomfortable with mixing races, simply because we may be losing a lot in the process - like if dog breeders decided the different dog species werent worth preserving, and just let them all mix into one mongrel race. Let blacks marry blacks, asians marry asians, whites whites. I have no problem with that. The problem here isnt ignorance - it's political correctness run to the extreme.

I'm not saying you or your marriage are of NO value, just lesser value, without raising children. AGAIN, this isnt saying that your marriage, or you, have no value to society, just strictly speaking lesser value than if YOU were to have children. I understand infertility is difficult. My gf has been struggling with this herself.

Elderly couples getting married is an outcropping of reality - an exception to the intention of marriage. It doesnt conflict with the value and meaning marriage. It is not reason to conclude that just because a man and woman CANT have children, they cannot be married. When married couples are infertile, it's unfortunate, but not a reason to prevent marriage. They can always adopt of course. However, when married couples CHOOSE not to raise children, again yes, I think they are less valuable to society, and are choosing to be more selfish than those who do endeavor to raise children.

Sure, poorly- and well-raised children can come out of either gay or hetero situations. I might agree for example that, forced to choose between a horribly abusive hetero household, and a happy gay household, that a child may be better off with in the gay household.
But on the whole, it is undeniably demonstrably better for the child's life-long welfare and success to have a mother and a father - male and female role models, involved in an intimate relationship. I'm sure the data bear this out.

You raise a tough point with this:

"And are you honestly implying that a single parent should be forced to marry a partner of the opposite sex or risk having the child removed from them just to fit YOUR view of a "real" family? The arrogance inherent in your statements is incredible. By sying that we should legislate what a family cannot be on the basis of only haveing parents of one sex, how DO you legally, without discrimination, draw the line between one parent and two of the same sex? You cannot, as it is as inherently harmful in your mind to have one parent, without influence of the opposite sex, as to have two parents of the same sex... "


Hmm. I realize my position isnt 100% perfect, and I've run into this implication before. It's a tough area of possible exception to my position, but my view accomodates it. Here's how I deal with it: single parents generally don't enter into parenthood expecting to raise children alone (effectually in this context, with one sex around) (this fact is generally the case when procreating - takes a man and woman; on an aside, single parents have a HARD time being granted child adoption over couples - my gf has verified that firsthand). A gay couple WOULD be choosing to enter into a single-sex child-raising situation. It's the overt, active decision to enter into a non-optimal child-raising condition that gives the conventionally-conception situation priority and superiority. BTW, I'd feel the same about single mothers who think they have a right to choose to enter into parenthood alone, via spermbank or whatever. It is CHOOSING to give one's child much less than it deserves, and it DOES hurt society in the end. I know firsthand that having a father around would have helped me tremendously in life. NO person should actively choose to unecessarily rob their children of optimal (and entirely doable) child-raising conditions. BTW, I havent touched too much on the notion that a gay couple would be raising their child (straight child, presuming genetic cause for gayness, which I tend to accept as a possibility - a genetic abberation, not an inhereted trait) with a skewed impression of relationships and reality.


The arguments against gay marriage are far more valid than any argument supporting racism. Even those who know the pain of racism first hand understand the value of protecting marriage from the homosexual agenda. Its about values, not skin color.

Racing cars, or any other morally benign act, doesnt fundamentally assault the values and moral foundations of society.

Youre trying to demagogue me because I believe there is a higher guiding authority in life than whatever rules you or I or any humans choose for themselves.

I havent reviewed all threads here on this issue. I really ought to carry on the gay discussion in a seperate thread I guess, but I wanted to express my position thoroughly to be clear.

I'll have to check those other threads for all the examples of rights that I've been missing. Perhaps you could quick clue me into a few? What, visiting rights in the hospital?? Does that require a redefinition of marriage to accomodate gays?? No, of course not.

I agree - gays are citizens and should be granted equal protection under the law. The priviledges and considerations given to married couples are not generally rights of individuals, but simply additional advantages granted to marriage by which this country has chosen to promote the institution.

Don't mistake me for some gay-hating twit, nor for someone who'll back down due to PC demagoguery. I've come to these conclusions through extensive consideration and examination of all claims from all sides that I've had available to me. You havent presented any arguments I havent heard before.

Infidel wrote:

Couldn't have said that better myself. Glad someone had the patience to do it, I'm running low  :thumbup:

Could you perhaps try? ChrisV put up a good fight, but I havent budged.

WoW! Incredible arrogance.


Your entire argument is based on the idea that our society is in moral decay and that marriage is a beacon of what once was "great values". To you it is, realize that this is you and not everyone and not truth. Watching TV could be considered a perversion as well as gay marriage. Again, perversions are subjective. BDSM is legal and involves consensual harm to ones body. Because its legal does this reflect the "poor values" of America? No, it is simply another means in which another human being finds sexual pleasure. You see degradation of values, others see it as change in how we accept human behavior. Or maybe it is God's plan to let this all lead to ruin and for humans' reign on Earth, like the dinosaurs, to end? *Gasp* what about that?!

