JolietJake
Banned
Or how all of those American flags for cars were probably made in China.
The Yes We CAG Movement - Now to win the Presidency!
- Thread starter fullmetalfan720
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='BigT']Hex and Msut77,
Instead of spouting glib comments and insulting those with whom you do not agree, why don't you focus on the content of the posts.
*Obama is far left: Per the National Journal, he was found to have the most "liberal" voting record among all the senators in 2007. Hillary is slightly less left leaning, thus I am rooting for her in the democratic primary. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
*The main ideas of the front running Democrats remind me of socialism: higher taxes to ostensibly redistribute wealth from rich to poor while creating class conflict, more government control and regulation, expanded government programs and therefore more spending... just look at his platform, Obama and his gov't would have a "solution" to everything. Look at his quotes: “The reason they don’t believe that government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem.” Yes, Obama, that is exactly what I believe. Plus he was heavily supported by the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America when he ran against Keyes.
The democrats can't even run a primary election well... [sarcastic voice] there's the popular vote and this gets you delegates who technically aren't pledged to follow the vote of the people and then there are the super-delegates, who are basically available to the highest bidder, then there are a few states like Michigan and Florida that don't even matter...[/sarcastic voice] This same nonsensical and overly complicated system is what we get whenever the gov't gets overly involved.[/QUOTE]
Is this the same National Journal that demonstrated that Kerry and Edwards were the most liberal senators of 2004?
I like the conservative take in both these elections: they try to simultaneously argue that the candidates are both the biggest liberals in existence, as well as complete do-nothing senators. The latter is, of course, demonstrably false by a simple search at the Thomas search engine, and the latter based on the surely-flawed methodology of the National Journal. Who was their most conservative senator, by the way?
So I'm a big fan of the "they are so liberal, and yet they have never done anything in Congress" frame. It's like political
in' Escher, man.
As for the other thread, how about you lay off the "socialism" namecalling when your preferred candidate wants to use government powers to enforce Christianity and further remove the rights and freedoms of homosexuals? Kay? Since, y'know, neither of those are exactly measures working towards greater freedom for *anyone*, and increases government's role over individuals' lives? Kay? Can we do that? Because, first, the "commie" talk is a phony shield used by people who have nothing better to offer, either in their political insight to their issue at hand, let alone their understanding of Marx (what are your true feelings on labor value, use value, and exchange value? About alienation? Why do you think he never considered race or gender very much?). And, because, you know, your candidates are more than happy to try to force the issues YOU SUPPORT down MY THROAT. So it's not socialism when it's "round up them queer-os and make sure they can't get married!", but it is when it's "why can't we all just go to the hospital without worrying about declaring bankruptcy?"
Y'all have some tissue paper thin understandings of socialism.
And, BigT, I am talking more about your pal Alan Keyes than I am McCain. I'm very familiar with Keyes, so tone down the "socialist" rhetoric, the "big government" rhetoric, and the "the government decides what the people do" rhetoric, since that's Keyes bag. You just happen to like what's in it more than you do the Democrats.
Instead of spouting glib comments and insulting those with whom you do not agree, why don't you focus on the content of the posts.
*Obama is far left: Per the National Journal, he was found to have the most "liberal" voting record among all the senators in 2007. Hillary is slightly less left leaning, thus I am rooting for her in the democratic primary. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
*The main ideas of the front running Democrats remind me of socialism: higher taxes to ostensibly redistribute wealth from rich to poor while creating class conflict, more government control and regulation, expanded government programs and therefore more spending... just look at his platform, Obama and his gov't would have a "solution" to everything. Look at his quotes: “The reason they don’t believe that government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem.” Yes, Obama, that is exactly what I believe. Plus he was heavily supported by the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America when he ran against Keyes.
The democrats can't even run a primary election well... [sarcastic voice] there's the popular vote and this gets you delegates who technically aren't pledged to follow the vote of the people and then there are the super-delegates, who are basically available to the highest bidder, then there are a few states like Michigan and Florida that don't even matter...[/sarcastic voice] This same nonsensical and overly complicated system is what we get whenever the gov't gets overly involved.[/QUOTE]
Is this the same National Journal that demonstrated that Kerry and Edwards were the most liberal senators of 2004?
I like the conservative take in both these elections: they try to simultaneously argue that the candidates are both the biggest liberals in existence, as well as complete do-nothing senators. The latter is, of course, demonstrably false by a simple search at the Thomas search engine, and the latter based on the surely-flawed methodology of the National Journal. Who was their most conservative senator, by the way?
So I'm a big fan of the "they are so liberal, and yet they have never done anything in Congress" frame. It's like political
in' Escher, man.As for the other thread, how about you lay off the "socialism" namecalling when your preferred candidate wants to use government powers to enforce Christianity and further remove the rights and freedoms of homosexuals? Kay? Since, y'know, neither of those are exactly measures working towards greater freedom for *anyone*, and increases government's role over individuals' lives? Kay? Can we do that? Because, first, the "commie" talk is a phony shield used by people who have nothing better to offer, either in their political insight to their issue at hand, let alone their understanding of Marx (what are your true feelings on labor value, use value, and exchange value? About alienation? Why do you think he never considered race or gender very much?). And, because, you know, your candidates are more than happy to try to force the issues YOU SUPPORT down MY THROAT. So it's not socialism when it's "round up them queer-os and make sure they can't get married!", but it is when it's "why can't we all just go to the hospital without worrying about declaring bankruptcy?"
Y'all have some tissue paper thin understandings of socialism.
And, BigT, I am talking more about your pal Alan Keyes than I am McCain. I'm very familiar with Keyes, so tone down the "socialist" rhetoric, the "big government" rhetoric, and the "the government decides what the people do" rhetoric, since that's Keyes bag. You just happen to like what's in it more than you do the Democrats.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='camoor']Haha true, I didn't even notice that.
Personally I think the existence of a Cherry Guevara ice cream bar says miles more then any "no Che" pic could ever hope to.
PS - I believe the popsicle stick says "I will fight to the last bite"[/quote]Actually, that looks pretty good. I need to find some che ice cream bars.:lol:
Personally I think the existence of a Cherry Guevara ice cream bar says miles more then any "no Che" pic could ever hope to.
PS - I believe the popsicle stick says "I will fight to the last bite"[/quote]Actually, that looks pretty good. I need to find some che ice cream bars.:lol:
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']
As for the other thread, how about you lay off the "socialism" namecalling when your preferred candidate wants to use government powers to enforce Christianity and further remove the rights and freedoms of homosexuals? Kay? Since, y'know, neither of those are exactly measures working towards greater freedom for *anyone*, and increases government's role over individuals' lives? Kay? Can we do that? Because, first, the "commie" talk is a phony shield used by people who have nothing better to offer, either in their political insight to their issue at hand, let alone their understanding of Marx (what are your true feelings on labor value, use value, and exchange value? About alienation? Why do you think he never considered race or gender very much?). And, because, you know, your candidates are more than happy to try to force the issues YOU SUPPORT down MY THROAT. So it's not socialism when it's "round up them queer-os and make sure they can't get married!", but it is when it's "why can't we all just go to the hospital without worrying about declaring bankruptcy?"
