She says so little yet uses so many words.

The CPAC old guard further crumbles.

It’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks

Predicting the Media Matters headline: Sarah Palin tells Christian extremists she wants to shoot liberals!!!

Tony Westover said:
The CPAC old guard further crumbles.

David Keene must go.

Wow, Palin is taking feminism from the left, the NRA, and now gays. No wonder they hate her so.

Coulter spoke at HomoCon, by GOProud, and many I read were utterly apoplectic.

I think true conservatives don’t think the federal govt. has any business in folks bedrooms and deciding states rights issues like who can and can’t get maried.

I think it may cause some issues down the road if say Texas doesn’t recognize folks married in Vermont as legally “together”, but that is a bridge to jump off when we get there. I have a sneaking suspicion, at least in the short term, gay couples might just avoid states where their union was unlawful.

As long as it isn’t thorwn in my face or taken from my wallet…..party on!!

ProgLib said:
She says so little yet uses so many words.

Yet you can’t stop reading her words. What’s that say about you?

Oh and not shoved on my kids either……until they are grown and make their own decisions.

As I’ve said many, many times, gays are here to stay. They are a poltical reality.

Hardline conservatives, who insist on minimizing and demonizing gays, need to get a grip. They’ll find themselves on the putside looking in if a conservative candidate recognozes that gays ain’t goin’ away and that all conservative Americans don’t hate them, nor fear them.

This could be a powerhouse issue for Palin. Will it alienate the far right? Sure. But the far right is delusional if they think this issue won’t come up front and center sooner or later. It may as well be now.

If she plays it right, Palin will move a lot of people to her corner on this one.

Tony Westover said:
Yet you can’t stop reading her words. What’s that say about you?

Stalker comes to mind for me. OCD at minimum one would think.

Of course Sarah would be fine with GOProud being heard.

We have a very big tent and the people columnist glean on are the few protesters.

You folks so what to make this a division in the Republican Party…it isn’t.

This “internet thing” is catching up with you lefty columnist and passing you by, leaving you in the dust and wondering w-t-f (Like Sarah said – :>) just happened!!!!

Sarah is the one who needs a wake up call. She has been in a slumber since her resignation…if not before!

VoiceofReason said:
Stalker comes to mind for me. OCD at minimum one would think.

I’m thinking good old fashioned hate.

Harry Flashman said:
As I’ve said many, many times, gays are here to stay. They are a poltical reality.

Hardline conservatives, who insist on minimizing and demonizing gays, need to get a grip. They’ll find themselves on the putside looking in if a conservative candidate recognozes that gays ain’t goin’ away and that all conservative Americans don’t hate them, nor fear them.

This could be a powerhouse issue for Palin. Will it alienate the far right? Sure. But the far right is delusional if they think this issue won’t come up front and center sooner or later. It may as well be now.

If she plays it right, Palin will move a lot of people to her corner on this one.

I know this must hurt you a little, but I agree 100%

I’m heartened to see that she would welcome the inclusion of gay groups at CPAC. I say bravo to her. The fact that there are groups out there who are boycotting CPAC because of the attendance of groups like Log Cabin Republicans kinda sickens me.

I agree, Harry. Gay people are here to stay and people need to accept that.

VoiceofReason said:
As long as it isn’t thorwn in my face or taken from my wallet

I don’t think their goal is to be thrown in peoples’ faces, yet I hope also that the notion that gays are less than human beings and don’t deserve the rights everyone else has is also not thrown in peoples’ faces, especially children. I don’t think that sexuality of any sort should be taught in the lower grades, but I think when kids become of age to learn about human sexuality, I think homosexuality should be a part of that curriculum.

VoiceofReason said:
Coulter spoke at HomoCon, by GOProud, and many I read were utterly apoplectic.

I think true conservatives don’t think the federal govt. has any business in folks bedrooms and deciding states rights issues like who can and can’t get maried.