Marriage is a religious term. The idea of religion began in the church and is, the vast majority of the time, performed there. Religious indoctrination may not have had an affect on you, but it sure as hell has had a big effect on what you're talking about.

Just because you stand back and say "this isn't because of religion, don't demagogue me", doesn't mean you're all of a sudden right. And it doesn't mean that this isn't where it's comming from.
Man can't deny that there is an ultimate power?! What kind of pompous shit is that?

How about this? Decades from now you eventually die, on your deathbed, waiting to see where the higher power of the earth takes you to heaven....you go nowhere. Your body rots in the ground and that's the end of it.
But how could this happen?
Well, maybe we're just a creation of this big rock floating in space. We are a result of what has happened to this big rock over hundreds of billions of years. What once was a single celled organism became an animal capable of having a developed thought process and memory. From the stone age to present day, all is just a result of what this apparantly superior animal was able to do w/ the evolution of this thought process and memory. Humans were so amazed at what this process could do, they sat down and thought about it real hard. Voila! A higher power! That must be it! So then ideals, stories, values, etc. were based around this assumption that maybe the reason they are on this big floating rock is because of this higher power. Unfortunately, they are just animals on a rock. Nothing more, nothing less. Morals, values, right and wrong.....created by man and mandated by man. While tigers eat their young, humans argue endlessly about whether a fetus has rights. Millions of years later, the human race, like the dinosaurs, is wiped off the planet and it's back to where it started.

See, while yes, there may be a higher power, you need to understand that there also may not be a higher power. It is just as feasible. So please, get off your pedestal that the values you have figured out through your own thinking are truth. Yes, it is free speech and yes people should consider any possibility. So why the hell won't you consider that there might not be a higher power?

RogueTDI wrote:

Atheism makes zero sense. It requires that nothing truly matters. That everything we hold dear is purely a human construct, and purely arbitrary. Thus, we could create any rules we wanted, and everything goes. Well, that doesnt fly, and never could.

huh? look I know you take your religion seriously, and Im actually a practicing christian too, but that a horrible argument

iDissent wrote:

Well, talk about a bruhaha...

My .02,

If there was no will or intelligence applied to our universe, there would be nothing to govern the matter within and it would therefore be a chaotic mass, devoid of life since life relies on the various "laws" to be structured.  That said, there is a God, though I doubt it to be in the "burning bush" or "Allah on his flying horse" or "Ganesh--Elephant Man" sort.  THOSE are human constructs seeking to understand the greater source of all things, imo.

And religion began when man first gain sentient thought and looked up at the ball of fire in the sky and sensed it was the source of the material things around him and the fuel for life, and the source of life-giving warmth.  And he was essentially right, given have our solar system likely formed.

Gay marriage.  How EXACTLY is gay marriage a threat to hetero marriage?  Does two gays getting married truly affect the marriage of a hetero couple?  Will a divorce of a hetero couple be triggered for every gay marriage?  The sanctity of marriage argument is flawed.  Gay marriage has no impact on hetero.

I agree with your attitude on God. When I talk about God, I'm not trying to invoke any particular religion, although from my own studies, I've come to think and feel more and more like a Christian - thus I tend to look to Christian teachings to support my points.

When I refer to God, I am referring to whatever higher authority or power or truth is presummed to exist - that which governs right and wrong, which I DONT think is a hard concept to accept as truth (that right and wrong, good and evil, do exist - think of evil as that which deceives and misleads from the path of righteousness, leading to misery (hell) and distance from divine truth (God, closeness to, and knowledge of Him), and good which is the opposite). I fully realize that humans can misconstrue truth for their own devious purposes, and history is replete with the evidence. I view the Bible as a collection of incredibly important ideas of a sacred nature, and evidence of God - knowledge of God - which is what we all truly seek, i.e. the meaning of life.

As to the danger of gay marriage, I thought I made that pretty clear. I don't think however that I touched directly on the simple fact that most parents don't want young children to grow up believing the homosexuality is just as valid and important a value as heterosexuality to our society. By trying to make marriage between gays and straights identical, that's exactly what it would be doing - saying to little Tommy or Johnny or whatever "You have to decide if you are gay or straight, and make your own choice." Well, such difficult moral confusion isnt what little kids need, and posing this sort of dilemma, to kids no less, basically implies that it's fine to be homosexual. Most people don't think it is, and I believe no honest person can once they think about it, ESPECIALLY since it's not at all a clear cut matter of biology, but very much a potential choice (admitting that biology might very well be an influence - just not the definer).  Then of course the reason to promote heterosexuality is that it supports the values all human society and civilization is built on - man and woman joining to create more children, a family, and a continuum of life. In this context of societal values are worth promoting, the JOINING of homosexuals (distinct from the fact of existance of homosexuality itself) has no redeeming value in and of itself to humanity, any more than two straight friends of the same sex rooming together for mutual advantage (i.e. to save money, etc). And again, if we have the choice, kids OUGHT to be raised by a man and a woman, not two people of the same sex - on the average they'll turn out healthier, better-rounded and more successful in life (single exceptional cases are not a basis for judgment). Gays must either adopt, or have heterosexual relations to create children, so it's very much a choice. I really don't see how I can make this any more clear.