Conservatives vs. Liberals

[Biff]

Based not on logic but on emotion.

Using the California Supreme Court as a litmus test of civil rights is like getting guitar playing advice from C.C. Deville.

There is no logical reason for same sex marriage. There are no civil rights being violated. It's another case of modern politicians usurping the will of the people by legislating from the bench rather than through the legislative branch as the founding fathers, who would be rolling in their graves, set up so perfectly.

*cue the overplayed and mis-used "the founding fathers had slaves" argument*

[Biff]

Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.

[oldsquid]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Try this. I fall by the Dali Lama

[providencecrow]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Try this. I fall by the Dali Lama

Worst poll/quiz ever. Take this one for example: controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Government should do neither, which is not an option.

Or how about this one: the rich are too highly taxed. How about EVERYONE is too highly taxed. Hell this country was founded on "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" and we existed for many years without an income tax, but our over inflated and bloated government now has made that completely not an option, so we screwed ourself.

And here is a doozy of an example of tricky wording right here "a significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." Of course that is an advantage of a one-party state, but its a disadvantage to society overall.

I took the test and im absolutely near no-one. I'm way down on the southern portion of the graph, and slightly to the right, which has no people in that quadrant at all in the international chart, and only friedman in th eone chart and hes way right and not very south, im like the juxtaposition of him.


Conclusion, this poll sucks, and i rule, apparently.

[speedbump]

Based not on logic but on emotion.

Using the California Supreme Court as a litmus test of civil rights is like getting guitar playing advice from C.C. Deville.

There is no logical reason for same sex marriage. There are no civil rights being violated. It's another case of modern politicians usurping the will of the people by legislating from the bench rather than through the legislative branch as the founding fathers, who would be rolling in their graves, set up so perfectly.

*cue the overplayed and mis-used "the founding fathers had slaves" argument*

How is their no logical reason? Should two people be denied a right to secular marriage just because they are of the same sex? It doesn't hurt YOU in any way, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Almost all religions ban same sex marriages, and that is their right, but the first amendment of the constitution gives people the right to religious freedom, or the right to none at all. They shouldn't be held back by religious laws.

[providencecrow]

How is their no logical reason? Should two people be denied a right to secular marriage just because they are of the same sex? It doesn't hurt YOU in any way, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Almost all religions ban same sex marriages, and that is their right, but the first amendment of the constitution gives people the right to religious freedom, or the right to none at all. They shouldn't be held back by religious laws.

EXALT! Last time i checked you do not need a religious figure to get married, you can do it at the courthouse, have it done by the mayor, or even by elvis if you go to las vegas. Who cares if elvis is marrying two dudes together? It's all just a giant tax scam anyway.

Edit: I apparently already used my exalt and totally forgot about it..damn short term mem....whats it called again?

[Biff]

[

How is their no logical reason? Should two people be denied a right to secular marriage just because they are of the same sex? It doesn't hurt YOU in any way, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Almost all religions ban same sex marriages, and that is their right, but the first amendment of the constitution gives people the right to religious freedom, or the right to none at all. They shouldn't be held back by religious laws.

So what you are saying is that it isn't fair that they can't marry who they want to marry, correct?

[providencecrow]

[quote author=speedbump board=politics thread=527 post=10205 time=1215041590]

So what you are saying is that it isn't fair that they can't marry who they want to marry, correct?

Even if he isn't saying it. I am. Age limits are one thing because that affects everyone. You say "You cant get married under age 18", that affects everyone regardless of religion, race, sexual preference, etc... and that is one thing. But to say "Hey jim, yo ucant marry joe because youre dudes, and even though you are in love with each other and are in a very very committed relationship, sorry cant do it. I know that there is no official religion in this country, but we still hold true to our laws based in Christianity and say you can't be married because the bible forbids it. No i don't care that we are singling you out as a group even though you contribute to society and what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is none of my business, but think about it, if we let men and men marry and women and women marry, then where do we stop, how long before a man marries a horse!!!!!11111oneoneoneone"

It's stupid, regardless of orientation we all are the same species so how the hell is it even remotely okay for us to legislate that one group of people is "normal" and can do something and another group of people isnt, so they cant do the same thing even though on the genetic level they are the same. (yes i know a direct DNA compare would be different that wasnt my point you nitpickers)

This is why government should do nothing other than take care of a voluntary, defensive only army, regulate the currency, and take care of criminals that actually directly cause harm to people. None of which our government is currently doing, so it looks like we are batting 1000 here.

[speedbump]

Obviously that's what you want me to be saying, I'm sure you have some very intelligent response waiting in the wings.

I think what providencecow said is more than sufficient of a response.