Y'all have some tissue paper thin understandings of socialism.
And, BigT, I am talking more about your pal Alan Keyes than I am McCain. I'm very familiar with Keyes, so tone down the "socialist" rhetoric, the "big government" rhetoric, and the "the government decides what the people do" rhetoric, since that's Keyes bag. You just happen to like what's in it more than you do the Democrats.[/quote]
I despise socialism with a passion because of what it did to the Eastern Bloc as a whole and to what it did to my family on a personal level... you see, if one was a major land or business owner, the ruling regime could come up to you, point a few guns at you and declare your property to be the property of the state... communal ownership and wealth redistribution at its finest... the consequences of such actions are the reason I'm in the US now... but yeah, I don't really understand socialism
. I guess the only one's who truly do are the ivory tower liberals who never lived in a socialst state, but study it theoretically and espouse the view that it could be a wonderful system if only given a chance... now, with taxation of income, we suffer from a similar form of tyranny and wealth redistribution.
I agree with Keyes on most issues, but certainly not all... I think his stance on the war and his unconditional support of Israel are too much. Though, I do like his plans to abolish the IRS as well as his focus on morality as the basis of people's lives. The fact that a government does not recognize homosexual marriage is much different than "rounding them up." Their basic rights should not and are not being violated. I view marriage more as a spiritual and religious issue than a secular one; so, if a homosexual couple is part of a faith that supports homosexual marriage, I have no problem with them getting married under that faith. IMHO, for legal purposes, marriage should be a states' rights issue into which the federal government should have limited say.
Nobody wants to force issues down your throat: I would like a more limited federal government that specifically does less of that. I'm not like the officious politicians who seemingly have a solution for everything... I don't, so I believe you should keep your tax money, do what's best for you, and leave the rest up to the private sector and local governments with the federal gov't handling defense, border security, and acting in a supervisory role.
As for the other thread, how about you lay off the "socialism" namecalling when your preferred candidate wants to use government powers to enforce Christianity and further remove the rights and freedoms of homosexuals? Kay? Since, y'know, neither of those are exactly measures working towards greater freedom for *anyone*, and increases government's role over individuals' lives? Kay? Can we do that? Because, first, the "commie" talk is a phony shield used by people who have nothing better to offer, either in their political insight to their issue at hand, let alone their understanding of Marx (what are your true feelings on labor value, use value, and exchange value? About alienation? Why do you think he never considered race or gender very much?). And, because, you know, your candidates are more than happy to try to force the issues YOU SUPPORT down MY THROAT. So it's not socialism when it's "round up them queer-os and make sure they can't get married!", but it is when it's "why can't we all just go to the hospital without worrying about declaring bankruptcy?"
Y'all have some tissue paper thin understandings of socialism.
And, BigT, I am talking more about your pal Alan Keyes than I am McCain. I'm very familiar with Keyes, so tone down the "socialist" rhetoric, the "big government" rhetoric, and the "the government decides what the people do" rhetoric, since that's Keyes bag. You just happen to like what's in it more than you do the Democrats.[/quote]
I despise socialism with a passion because of what it did to the Eastern Bloc as a whole and to what it did to my family on a personal level... you see, if one was a major land or business owner, the ruling regime could come up to you, point a few guns at you and declare your property to be the property of the state... communal ownership and wealth redistribution at its finest... the consequences of such actions are the reason I'm in the US now... but yeah, I don't really understand socialism
. I guess the only one's who truly do are the ivory tower liberals who never lived in a socialst state, but study it theoretically and espouse the view that it could be a wonderful system if only given a chance... now, with taxation of income, we suffer from a similar form of tyranny and wealth redistribution.I agree with Keyes on most issues, but certainly not all... I think his stance on the war and his unconditional support of Israel are too much. Though, I do like his plans to abolish the IRS as well as his focus on morality as the basis of people's lives. The fact that a government does not recognize homosexual marriage is much different than "rounding them up." Their basic rights should not and are not being violated. I view marriage more as a spiritual and religious issue than a secular one; so, if a homosexual couple is part of a faith that supports homosexual marriage, I have no problem with them getting married under that faith. IMHO, for legal purposes, marriage should be a states' rights issue into which the federal government should have limited say.
Nobody wants to force issues down your throat: I would like a more limited federal government that specifically does less of that. I'm not like the officious politicians who seemingly have a solution for everything... I don't, so I believe you should keep your tax money, do what's best for you, and leave the rest up to the private sector and local governments with the federal gov't handling defense, border security, and acting in a supervisory role.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='BigT']I despise socialism with a passion because of what it did to the Eastern Bloc as a whole and to what it did to my family on a personal level... you see, if one was a major land or business owner, the ruling regime could come up to you, point a few guns at you and declare your property to be the property of the state... communal ownership and wealth redistribution at its finest... the consequences of such actions are the reason I'm in the US now... but yeah, I don't really understand socialism . I guess the only one's who truly do are the ivory tower liberals who never lived in a socialst state, but study it theoretically and espouse the view that it could be a wonderful system if only given a chance... now, with taxation of income, we suffer from a similar form of tyranny and wealth redistribution.[/quote]
So we've moved on from blanketing as "socialism" anything we disagree with, and instead have now decided to label *anyone* we disagree with as "socialist." I'm socialist? News to me. Then again, based on the dichotomous worldview that you operate under, wherein anything the government does is socialism, and anything they don't deal with is not, why should I be surprised that your tolerance threshold is so artificially small?
I've never bought into the "it's socialism when the federal does it, and it's freedom when the state does it" argument underlying "states rights." It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned; problematic governing is problematic no matter what level of government you're talking about.
Your 'legal purposes' argument is folly and doesn't resolve Keyes' (and your!) desire to get government involved in areas of our lives that they shouldn't be. This fact doesn't change if it's the state-level congress that gets involved, instead of the federal congress. If you insist that "marriage" is an issue of faith, then I do believe that the focus of such an effort of a man focused on reducing the role of government should try to level that playing field by eliminating the legal rights associated with marriage (those that homosexuals are denied because of their being left out of this "religious" ceremony). A level playing field, and freedom for individuals, would result if JPs and judges could no longer grant any marriage license or divorce, divorce rates would be reduced if all couples were scrutinized by a cleric of some sort, and straight folks would not have legal advantages over homosexual counterparts as a result of the kinds of legal definitions your decidedly "pro-freedom" agenda would impose on myself and everyone else.
And let's be honest: denial of a right is as much of a deplorable tenet as imposition of something (your dreaded "wealth redistribution").