I think it may cause some issues down the road if say Texas doesn’t recognize folks married in Vermont as legally “together”, but that is a bridge to jump off when we get there. I have a sneaking suspicion, at least in the short term, gay couples might just avoid states where their union was unlawful.

As long as it isn’t thorwn in my face or taken from my wallet…..party on!!

Imagine living in a state with like-minded people with the morals and ideals that you have. Imagine 50 different experiments in freedom. Some would prosper, and some would flounder depending on the citizens of each state. It sure would separate the men from the boys. I think our Founders had that in mind whey they gave us a republic.

Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, “What kind of government have you given us?” Franklin responded with one of the most famous quotations in history, “A Republic if you can keep it.” Ask most American today what kind of government they have and most will respond a democracy. While a democracy is a form of government a republic is different…a democracy is full of sheep.

ProgLib says:

“I know this must hurt you a little, but I agree 100%”

Actually, no, it doesn’t hurt at all. It’s such common sense that i don’t see how anyone, left OR right, can miss it.

There are several liberal commenters here who can argue their point in a rational, adult fashion and with whom I enjoy debate. I actually agree with many of them on some items (DADT, stupid drug laws, etc.,) and ejoy arguing on others. IF it stays civil, that is.

What some here don’t ever understand is that people can disgree (even vehemently) without being disagreeable. I won’t engage the name callers (usually). But I welcome debate from the adults.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Sarah is the one who needs a wake up call. She has been in a slumber since her resignation…if not before!

Barry 0bama gave up the Illinois Senate seat to campaign, long before Sarah Palin stepped down from her Governorship. Or did you miss that time line? Have you ever had to mount a defense for a lawsuit? 20 lawsuits?

Good. I’m glad she supports it. She should. Good for her.

I look forward to the headline/story after she FIGURES OUT WHAT SHE SAID.

180 coming in 3…2..

It has been reported that Palin’s family had to spend more than $500000 on legal fees fighting these ethical lawsuits which are partisan in nature, frivolous and politically motivated.

ndanielson said:
Barry 0bama gave up the Illinois Senate seat to campaign, long before Sarah Palin stepped down from her Governorship. Or did you miss that time line? Have you ever had to mount a defense for a lawsuit? 20 lawsuits?

$500,000 dollars could cost a person their family business, their house and their entire life savings. Most sheep would never have a clue about such things.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Sarah is the one who needs a wake up call. She has been in a slumber since her resignation…if not before!

zumpano said:

“I look forward to the headline/story after she FIGURES OUT WHAT SHE SAID.”

Here we go again. Mustn’t listen to the content of what she actually says. that might upset the apple cart of their “she’s stupid” narrative about this woman. It’s better to mock than listen.

Good grief.

Know how to get a room full of liberals scurrying around like a bevy of mice at a construction site?

SARAH PALIN!

Her credibility as a conservative is dwindling. She is already compromising on issues like this before being elected, what happened when reality of ruling a country (not Alaska) hits her, and she realises that she would have to cross the isle as often as possible to get things done. It appears to me that she, the tp folks, and the phonies on talk radio do not know how reality works, they live in a dreamland.
The fault is with the cowardice of the Republicans to stand up to Limbaugh and the other phonies, One congressman tried to in early 09, but as soon as he apologised and Chairman Steele also did the same, the power shifted from pragmatism (reality of ruling) to reactionary (talk radio personalities).

Before you know it, Abortion would be the only thing she is conservative about. I know this is an attempt to seem reasonable to independents, but it is the same value that made the hardcore conservative love her. If she loses those folks, what else dos she have other than being folksy? got cha,

Also, when can we hear demands from the liberal media that the MSNBC primetime lineup be held accountable for fomenting and encouraging death threats against Palin?

EXPOSE LIBERAL HYPOCRISY wherever you find it!

ndanielson said:
Barry 0bama gave up the Illinois Senate seat to campaign, long before Sarah Palin stepped down from her Governorship. Or did you miss that time line? Have you ever had to mount a defense for a lawsuit? 20 lawsuits?