[Biff]

Here is what it boils down to and why it is an emotional argument.

Homosexuality is a sexual act or a sexual desire. Homosexuals want to change fundamental societal laws that have been in place around the world for thousands of years because of a sexual act or desire. There is no logic in that.

Secondly, there are a lot of people who cannot marry who they want. Polygamists are a fine example. What if first cousins wanted to marry? Why should they be excluded? What if an 18 year old son wanted to marry his mother? What if a brother and sister wanted to marry each other?

Homosexuals CAN GET MARRIED! There are no civil rights being violated. Marriage was defined by the voters of California and, in what is now a far too common and disgusting practice, the courts are being manipulated.

You cannot sit there with a straight look on your face and tell me that civil rights are being violated. You want to think they are but that's just you using emotion rather than logic.

I'm sorry, you and the rest of the pro-same sex marriage crowd continue to be wrong.

[providencecrow]

Secondly, there are a lot of people who cannot marry who they want. Polygamists are a fine example. What if first cousins wanted to marry? Why should they be excluded? What if an 18 year old son wanted to marry his mother? What if a brother and sister wanted to marry each other?

Polygamy should be legal too, seriously, it does not affect anyone's life except those involved in any way what so ever, so why stop them? Why should the government step in and tell people how to live their lives? They aren't our parents.

As for all the inbreeding you bring up, there actually is a medical reason that should not be done. Inbreeding increases chances of all sorts of genetic defects. I mean i don't care, if a brother and sister want to have some two headed babies, thats their business, but at least there is logic behind that particular law. There is no logic in saying it will change societal structure or anything like that. Hell, gay marriage is legal in a other countries, and they havn't crumbled to the ground and died out due to not enough of us "normies" procreating.

Case in point, the fact that two hot lesbians are wife and wife as opposed to girlfriend and girlfriend doesn't affect anyone at all. If they want a marriage license and all of the tax changes that come along with being married, i say let them. They aren't bothering me one bit.

[Biff]

If medical reasons are logical, then what about all the health issue concerns with male to male sex?

[providencecrow]

If medical reasons are logical, then what about all the health issue concerns with male to male sex?

Self inflicted by consent. Having a crazy inbred retard baby is forcing the bad stuff on someone else (the child). See how this works? If it causes direct harm to a third party there is a problem. If it is self inflicted by consent, no problem.

for example, I smoke, i did it by choice, and i know the consequences. It is self inflicted, and therefore i would be substantially pissed if they made tobacco illegal. I was mad when they outlawed smoking indoors here in jersey, but i didnt cause too much of a stink because in those situations i am directly affecting someone else.

That was my point initially. Two gay people getting married does not directly affect third parties, so what is the problem?

[hotsauce]

There is a problem because God made Adam and Eve and told them to go forth and multiply. Adam and Steve can not multiply. They have to borrow from someone else. So in effect it does affect the world.

[boizalynne]

I'm an independent. I refuse to label myself!

Sorry but Robin Hood takes from the rich and gives to the poor.....that's a Democrat

LOL!!!

[providencecrow]

There is a problem because God made Adam and Eve and told them to go forth and multiply. Adam and Steve can not multiply. They have to borrow from someone else. So in effect it does affect the world.

Yeah because we don't have population concerns in parts of the world and we should all be pumping out as many kids as we possibly can. That's a great idea.

[hotsauce]

I'm not saying have as many kids as possible. I'm just saying it isn't natural for two men or two women to be together because they cannot propagate the species as God mandated, We do have overcrowding issues in many parts of the world. Homosexuality is not a way to fix those issues.

[providencecrow]

I'm not saying have as many kids as possible. I'm just saying it isn't natural for two men or two women to be together because they cannot propagate the species as God mandated, We do have overcrowding issues in many parts of the world. Homosexuality is not a way to fix those issues.

So then you're saying that the only purpose of marriage is to have kids? Because really i'm lost on this whole argument. If a gay couple want to get the government involved in their relationship, i really don't see why there is any issue. So they can't reproduce? big deal, there are heterosexual married couples out there that also can't reproduce for one reason or another. Just let em be. I mean seriously, if all men are created equal as our famous documents so state, then why shouldnt gay couples get the liberty of having the government involved in their relationships and changing their taxes around like the rest of us?

[oldsquid]

There is a problem because God made Adam and Eve and told them to go forth and multiply. Adam and Steve can not multiply. They have to borrow from someone else. So in effect it does affect the world.

Which is the issue...separation of church and state. In a religion, two or more consenting adults should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

[scooterfanatic]

I guess I'm a liberal because I believe the market is a phenomenon that can be bent and twisted to benefit those in power, not an all-knowing, all-seeing deity who can solve all our problems.