Yes, yes, yes; you've said all this before. I'm merely pointing out that these cries of "socialism" are a cheap response that is too often used when people who share ideologies with you (and you yourself) have no genuine criticism to offer up, because (1) it doesn't substantively tackle what is wrong with the issues, instead trying to paint it as something "commies" do and thus unworthy, and (2) all candidates want to abuse their power, and it's a matter of degrees. It's not as if you see me trying to act like Bush is the next Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe for using his position of power to improve the living conditions and financial situations of his close, already wealthy buddies, much to the detriment of the economic condition of the majority of the population, you know? It's a shame you have so little respect that you have to go to the "socialist" well so often instead of talking about issues. That's all I'm saying.
. I guess the only one's who truly do are the ivory tower liberals who never lived in a socialst state, but study it theoretically and espouse the view that it could be a wonderful system if only given a chance... now, with taxation of income, we suffer from a similar form of tyranny and wealth redistribution.[/quote]So we've moved on from blanketing as "socialism" anything we disagree with, and instead have now decided to label *anyone* we disagree with as "socialist." I'm socialist? News to me. Then again, based on the dichotomous worldview that you operate under, wherein anything the government does is socialism, and anything they don't deal with is not, why should I be surprised that your tolerance threshold is so artificially small?
I've never bought into the "it's socialism when the federal does it, and it's freedom when the state does it" argument underlying "states rights." It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned; problematic governing is problematic no matter what level of government you're talking about.
Your 'legal purposes' argument is folly and doesn't resolve Keyes' (and your!) desire to get government involved in areas of our lives that they shouldn't be. This fact doesn't change if it's the state-level congress that gets involved, instead of the federal congress. If you insist that "marriage" is an issue of faith, then I do believe that the focus of such an effort of a man focused on reducing the role of government should try to level that playing field by eliminating the legal rights associated with marriage (those that homosexuals are denied because of their being left out of this "religious" ceremony). A level playing field, and freedom for individuals, would result if JPs and judges could no longer grant any marriage license or divorce, divorce rates would be reduced if all couples were scrutinized by a cleric of some sort, and straight folks would not have legal advantages over homosexual counterparts as a result of the kinds of legal definitions your decidedly "pro-freedom" agenda would impose on myself and everyone else.
And let's be honest: denial of a right is as much of a deplorable tenet as imposition of something (your dreaded "wealth redistribution").
Yes, yes, yes; you've said all this before. I'm merely pointing out that these cries of "socialism" are a cheap response that is too often used when people who share ideologies with you (and you yourself) have no genuine criticism to offer up, because (1) it doesn't substantively tackle what is wrong with the issues, instead trying to paint it as something "commies" do and thus unworthy, and (2) all candidates want to abuse their power, and it's a matter of degrees. It's not as if you see me trying to act like Bush is the next Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe for using his position of power to improve the living conditions and financial situations of his close, already wealthy buddies, much to the detriment of the economic condition of the majority of the population, you know? It's a shame you have so little respect that you have to go to the "socialist" well so often instead of talking about issues. That's all I'm saying.
[quote name='BigT']as well as his focus on morality as the basis of people's lives. The fact that a government does not recognize homosexual marriage is much different than "rounding them up." Their basic rights should not and are not being violated.[/quote]
What kind of morality? The same kind of morality that because an ancient bedtime story said so,in' someone in the ass was punishable by law? I always love listening to people (you) talk about minority rights- or lack thereof- 'cause it's always easy to say things like that when they (you) don't have to experience how much it sucks, right?
What kind of morality? The same kind of morality that because an ancient bedtime story said so,
in' someone in the ass was punishable by law? I always love listening to people (you) talk about minority rights- or lack thereof- 'cause it's always easy to say things like that when they (you) don't have to experience how much it sucks, right?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Shush - he knows what's good for the country, and he's going to make sure that he gets a satisfactorily small government to cover up the things that are important to him. Not you.
My bad. I always wonder where the small-government, pro-personal rights conservatives/libertarians are when issues like DADT and DOMA rear their heads. Someone bitched about DADT the other day- use your in' head. It's not about being in-your-face about your sexuality, it's about not being kicked out if you have a photo of your significant other for sentimental value; it's about getting rid of seperate-but-equal-bullshit. It's about being mature adults, rather than 'Ewwww, he likes guys! That's gross!' Get over yourselves.
DOMA is just crap. There's no purpose for it at all except to reinforce xenophobic ignorance.
in' head. It's not about being in-your-face about your sexuality, it's about not being kicked out if you have a photo of your significant other for sentimental value; it's about getting rid of seperate-but-equal-bullshit. It's about being mature adults, rather than 'Ewwww, he likes guys! That's gross!' Get over yourselves.DOMA is just crap. There's no purpose for it at all except to reinforce xenophobic ignorance.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
DADT, DOMA, NAFTA: All Clinton
Now today, who are the politicians pushing these agendas? The same gang of nitwits who blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. :lol:
Now today, who are the politicians pushing these agendas? The same gang of nitwits who blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. :lol:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='BigT']I despise socialism with a passion because of what it did to the Eastern Bloc as a whole and to what it did to my family on a personal level... you see, if one was a major land or business owner, the ruling regime could come up to you, point a few guns at you and declare your property to be the property of the state... communal ownership and wealth redistribution at its finest... the consequences of such actions are the reason I'm in the US now... but yeah, I don't really understand socialism . I guess the only one's who truly do are the ivory tower liberals who never lived in a socialst state, but study it theoretically and espouse the view that it could be a wonderful system if only given a chance... now, with taxation of income, we suffer from a similar form of tyranny and wealth redistribution.[/quote]
I think when socialism is mentioned in America, it's mentioned in the context that the English and western European countries have govts with some socialist characteristics (IE socialized health care). I agree with you in that most ppl who advocate all-out socialism in America are likely ivory tower radicals, but in the same token these people are a vast minority of the total American population.
I read alot of science fiction - I think socialism could work... in about 50,000 years when humanity has evolved into beings of pure light :lol:
. I guess the only one's who truly do are the ivory tower liberals who never lived in a socialst state, but study it theoretically and espouse the view that it could be a wonderful system if only given a chance... now, with taxation of income, we suffer from a similar form of tyranny and wealth redistribution.[/quote]I think when socialism is mentioned in America, it's mentioned in the context that the English and western European countries have govts with some socialist characteristics (IE socialized health care). I agree with you in that most ppl who advocate all-out socialism in America are likely ivory tower radicals, but in the same token these people are a vast minority of the total American population.
I read alot of science fiction - I think socialism could work... in about 50,000 years when humanity has evolved into beings of pure light :lol:
[quote name='mykevermin']DADT, DOMA, NAFTA: All Clinton
Now today, who are the politicians pushing these agendas? The same gang of nitwits who blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. :lol:[/quote]
I choose to view this as a hopeful sign, a natural progression toward tolerance and open-mindedness. What used to be considered moderate is now considered conservative. 20, even 10 years ago, could we have conceived of either of the current democratic front runners achieving the level of support they have?