He got a promotion. She quit. Or did you miss that time line?
Whether I have or haven’t had to mount a defense to a lawsuit isn’t any of your business and has nothing to do with anything. But as far as Palin goes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7662820.stm
Hardly a “frivolous” matter.

Tony Westover said:
What’s that say about you?

That he likes to look at train wreck also.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Know how to get a room full of liberals scurrying around like a bevy of mice at a construction site? SARAH PALIN!

Your experiences playing with mice are quite revealing.

ndanielson said:
Imagine living in a state with like-minded people with the morals and ideals that you have. Imagine 50 different experiments in freedom. Some would prosper, and some would flounder depending on the citizens of each state. It sure would separate the men from the boys. I think our Founders had that in mind whey they gave us a republic. Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, “What kind of government have you given us?” Franklin responded with one of the most famous quotations in history, “A Republic if you can keep it.” Ask most American today what kind of government they have and most will respond a democracy. While a democracy is a form of government a republic is different…a democracy is full of sheep.

I have a dream too.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Sarah Palin stepped down from her Governorship. Or did you miss that time line?

She quit her JOB.What do you not get about it.Old song. Did you ever consider why she had so many law suits? I did read what she said.She says a lot of nothing.

skyfet:

If the far right conservatives think that there will ever be another far right president they need to think again. there won’t be, at least not in the way they want.

I’m a conservative Christian yet I do NOT want to live in a far right theocracy. Most people don’t. So, Palin’s “credibility as a conservative” would only come into question with those who condemn gays as a group and refuse to use reason. and that ain’t a majority of conservatives.

Engaging in wishful thinking won’t make Palin go away. In fact, she may have just taken a serious step toward cementing herself in your life for good.

Boo!

skyfet said:
Her credibility as a conservative is dwindling. She is already compromising on issues like this before being elected, what happened when reality of ruling a country (not Alaska) hits her, and she realises that she would have to cross the isle as often as possible to get things done. It appears to me that she, the tp folks, and the phonies on talk radio do not know how reality works, they live in a dreamland.
The fault is with the cowardice of the Republicans to stand up to Limbaugh and the other phonies, One congressman tried to in early 09, but as soon as he apologised and Chairman Steele also did the same, the power shifted from pragmatism (reality of ruling) to reactionary (talk radio personalities).

Before you know it, Abortion would be the only thing she is conservative about. I know this is an attempt to seem reasonable to independents, but it is the same value that made the hardcore conservative love her. If she loses those folks, what else dos she have other than being folksy? got cha,

Little liberal clowns who know so little about what conservatism is, opining on conservatism? What’s next, Barry 0bama talking about the Constitution???

As I have said many, many times, Palin has the Conservative gay in her corner.

One of her closest radio friends is Tammy Bruce, a past liberal now Conservative lesbian internet radio host in LA. Tammy’s also real close with GOProud. Also, Palin has several gay friends I believe.

I have said numerous times that the Gay issue won’t be on the table come 2012 because Obama doesn’t believe in gay marriage. And Palin will be able to articulate her stance that states should be able to make this decision.

Also, I think the main issue for folks on the religious side of the issue is that gays want to change marriage to include man-man and female-female, etc. relationships. I am all for a plan where civil unions are accepted, with a non-religious bent (court house) and if the gays would be ok with this, I might even feel ok to throw in benefits and so on. However, when you have a whole group encroaching on what I feel true marriage is, you’re not gonna endear me to your cause.

BlueBunny said:
She quit her JOB.What do you not get about it.Old song. Did you ever consider why she had so many law suits? I did read what she said.She says a lot of nothing.