[kaboobie92]

define marriage for me

[providencecrow]

define marriage for me

A change in your tax status.

[ratrad]

I like how elrushbo likes to think he is asking questions that will back us into corners. Every thread. Seriously..............Man, I'm bored.

[scooterfanatic]

If it becomes legal for a man to marry another man, then it should also be legal for a man to marry a horse, a tree, a house, etc.

That was the same justification used to prevent whites and blacks from marrying each other, just so you know.

[Wiener Poopie]

If it becomes legal for a man to marry another man, then it should also be legal for a man to marry a horse, a tree, a house, etc.

That was the same justification used to prevent whites and blacks from marrying each other, just so you know.

Blacks can marry? :o :

[fistor!@#]

If it becomes legal for a man to marry another man, then it should also be legal for a man to marry a horse, a tree, a house, etc.

That was the same justification used to prevent whites and blacks from marrying each other, just so you know.

Since whites and blacks can be both male and female, it's hardly the same argument.

[providencecrow]

That was the same justification used to prevent whites and blacks from marrying each other, just so you know.

Since whites and blacks can be both male and female, it's hardly the same argument.

So gays are only one gender?

[fistor!@#]

Since whites and blacks can be both male and female, it's hardly the same argument.

So gays are only one gender?

Usually, the one's that want to be married to each other.

[almostmainer]

I'm also Right thinking-Conservative. I vote ®, but I hate our current crop. Their to liberal with the spending of our money. I think if liberals could take the emotion out of every issue it'd do them some good. Just 'cause it feels good doesn't mean it is. Government wasn't put here to take care of you. Also, if you talk to anyone that WORKS in the health care field, as my wife does, they'll tell you Universal Health care won't work. 30 million illegals, who pays for them? Oh and unions are sending all the jobs over seas not "evil rich people". That and americans' ALWAYS want the best deal for the lest price.

[almostmainer]

define marriage for me

A religious ceremony that should not be government sanctioned. Let the churches deal with gay marriage. Then there would be none. Give gays there civil unions, hell make everyones' a civil union. Then what would gays say? The only reason they want it called "marriage" is so they can feel "normal". I'm sorry being gay is not "normal". I have gay friends, and I don't think their bad people. Their just not normal. Maybe if the gay issue wasn't shoved in our faces so much there wouldn't be a backlash. When gay groups want to help 2nd graders figure out if they want to be a boy or a girl, decide if their gay,thats a problem.

[bjornagain]

define marriage for me

A religious ceremony that should not be government sanctioned. Let the churches deal with gay marriage. Then there would be none. Give gays there civil unions, hell make everyones' a civil union. Then what would gays say? The only reason they want it called "marriage" is so they can feel "normal". I'm sorry being gay is not "normal". I have gay friends, and I don't think their bad people. Their just not normal. Maybe if the gay issue wasn't shoved in our faces so much there wouldn't be a backlash. When gay groups want to help 2nd graders figure out if they want to be a boy or a girl, decide if their gay,thats a problem.

Actually there are a lot of gay actions demonstrated by animals, who have much less conscious thought than humans, so it's kind of just innate in living beings. I don't think gays want to get married to feel normal, I could have went my whole life without getting married and I would have felt normal still. I think a large part of it is fact that they're being told who they can and can't love. Love isn't really an emotion that can be controlled. We only get one chance at life, I think it's kind of silly to hold back and be unhappy just because someone doesn't like such a harmless action. The gay issue has to be shoved in our faces before it's going to be accepted. Once the majority accepts gays, then it will die down like racism did.

[landmammaldolphin]

I tend to be a centrist with leftward leanings. On the gay marriage issue, it will change the lives of heterosexual couples how if gay people are allowed to marry? Not one iota, that's how. One day we will view the debate of whether or not Gays can marry, in the same light as women's suffrage and segregation. Ultimately discrimation in this country has been thwarted and it will be in this case as well.

[dingdongyo]

if taxes weren't involved, would this even be an issue? i don't want someone marrying their house just to get free money. take that away, and i don't care. i'm just not coming over, because i'm not into d.p.

[fearsome30]

Why the hell are gay people arguing for the right to be married? Don't they realize the blessing that comes from not being able to make such a terrible and financially devastating mistake? Wake up gay people, choose the smart route and just ask for the right to put your partner on your Tax return or healthcare plan. Seriously, There is more bad about marriage then there is good. I say let them do it. That'll teach them a lesson on how to be careful what you ask for, cause you might actually get it.

[providencecrow]

if taxes weren't involved, would this even be an issue? i don't want someone marrying their house just to get free money. take that away, and i don't care. i'm just not coming over, because i'm not into d.p.