Oh, and to get the thread KIND OF back on topic, unless something very good happens for Obama or something very bad happens to Clinton over the next five weeks, I think she will take Pennsylvania. If you look at the breakdown of the state, it would be very hard for her not to. But as others have said, it doesn't matter. Obama will maintain his lead, and will most likely take the majority of the remaining states as well. The way the Democratic primary system is set up, you literally have to pull down a margin of victory of like 25-35 points to gain a substantially larger amount of delegates in a state than your rival. And that's only happened in a very small number of instances (I'm proud to say Georgia was one that went that way for Obama).
The thing we have to worry about at this point is Clinton gerrymandering superdelegates behind the scenes, shenanigans involving Michigan and Florida, lawyers, etc. I'm also concerned about all the irreparable damage the candidates could do to each other before the convention, essentially doing the RNC's job for them.
Now today, who are the politicians pushing these agendas? The same gang of nitwits who blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. :lol:[/quote]
I choose to view this as a hopeful sign, a natural progression toward tolerance and open-mindedness. What used to be considered moderate is now considered conservative. 20, even 10 years ago, could we have conceived of either of the current democratic front runners achieving the level of support they have?
Oh, and to get the thread KIND OF back on topic, unless something very good happens for Obama or something very bad happens to Clinton over the next five weeks, I think she will take Pennsylvania. If you look at the breakdown of the state, it would be very hard for her not to. But as others have said, it doesn't matter. Obama will maintain his lead, and will most likely take the majority of the remaining states as well. The way the Democratic primary system is set up, you literally have to pull down a margin of victory of like 25-35 points to gain a substantially larger amount of delegates in a state than your rival. And that's only happened in a very small number of instances (I'm proud to say Georgia was one that went that way for Obama).
The thing we have to worry about at this point is Clinton gerrymandering superdelegates behind the scenes, shenanigans involving Michigan and Florida, lawyers, etc. I'm also concerned about all the irreparable damage the candidates could do to each other before the convention, essentially doing the RNC's job for them.
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']That's the thing. He doesn't need to. He has a wide enough lead that Hillary would need to win by large margins in the rest of the states to pass him in the delegate count.[/quote]
Yeah, you're right on that...but I think she can win PA by 15%.
Yeah, you're right on that...but I think she can win PA by 15%.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='BigT']The fact that a government does not recognize homosexual marriage is much different than "rounding them up." Their basic rights should not and are not being violated. I view marriage more as a spiritual and religious issue than a secular one; so, if a homosexual couple is part of a faith that supports homosexual marriage, I have no problem with them getting married under that faith. IMHO, for legal purposes, marriage should be a states' rights issue into which the federal government should have limited say.
[/quote]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If I understand the First Amendment correctly, religion isn't a states' rights issue.
[/quote]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If I understand the First Amendment correctly, religion isn't a states' rights issue.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='BigT']I view marriage more as a spiritual and religious issue than a secular one;[/quote]
Spoken like someone who has never been to divorce court
Spoken like someone who has never been to divorce court
JolietJake
Banned
Thats such a cop out, i can't think of a single religion that permits homosexual marriage, it isn't even a religious issue to begin with, it's a legal one.
Marriage is part religion, part legal matter. You have to have a marriage license to get married, whether it's from a a church or a justice of the peace. A lot of homosexual couples would probably be happy with just the legal status of being married, never mind the religious ceremony, but they can't even get that.
Usually i would say that it's a state by state issue, but if we are going to have true equality in this country it needs to be done on a federal level. There are way to many rednecks, good 'ole boys, hicks etc. in this country to get it done in each state.
I seem to remember something about all men being created equal, they didn't say everyone but the homos.
Marriage is part religion, part legal matter. You have to have a marriage license to get married, whether it's from a a church or a justice of the peace. A lot of homosexual couples would probably be happy with just the legal status of being married, never mind the religious ceremony, but they can't even get that.
Usually i would say that it's a state by state issue, but if we are going to have true equality in this country it needs to be done on a federal level. There are way to many rednecks, good 'ole boys, hicks etc. in this country to get it done in each state.
I seem to remember something about all men being created equal, they didn't say everyone but the homos.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='JolietJake']Thats such a cop out, i can't think of a single religion that permits homosexual marriage, it isn't even a religious issue to begin with, it's a legal one.[/quote]
Spoken like someone who never studied classical civ.
Seriously though, the mainstream versions of Abrahamic religions certainly have no tolerance for homosexual relationships but many other religions don't see it as a big deal.
Spoken like someone who never studied classical civ.
Seriously though, the mainstream versions of Abrahamic religions certainly have no tolerance for homosexual relationships but many other religions don't see it as a big deal.
[quote name='JolietJake']A lot of homosexual couples would probably be happy with just the legal status of being married, never mind the religious ceremony, but they can't even get that.
[/quote]
Bingo. I'd be happy marrying my boyfriend through a civil marriage- I don't think either of us want to be even nearly associated with a church. :lol:
[/quote]
Bingo. I'd be happy marrying my boyfriend through a civil marriage- I don't think either of us want to be even nearly associated with a church. :lol:
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Tybee']I'm also concerned about all the irreparable damage the candidates could do to each other before the convention, essentially doing the RNC's job for them.[/QUOTE]
I was worrying about this also, much moreso from Clinton going negative than Obama.
At the same time though, I'm loving the fact that the teevee is essentially 23.9/7 coverage of Obama vs. Clinton. They save the extra sliver to remind people that McCain isn't dead and that he's desperately seeking cash handouts for the big event. His issues and persona have been virtually eliminated from national coverage in any real sense compared to the Dem candidates, all because of the heavyweight battle still going.
Just saying there's definitely benefits from the Dem point of view.
[quote name='Hex']Bingo. I'd be happy marrying my boyfriend through a civil marriage- I don't think either of us want to be even nearly associated with a church. :lol:[/QUOTE]
I see it as two willing participants being blocked from entering into a contract for personal financial gain. If that's not anti-American, I don't know what is.
I was worrying about this also, much moreso from Clinton going negative than Obama.
At the same time though, I'm loving the fact that the teevee is essentially 23.9/7 coverage of Obama vs. Clinton. They save the extra sliver to remind people that McCain isn't dead and that he's desperately seeking cash handouts for the big event. His issues and persona have been virtually eliminated from national coverage in any real sense compared to the Dem candidates, all because of the heavyweight battle still going.
Just saying there's definitely benefits from the Dem point of view.
[quote name='Hex']Bingo. I'd be happy marrying my boyfriend through a civil marriage- I don't think either of us want to be even nearly associated with a church. :lol:[/QUOTE]
I see it as two willing participants being blocked from entering into a contract for personal financial gain. If that's not anti-American, I don't know what is.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Hex']
Let me guess, Michael Savage would make a dandy presidental candidate too, right? Please. I used to think like you do, then I graduated high school and grew up.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing it was a Public high school. Probably in a coastal region.