No – She saved her state millions in legal fees. You can try this point over and over, but there’s a whole stampede that will volunteer for her cause to stifle this meme. What’s Obama gonna run on? Oh, I enacted an unconstitional law……good luck with that one.

jim bronson 990cc said:
He got a promotion. She quit. Or did you miss that time line?Whether I have or haven’t had to mount a defense to a lawsuit isn’t any of your business and has nothing to do with anything. But as far as Palin goes:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7662820.stmHardly a “frivolous” matter.

I guess you missed the part of the report that stated she operated within the confines of her elected mandate. Or that this was a partisan witch hunt led by detractors.

BTW “he” didn’t get a promotion until LONG after he quit. And that was only the first time. He quit on the folks of his district in Ill to run for Carol Mosley Bruan’s seat in Washington and then quit on the entire state for nearly 2 years to get his “new” gig.

Or is your idea for how an elected LEGISLATOR should behave is to NOT pass legislation…..rather vote present, if in attendence at all, while busily campaigning?

BlueBunny said:
She quit her JOB.What do you not get about it.Old song. Did you ever consider why she had so many law suits? I did read what she said.She says a lot of nothing.

Lawsuits are a great way to financially harass, impugn and bankrupt a person or a business. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have built an empire on them through corporate shakedowns.

BlueBunny said:
She quit her JOB.What do you not get about it.Old song. Did you ever consider why she had so many law suits? I did read what she said.She says a lot of nothing.

I know exactly why she had so many….do you? Do you know that over 90% were frivolous in nature and filed by a partisan hack blogger with a Palin grudge? Do you know that the money to defend these not only came from her but the lion’s share came from the pockets of the citizens of Alaska?

BTW, of all those lawsuits……..how many did she lose?

VoiceofReason said:

As long as it isn’t thorwn in my face or taken from my wallet…..party on!!

VoiceofReason said:
Oh and not shoved on my kids either……until they are grown and make their own decisions.

What would you consider being shoved on your kids or thrown in your face?
Should gay couples feel free to express affection as openly as straight couples do?
Should kids know that people are a same sex couple and that that’s fine?

What decision do you expect your kids to make about homosexuality.

“Clearly it’s not the strongest endorsement in the world and Palin’s winding phrasing could be interpreted differently..”

Hey Jon – Before you start to blame Palin for her odd phrasings, you might want to check your own. There were some grammatical errors in your above paragraph. I mean seriously, you attack someone for something you yourself do. Silly.

ndanielson said:
Lawsuits are a great way to financially harass, impugn and bankrupt a person or a business. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have built an empire on them through corporate shakedowns.

And did you know that the “reverends” Sharpton and Jackson tried to become democrat presidents, too??? What a proud party you have.

BlueBunny said:
She quit her JOB.What do you not get about it.Old song. Did you ever consider why she had so many law suits? I did read what she said.She says a lot of nothing.

Community agitators have so much to say, huh?

Nice RED jacket!

WCinWI said:
Palin’s winding phrasing

What he meant was she RAMBLES on and on about nothing.

VoiceofReason said:
I guess you missed the part of the report that stated she operated within the confines of her elected mandate. Or that this was a partisan witch hunt led by detractors. BTW “he” didn’t get a promotion until LONG after he quit. And that was only the first time. He quit on the folks of his district in Ill to run for Carol Mosley Bruan’s seat in Washington and then quit on the entire state for nearly 2 years to get his “new” gig. Or is your idea for how an elected LEGISLATOR should behave is to NOT pass legislation…..rather vote present, if in attendence at all, while busily campaigning?

I guess you missed the part where she violated statute.
By your standard, Palin quit on Wasilla. Of course, after crushing the residents with a mountain of debt, it was probably a plus for the citizens:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-77525

ROCKSTEADY said:
What he meant was she RAMBLES on and on about nothing.

Yes…death panels is certainly rambling about nothing.

In breaking news, one Democrat decides to retire.

I have a feeling that tons are gonna retire……this is gonna be fun. :)

Harry Flashman said:
As I’ve said many, many times, gays are here to stay. They are a poltical reality.