It might be an issue, but i have a strong feeling that it would be substantially less of one. That is where the true inequality comes in between gays and straights, straight people can change their tax status with a ceremony, but gays cannot even with the same ceremony. Therefore it is separate and NOT equal in this case.

The government should ALWAYS view us as individuals, there is no reason anything should change because i choose to marry someone or not.

[Mad Dog]

if taxes weren't involved, would this even be an issue? i don't want someone marrying their house just to get free money. take that away, and i don't care. i'm just not coming over, because i'm not into d.p.

It might be an issue, but i have a strong feeling that it would be substantially less of one. That is where the true inequality comes in between gays and straights, straight people can change their tax status with a ceremony, but gays cannot even with the same ceremony. Therefore it is separate and NOT equal in this case.

The government should ALWAYS view us as individuals, there is no reason anything should change because i choose to marry someone or not.

Just because a man and a women get married doesn't mean the story ends right there. Normally there are children involved. And children are VERY expensive. As an aside, the voting block of Married with Children group is pretty substantial and politicians love to make this group happy. Enter the "Earned Income" tax credit, what is it up to, a thousand bucks a kid? Unless they can come up with "Cloning made Easy" kit, or get alot more liberal about adoptions, I can't see two homosexual people get this tax credit, married or not.

[dingdongyo]

Just because a man and a women get married doesn't mean the story ends right there. Normally there are children involved. And children are VERY expensive. As an aside, the voting block of Married with Children group is pretty substantial and politicians love to make this group happy. Enter the "Earned Income" tax credit, what is it up to, a thousand bucks a kid? Unless they can come up with "Cloning made Easy" kit, or get alot more liberal about adoptions, I can't see two homosexual people get this tax credit, married or not.

gay people can't adopt?
some have kids from previous relationships.
straight people have kids outside of marriage all the time.
so you're saying yes, it is all about money?

[Mad Dog]

No, not at all, just pointing out that there are differences, and since they are in the slim minority there block voting power is vastly diminished.

[providencecrow]

No, not at all, just pointing out that there are differences, and since they are in the slim minority there block voting power is vastly diminished.

While i agree there is the potential for income and spending to be quite different between gay people and straight people, the government should not be adjusting accordingly in any way. i stand by my original statement. The government should always view people as individuals, and it should make no difference if i am married, not married, have kids, do not have kids, etc... By making any distinction they are clearly setting it up for double standards, which goes back to the famous "All men are created equal" statement.

If i pay more or less taxes than you do because of my marital status, regardless of whether you are straight, gay, bisexual, half man half dog (aka Mog), etc... then it is not equal.

The tax system is inherently not equal anyway, if they are going to give us the old screw job with an income tax, it should be a flat percentage, not this income bracket BS. Just because i make more money than someone else, if the percentage is the same inherently i will be paying more, but instead i am paying more, and then more because the percentage changed because i just got a raise that equals out to 10 cents more an hour, but i got pushed into a new bracket.

/end rant

[Mad Dog]

No, not at all, just pointing out that there are differences, and since they are in the slim minority there block voting power is vastly diminished.

While i agree there is the potential for income and spending to be quite different between gay people and straight people, the government should not be adjusting accordingly in any way. i stand by my original statement. The government should always view people as individuals, and it should make no difference if i am married, not married, have kids, do not have kids, etc... By making any distinction they are clearly setting it up for double standards, which goes back to the famous "All men are created equal" statement.

If i pay more or less taxes than you do because of my marital status, regardless of whether you are straight, gay, bisexual, half man half dog (aka Mog), etc... then it is not equal.

The tax system is inherently not equal anyway, if they are going to give us the old screw job with an income tax, it should be a flat percentage, not this income bracket BS. Just because i make more money than someone else, if the percentage is the same inherently i will be paying more, but instead i am paying more, and then more because the percentage changed because i just got a raise that equals out to 10 cents more an hour, but i got pushed into a new bracket.

/end rant

In principal, I agree with you totally Crow, its just that there are always politics involved. And the politics we're talking about here is basically "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" or conversely "If you don't support me, I won't support you" and the tax code, the way they re-write it each year is the only real way that politicians can either reward their constituency's or punish their opponents. Fair or not thats the reality.

Personally, this whole issue of Social Security is really the same type of issue only in reverse. Let me explain. Since gay marriage rights people are in such a minority, they can't get much of anything done as a group. Conversely the Social Security retirement bunch have such a large majority and have gotten there way for so many years, that its almost impossible for anybody to get up enough political balls to fix the system. i.e. too much money going out and not enough coming in.

This is also the root reason why the gay rights crowd are frustrated and feel they have to be "in your face" and why the old folks quietly go about their business.