Let me guess, Michael Savage would make a dandy presidental candidate too, right? Please. I used to think like you do, then I graduated high school and grew up.[/QUOTE]I'm guessing it was a Public high school. Probably in a coastal region.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm guessing it was a Public high school. Probably in a coastal region.[/quote]
Public, yes, but you couldn't be more wrong on the latter- rural Colorado, right in the middle of the country and a big juicy red state. Not Boulder, either.
Nice generalization though.
Public, yes, but you couldn't be more wrong on the latter- rural Colorado, right in the middle of the country and a big juicy red state. Not Boulder, either.
Nice generalization though.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='JolietJake']Wow, you're so anti establishment with that Che avatar. You must be the first person to associate themselves with his image.[/QUOTE]
I thought Che was the symbol of being anti-establishment. That's why so many mind-numbed MTV raised teens embrace his face on their shirt.
I thought Che was the symbol of being anti-establishment. That's why so many mind-numbed MTV raised teens embrace his face on their shirt.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='speedracer']
I see it as two willing participants being blocked from entering into a contract for personal financial gain. If that's not anti-American, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]
You just described the ultimate problem: That benefits from being married, or just being "two willing participants" are depended upon, and even expected, from the Fed to live.
If what the gay Mariage argument really comes do to is finacial benefits, then maybe it's time we remove Mariage from the list of things you can do to gain hand-outs. Mariage, friendships, and any degree of a relationship between people should not somehow be measured and given rewards for by the Fed.
I see it as two willing participants being blocked from entering into a contract for personal financial gain. If that's not anti-American, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]
You just described the ultimate problem: That benefits from being married, or just being "two willing participants" are depended upon, and even expected, from the Fed to live.
If what the gay Mariage argument really comes do to is finacial benefits, then maybe it's time we remove Mariage from the list of things you can do to gain hand-outs. Mariage, friendships, and any degree of a relationship between people should not somehow be measured and given rewards for by the Fed.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='camoor']Spoken like someone who never studied classical civ.
Seriously though, the mainstream versions of Abrahamic religions certainly have no tolerance for homosexual relationships but many other religions don't see it as a big deal.[/quote]
I know that homoesexuality was an open and accepted thing in ancient greek society, but that doesn't really apply here.
Seriously though, the mainstream versions of Abrahamic religions certainly have no tolerance for homosexual relationships but many other religions don't see it as a big deal.[/quote]
I know that homoesexuality was an open and accepted thing in ancient greek society, but that doesn't really apply here.
[quote name='thrustbucket']If what the gay Mariage argument really comes do to is finacial benefits, then maybe it's time we remove Mariage from the list of things you can do to gain hand-outs. Mariage, friendships, and any degree of a relationship between people should not somehow be measured and given rewards for by the Fed.[/quote]
But that's the the whole argument. I'd say 90% of the argument is that homosexual couples should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. There's absolutely no difference between being homosexual and heterosexual except for one thing, and that's that one person has the capability to have affection for someone of the same gender while the other has the capability to affection for the opposite sex. There is no grounds for discrimination, anywhere.
But that's the the whole argument. I'd say 90% of the argument is that homosexual couples should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. There's absolutely no difference between being homosexual and heterosexual except for one thing, and that's that one person has the capability to have affection for someone of the same gender while the other has the capability to affection for the opposite sex. There is no grounds for discrimination, anywhere.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Hex']But that's the the whole argument. I'd say 90% of the argument is that homosexual couples should be treated as equally as heterosexual couples. There's absolutely no difference between being homosexual and heterosexual except for one thing, and that's that one person has the capability to have affection for someone of the same gender while the other has the capability to affection for the opposite sex. There is no grounds for discrimination, anywhere.[/QUOTE]
Um. That's the only difference you see?
Heterosexual couples can usually have offspring which is the primary reason for "benefits" that the government provides them (or should be).
Now if you want to make it so Homosexual couples can rescue orphans through adoption, then sure, give them benefits and tax breaks to. But it should be about the kids then, not the adults.
How you use your cock and where you like to put it should have no bearing at all on what types of benefits you get from the government, I can agree with that.
But maybe the real discrimination is against people that aren't married. Why should they get stuck with no benefits? Either share among all or take most of it away.
If you simply make it so any partnership should get benefits, what's to stop every one with a brain from finding a quick buddy to drive down to the courthouse with them so they can get benefits too? I know I would.
Um. That's the only difference you see?
Heterosexual couples can usually have offspring which is the primary reason for "benefits" that the government provides them (or should be).
Now if you want to make it so Homosexual couples can rescue orphans through adoption, then sure, give them benefits and tax breaks to. But it should be about the kids then, not the adults.
How you use your cock and where you like to put it should have no bearing at all on what types of benefits you get from the government, I can agree with that.
But maybe the real discrimination is against people that aren't married. Why should they get stuck with no benefits? Either share among all or take most of it away.
If you simply make it so any partnership should get benefits, what's to stop every one with a brain from finding a quick buddy to drive down to the courthouse with them so they can get benefits too? I know I would.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='JolietJake']I know that homoesexuality was an open and accepted thing in ancient greek society, but that doesn't really apply here.[/quote]
Well that's why I broke up the post.
In the second sentence I'm addressing non-Abrahamic religions (essentially all religions other then Islam, Judaism, Christianity). Some of them still exist!
Well that's why I broke up the post.
In the second sentence I'm addressing non-Abrahamic religions (essentially all religions other then Islam, Judaism, Christianity). Some of them still exist!
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']You just described the ultimate problem: That benefits from being married, or just being "two willing participants" are depended upon, and even expected, from the Fed to live.
If what the gay Mariage argument really comes do to is finacial benefits, then maybe it's time we remove Mariage from the list of things you can do to gain hand-outs. Mariage, friendships, and any degree of a relationship between people should not somehow be measured and given rewards for by the Fed.[/QUOTE]
But that is, of course, shortsighted due to the gains society (and government) get from encouraging marriage: more children, more productive citizens, and increased stability in society.
It certainly isn't entirely based on the financial aspect, but it is a factor, no doubt.
Moreover, there are legal distinctions that don't involve the government taking money from anyone (though I'm sure that's an alien concept for self-described conservatives to consider); visitation issues, custody issues, power of attorney issues, inheritance/estate issues, and so on - *none* of which can be flippantly disregarded without destroying one of the foundations for creating wealth in this country (getting it from your family legacy), and destroying one of the greatest motivators in a capitalist society: taking care of you and your family.
soooooooooooo socialist.
If what the gay Mariage argument really comes do to is finacial benefits, then maybe it's time we remove Mariage from the list of things you can do to gain hand-outs. Mariage, friendships, and any degree of a relationship between people should not somehow be measured and given rewards for by the Fed.[/QUOTE]
But that is, of course, shortsighted due to the gains society (and government) get from encouraging marriage: more children, more productive citizens, and increased stability in society.
It certainly isn't entirely based on the financial aspect, but it is a factor, no doubt.
Moreover, there are legal distinctions that don't involve the government taking money from anyone (though I'm sure that's an alien concept for self-described conservatives to consider); visitation issues, custody issues, power of attorney issues, inheritance/estate issues, and so on - *none* of which can be flippantly disregarded without destroying one of the foundations for creating wealth in this country (getting it from your family legacy), and destroying one of the greatest motivators in a capitalist society: taking care of you and your family.
soooooooooooo socialist.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']You just described the ultimate problem: That benefits from being married, or just being "two willing participants" are depended upon, and even expected, from the Fed to live.
If what the gay Mariage argument really comes do to is finacial benefits, then maybe it's time we remove Mariage from the list of things you can do to gain hand-outs. Mariage, friendships, and any degree of a relationship between people should not somehow be measured and given rewards for by the Fed.[/quote]
Well part of it is health insurance, health insurance companies will extend coverage to a spouse or children, but not a live-in partner. Gaining recognition as being legally married would make it so they have to. That isn't really a hand out from the government.
If what the gay Mariage argument really comes do to is finacial benefits, then maybe it's time we remove Mariage from the list of things you can do to gain hand-outs. Mariage, friendships, and any degree of a relationship between people should not somehow be measured and given rewards for by the Fed.[/quote]
Well part of it is health insurance, health insurance companies will extend coverage to a spouse or children, but not a live-in partner. Gaining recognition as being legally married would make it so they have to. That isn't really a hand out from the government.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='camoor']Well that's why I broke up the post.
In the second sentence I'm addressing non-Abrahamic religions (essentially all religions other then Islam, Judaism, Christianity). Some of them still exist![/quote]Well i think they'd need to be a little more mainstream before they're overly accepted. If you mean they should claim one of them as their religion to get married, i see that being fought against too. Kind of the way that some people have claimed their religion as "jedi" on government forms.
In the second sentence I'm addressing non-Abrahamic religions (essentially all religions other then Islam, Judaism, Christianity). Some of them still exist![/quote]Well i think they'd need to be a little more mainstream before they're overly accepted. If you mean they should claim one of them as their religion to get married, i see that being fought against too. Kind of the way that some people have claimed their religion as "jedi" on government forms.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='JolietJake']Well i think they'd need to be a little more mainstream before they're overly accepted. If you mean they should claim one of them as their religion to get married, i see that being fought against too. Kind of the way that some people have claimed their religion as "jedi" on government forms.[/quote]
Oh I agree with you. I think that any country dominated by an Abrahamic religion such as Christianity (such as America) or Islam (such as Saudi Arabia) will not be willing to grant the homosexuals marriage rights. Despite what it says in the first amendment of our constitution, religious bigots still have a few cards they can play in denying the rights of minorities.
Oh I agree with you. I think that any country dominated by an Abrahamic religion such as Christianity (such as America) or Islam (such as Saudi Arabia) will not be willing to grant the homosexuals marriage rights. Despite what it says in the first amendment of our constitution, religious bigots still have a few cards they can play in denying the rights of minorities.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Here is my unfunny cartoon response to your unfunny cartoon.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Moreover, there are legal distinctions that don't involve the government taking money from anyone (though I'm sure that's an alien concept for self-described conservatives to consider); visitation issues, custody issues, power of attorney issues, inheritance/estate issues, and so on - *none* of which can be flippantly disregarded without destroying one of the foundations for creating wealth in this country (getting it from your family legacy), and destroying one of the greatest motivators in a capitalist society: taking care of you and your family.
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='JolietJake']Well part of it is health insurance, health insurance companies will extend coverage to a spouse or children, but not a live-in partner. Gaining recognition as being legally married would make it so they have to. That isn't really a hand out from the government.[/QUOTE]
Those are both good points. Marriage is important to gays for various legal reasons that aren't financial handouts from the government. There's no reason a heterosexual spouse should get health covereage while a homosexual partner (who would be a spouse if allowed) does not.
Or that they can't be a relative who can make medical decisions if the person is in a coma etc. etc.
There's no reason the government shouldn't treat gay couples the same as straight couples in these regards, and that's why their needs to be some kind of legal marriage for gays.
Churches are free not to recongize them or perform the ceromonies if they choose. Legal marriage and religious marriage aren't intertwined fundamentally. If I ever get married it will have nothing to do with a church. Though being non-religious and not wanting children I don't really care about marriage (nor does my current girlfriend thankfully).
Moreover, there are legal distinctions that don't involve the government taking money from anyone (though I'm sure that's an alien concept for self-described conservatives to consider); visitation issues, custody issues, power of attorney issues, inheritance/estate issues, and so on - *none* of which can be flippantly disregarded without destroying one of the foundations for creating wealth in this country (getting it from your family legacy), and destroying one of the greatest motivators in a capitalist society: taking care of you and your family.
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='JolietJake']Well part of it is health insurance, health insurance companies will extend coverage to a spouse or children, but not a live-in partner. Gaining recognition as being legally married would make it so they have to. That isn't really a hand out from the government.[/QUOTE]
Those are both good points. Marriage is important to gays for various legal reasons that aren't financial handouts from the government. There's no reason a heterosexual spouse should get health covereage while a homosexual partner (who would be a spouse if allowed) does not.
Or that they can't be a relative who can make medical decisions if the person is in a coma etc. etc.
There's no reason the government shouldn't treat gay couples the same as straight couples in these regards, and that's why their needs to be some kind of legal marriage for gays.
Churches are free not to recongize them or perform the ceromonies if they choose. Legal marriage and religious marriage aren't intertwined fundamentally. If I ever get married it will have nothing to do with a church. Though being non-religious and not wanting children I don't really care about marriage (nor does my current girlfriend thankfully).
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']But that is, of course, shortsighted due to the gains society (and government) get from encouraging marriage: more children, more productive citizens, and increased stability in society.[/quote]
All of which can be easily encouraged other ways without pushing an institution that has it's historical origins in religion, wouldn't you say?
I find it very conflicting that generally the people that hate religion are so caught up in how Marriage is defined. They really should just be trying to remove Marriage recognition at a Federal level if they care so much about separation of church and state.
Oh wait though.... those that hate religion so much and love to preach church and state separation generally tend to love Federal handouts the most too....
Every issue you list is an issue to do with kids, except power of attorney, you'll have to explain to me how Federal Marital policy directly affects Power of Attorney laws.
Again, the laws should protect kids regardless of what their parents do with their genitals in private. Sexuality doesn't/shouldn't be an integral part in one's identity. I feel sorry for anyone that feels it is.
Additionally, I really don't get your anti-capitalistic joke at the end there.... But if you hate capitalism so much, why not move to Europe? You'll have all the moral apathy, pacifistic, super tolerance and wealth redistribution you could ever want.
All of which can be easily encouraged other ways without pushing an institution that has it's historical origins in religion, wouldn't you say?
I find it very conflicting that generally the people that hate religion are so caught up in how Marriage is defined. They really should just be trying to remove Marriage recognition at a Federal level if they care so much about separation of church and state.
Oh wait though.... those that hate religion so much and love to preach church and state separation generally tend to love Federal handouts the most too....
Every issue you list is an issue to do with kids, except power of attorney, you'll have to explain to me how Federal Marital policy directly affects Power of Attorney laws.
Again, the laws should protect kids regardless of what their parents do with their genitals in private. Sexuality doesn't/shouldn't be an integral part in one's identity. I feel sorry for anyone that feels it is.
Additionally, I really don't get your anti-capitalistic joke at the end there.... But if you hate capitalism so much, why not move to Europe? You'll have all the moral apathy, pacifistic, super tolerance and wealth redistribution you could ever want.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
I do not know how the conversation got to this point, and I don't want to spend the 10 minutes of loading time to open up the previous page. Having said that...[quote name='thrustbucket']
Heterosexual couples can usually have offspring which is the primary reason for "benefits" that the government provides them (or should be). [/quote]ing infertile and elderly couples not giving us fresh blood...
[quote name='thrustbucket'] If you simply make it so any partnership should get benefits, what's to stop every one with a brain from finding a quick buddy to drive down to the courthouse with them so they can get benefits too? I know I would.[/quote]Because it's totally impossible to get into a sham marriage as it is?
Heterosexual couples can usually have offspring which is the primary reason for "benefits" that the government provides them (or should be). [/quote]
ing infertile and elderly couples not giving us fresh blood...[quote name='thrustbucket'] If you simply make it so any partnership should get benefits, what's to stop every one with a brain from finding a quick buddy to drive down to the courthouse with them so they can get benefits too? I know I would.[/quote]Because it's totally impossible to get into a sham marriage as it is?
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='The Crotch']I do not know how the conversation got to this point, and I don't want to spend the 10 minutes of loading time to open up the previous page. Having said that...ing infertile and elderly couples not giving us fresh blood...
[/quote]
...but they can in principle. It is only by some incidental factor (age, low sperm count, a varicocele, endometriosis, PCOS, an anatomical abnormality, etc.) that they are not able to have a child (I'll cite Alan Keyes for this argument).
A homosexual couple, cannot, in principle, reproduce on their own.
Perhaps if one of them were a male to female post-op transsexual, who is status post uterine transplant (that's not exactly available, plus immunosuppression would suck), there may be a theoretical chance by which two genetically XY males would be able to reproduce.
ing infertile and elderly couples not giving us fresh blood...[/quote]
...but they can in principle. It is only by some incidental factor (age, low sperm count, a varicocele, endometriosis, PCOS, an anatomical abnormality, etc.) that they are not able to have a child (I'll cite Alan Keyes for this argument).
A homosexual couple, cannot, in principle, reproduce on their own.
Perhaps if one of them were a male to female post-op transsexual, who is status post uterine transplant (that's not exactly available, plus immunosuppression would suck), there may be a theoretical chance by which two genetically XY males would be able to reproduce.
JolietJake
Banned
Actually, it's funny that you mention that. Gay people can't reproduce, so they can't create any more potential homosexuals. On the other hand, a straight couple could have a dozen kids and all of them be homosexual. So the people who hate homosexuals the most, are the ones creating them.:lol:
Of course, if you believe in the "gay by choice" argument, i guess you'd just roll your eyes at that.
Of course, if you believe in the "gay by choice" argument, i guess you'd just roll your eyes at that.
BigT
CAGiversary!
There has not been any conclusive proof that homosexuality is inherited through genetic means. Of course, this does not rule out that possibility.
I personally believe that it's probably a multifactorial and heterogenous etiology. While there may be a propensity towards homosexuality based on neurological or endocrinological factors, the environment most certainly modulates these factors. Most likely it would represent something like an visual analog scale with degrees of propensity towards homosexuality, which may then be brought out by social or environmental factors. Gender identity, intersex conditions, and sexual orientation are truly fascinating conditions on an intellectual level... Eric Vilain at UCLA does great work on this topic for anyone interested.
...but that's all speculation... the answer whether homosexuality is a choice or is not a choice cannot be conclusively answered with current knowledge.
I personally believe that it's probably a multifactorial and heterogenous etiology. While there may be a propensity towards homosexuality based on neurological or endocrinological factors, the environment most certainly modulates these factors. Most likely it would represent something like an visual analog scale with degrees of propensity towards homosexuality, which may then be brought out by social or environmental factors. Gender identity, intersex conditions, and sexual orientation are truly fascinating conditions on an intellectual level... Eric Vilain at UCLA does great work on this topic for anyone interested.
...but that's all speculation... the answer whether homosexuality is a choice or is not a choice cannot be conclusively answered with current knowledge.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']All of which can be easily encouraged other ways without pushing an institution that has it's historical origins in religion, wouldn't you say?[/quote]
Oh those old-time religions just contain all sorts of excellent ideas about marriage don't they? You'd have to be a lunatic to challenge any of their marriage policies!
Never mind the fact that modern western society was founded upon the political philosophy and culture of the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman societies (aka "The Renaissance") - now what were their ideas on marriage and companionship again?
Or would you like to take us back to the Dark Ages when the Sun revolved around a flat Earth, kings ruled by divine right, and witches were burned at the stake?
Oh those old-time religions just contain all sorts of excellent ideas about marriage don't they? You'd have to be a lunatic to challenge any of their marriage policies!
Never mind the fact that modern western society was founded upon the political philosophy and culture of the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman societies (aka "The Renaissance") - now what were their ideas on marriage and companionship again?
Or would you like to take us back to the Dark Ages when the Sun revolved around a flat Earth, kings ruled by divine right, and witches were burned at the stake?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Oh those old-time religions just contain all sorts of excellent ideas about marriage don't they? You'd have to be a lunatic to challenge any of their marriage policies!
Never mind the fact that modern western society was founded upon the political philosophy and culture of the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman societies (aka "The Renaissance") - now what were their ideas on marriage and companionship again?
Or would you like to take us back to the Dark Ages when the Sun revolved around a flat Earth, kings ruled by divine right, and witches were burned at the stake?[/QUOTE]
Since everything I said obviously went way over your head, let me just tone it down a bit and say this:
The gods you likely worship (scientists, your professors) mostly agree that Marriage's origins, anciently speaking, are in religion. That was my only point.
It's an institution founded by ancient religious motivation but kept and handed down throughout time because of it's seemingly positive benefits on society.
In a very literal sense, the fact that governments recognize and contingent benefits upon Marriage - is mixing church and state. That should be your issue, but it isn't.
I just find it hypocritical that the very people that want to uproot and banish every iota of religious remnants in government or public society usually stop short of the ones that reap physical benefits.
Never mind the fact that modern western society was founded upon the political philosophy and culture of the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman societies (aka "The Renaissance") - now what were their ideas on marriage and companionship again?
Or would you like to take us back to the Dark Ages when the Sun revolved around a flat Earth, kings ruled by divine right, and witches were burned at the stake?[/QUOTE]
Since everything I said obviously went way over your head, let me just tone it down a bit and say this:
The gods you likely worship (scientists, your professors) mostly agree that Marriage's origins, anciently speaking, are in religion. That was my only point.
It's an institution founded by ancient religious motivation but kept and handed down throughout time because of it's seemingly positive benefits on society.
In a very literal sense, the fact that governments recognize and contingent benefits upon Marriage - is mixing church and state. That should be your issue, but it isn't.
I just find it hypocritical that the very people that want to uproot and banish every iota of religious remnants in government or public society usually stop short of the ones that reap physical benefits.
This thread took a turn for the weird.
I've never really understood this whole gay-marriage fiasco. I would prefer to keep the word "marriage" to retain its historical definition (and thus have a different term for a homosexual union), but I'm not sure it's a huge thing if it doesn't. Christians have a clear definition in the Word of God about what exactly marriage is from a religious standpoint. A civil recognition of homosexual relationships doesn't negate my marriage, nor my Scriptures, nor does it prevent people from getting heterosexual marriages.
My concern for homosexuals is their spiritual well-being, not whether or not they can get a tax break from the feds. I'm not entirely certain why, if we're being consistent, we don't allow homosexual relationships to be formally recognized. I have the same questions regarding abortion vs. murder of a pregnant woman, but that's a completely different can of worms; the one open here is plenty for now I suppose.
I've never really understood this whole gay-marriage fiasco. I would prefer to keep the word "marriage" to retain its historical definition (and thus have a different term for a homosexual union), but I'm not sure it's a huge thing if it doesn't. Christians have a clear definition in the Word of God about what exactly marriage is from a religious standpoint. A civil recognition of homosexual relationships doesn't negate my marriage, nor my Scriptures, nor does it prevent people from getting heterosexual marriages.
My concern for homosexuals is their spiritual well-being, not whether or not they can get a tax break from the feds. I'm not entirely certain why, if we're being consistent, we don't allow homosexual relationships to be formally recognized. I have the same questions regarding abortion vs. murder of a pregnant woman, but that's a completely different can of worms; the one open here is plenty for now I suppose.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Are we still using cartoons instead of words? Because if so... well, just replace Gabe's words with yours.[quote name='thrustbucket']
The gods you likely worship (scientists, your professors)[/quote]
The gods you likely worship (scientists, your professors)[/quote]
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
Getting back on topic, it will be interesting to see the results of the Texas caucus when they finally come in.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']Are we still using cartoons instead of words? Because if so... well, just replace Gabe's words with yours.
[/quote]
LoL. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure your point will be way over TB's head.
LoL. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure your point will be way over TB's head.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']My concern for homosexuals is their spiritual well-being[/quote]
Is your god a homophobe?
...
Meanwhile at St. Peter's check-in station ...
OK, it appears you read to orphans, tended to the elderly, gave money to church and charities to the point of being unable to own a house or car. That's quite amazing. Hmm. What's this? You sucked the same guy's dick for 30 years. Oh, my!
It reads: "The first rule of heaven: No puffters!"
Moral of the story: If you're going to engage in homosexual relations, you might as well eat orphans, beat up the elderly and only give a about yourself.
Is your god a homophobe?
...
Meanwhile at St. Peter's check-in station ...
OK, it appears you read to orphans, tended to the elderly, gave money to church and charities to the point of being unable to own a house or car. That's quite amazing. Hmm. What's this? You sucked the same guy's dick for 30 years. Oh, my!
It reads: "The first rule of heaven: No puffters!"
Moral of the story: If you're going to engage in homosexual relations, you might as well eat orphans, beat up the elderly and only give a
about yourself.[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is your god a homophobe?[/quote]Nah, he just doesn't dig sin of any variety, mine or anyone else's. Your little story makes me assume that you don't know much of the ins-and-outs of the Christian faith. Here's a basic run down of it, at the #2 point. (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3939774&postcount=315)
This isn't a proper thread for such a discussion, but I'll leave it at this: God isn't "scared" of homosexuals, but he does punish sin, all sin. Moralistic groups who treat homosexuality as the "unforgivable sin" raise my ire far more than they do yours, I can assure you. Those rejecting forgiveness in Jesus, regardless of how outwardly "good" they may seem are in trouble, because God demands perfection. Thus, the whole reason for our Savior in Jesus--because none of us are perfect.
How about this election, eh?
This isn't a proper thread for such a discussion, but I'll leave it at this: God isn't "scared" of homosexuals, but he does punish sin, all sin. Moralistic groups who treat homosexuality as the "unforgivable sin" raise my ire far more than they do yours, I can assure you. Those rejecting forgiveness in Jesus, regardless of how outwardly "good" they may seem are in trouble, because God demands perfection. Thus, the whole reason for our Savior in Jesus--because none of us are perfect.
How about this election, eh?
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
I don't know why we are talking about homosexuality, but that is not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss homosexuality do it some place else. This is the Obama thread. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.
I just took the Glassbooth.org test and it came out as I expected from my digging around in the candidate's stances. Obama and McCain were very close to one another for me, coming at things from different perspectives (I obviously make a horrid Republican or Democrat); Clinton was pretty far removed from either of the other two.
If Clinton win the Dem's nomination, it's going to be a no-brainer come November. If Obama wins, it's going to take a lot of real wrestling with which issues are the most important / which candidates ideas have the most grounding in reality that they aren't just pie-in-the-sky dreams that will never, ever happen.
If Clinton win the Dem's nomination, it's going to be a no-brainer come November. If Obama wins, it's going to take a lot of real wrestling with which issues are the most important / which candidates ideas have the most grounding in reality that they aren't just pie-in-the-sky dreams that will never, ever happen.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']Since everything I said obviously went way over your head, let me just tone it down a bit and say this:
The gods you likely worship (scientists, your professors) mostly agree that Marriage's origins, anciently speaking, are in religion. That was my only point.
It's an institution founded by ancient religious motivation but kept and handed down throughout time because of it's seemingly positive benefits on society.
In a very literal sense, the fact that governments recognize and contingent benefits upon Marriage - is mixing church and state. That should be your issue, but it isn't.
I just find it hypocritical that the very people that want to uproot and banish every iota of religious remnants in government or public society usually stop short of the ones that reap physical benefits.[/quote]The gods you worship!?! Dude, put down the crack pipe.
The gods you likely worship (scientists, your professors) mostly agree that Marriage's origins, anciently speaking, are in religion. That was my only point.
It's an institution founded by ancient religious motivation but kept and handed down throughout time because of it's seemingly positive benefits on society.
In a very literal sense, the fact that governments recognize and contingent benefits upon Marriage - is mixing church and state. That should be your issue, but it isn't.
I just find it hypocritical that the very people that want to uproot and banish every iota of religious remnants in government or public society usually stop short of the ones that reap physical benefits.[/quote]The gods you worship!?! Dude, put down the crack pipe.
bread's done