It’s more than just a political issue. It’s a human rights issue and an equality issue. I’m glad to know conservatives who completely support equal rights fully, rather than selectively.
How can people defend personal liberty and equality and then seek to deny their neighbor over something that has nothing to do with them and doesn’t threaten them at all.

ROCKSTEADY said:
Nice RED jacket!

ROCKSTEADY said:
What he meant was she RAMBLES on and on about nothing.

Well reasoned arguments were never a liberal’s strong suit. Talking points and personal attacks are exactly what the left has, and nothing more. Empty, vile people.

ndanielson said:
Little liberal clowns who know so little about what conservatism is, opining on conservatism? What’s next, Barry 0bama talking about the Constitution???

Your form of conservatism is cronyism, you have no idea what conservatism is about. The GOP add these groups when it suit them, in few years down the line these groups or their views are then combined as being conservative.
Let me break it down for ya, the GOP used the religious right when it suited them,
they are using the tp now because it suits them,
use the NRA when it suits them or the other way round.
use cultural issue when it suits them,
use fiscal issue when it suits them (not paying enough taxes, etc).
You and the rest are just tools for them, they use you and dump you when it suits them.

Capiche?

BlueBunny said:
Did you ever consider why she had so many law suits?

Did you ever consider why she won them all? Like the one accusing her of abusing her position by wearing a coat with her husband’s snow machine team sponsor’s logo on it?

ROCKSTEADY said:
What he meant was she RAMBLES on and on about nothing.

…and the left loses its collective mind over it. Who’s stupid now?

CosmosDan said:
What would you consider being shoved on your kids or thrown in your face?Should gay couples feel free to express affection as openly as straight couples do?Should kids know that people are a same sex couple and that that’s fine? What decision do you expect your kids to make about homosexuality.

I consider militant gay activism……..shoved in my face. You want to express youir love for your same sex partner…..knock yourself out. Really couldn’t care less who you are or aren’t fu*king.

But know this……much of the gay community known to the rank and file public……not the Joe Six Pack’s getting up and going to work and taking their kids to karate classes and school plays all the while being in a same sex relationship…….are over the top, gay in your face, I demand this or that, screw you if you go to church militant gays. Were they not they would get zero to no notice.

I don’t predicate each introduction with…..Oh Jim….BTW, I only like pussy. Yet I find that many gay folks seemingly need for everybody and their brother to know. This is why I feel DADT was such a big SNAFU. If you are there to be a soldier…..be a farking soldier. Nobody is supposed to be screwing anybody else anyways……so do your job and then when home…..sleep with who you want.

As to freely expressing affection as openly as straight people…..sure. They are free to express their affection around me as I do with my wife. Now……I don’t find the need to lengthy tongue kissing sessions with my wife at ball games like some folks do. I have seen the vids of straight couples getting down in near vacant bleachers.

Sorry…..but wrong for them as well as gays. I can freely grope my wife’s “lady parts” pretty much anytime I want. In fact since we are old, she probably welcomes the attention. But I DON’T grope just to show I have a woman, or that I am straight, or that I can shock with my behavior or whatever.

Time and place for everything and just like I doubt gays would want to see me feeling up my wife…..I don’t want to sit next to two guys going at it at the ball game.

Define “kid”. As I don’t feel it necessary to teach my children about sex or the family unit…..I can handle that just fine…..and schools have a tough enough time with the 3 R’s…….I don’t think teaching them Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve is a productive use of VERY limited resources.

As to what I expect……I expect them to be happy. I expect them to be sensible. I expect them to go into whatever endeavor they seek to go in with eyes wide open.

It’s had exceptional results. I have 4 wonderful children. One is married and has a baby girl and another child on the way. I have another who is going to marry her live-in boyfriend when she gets closer to graduating college. My youngest son seems more focused on his career, but seems happy with his liove life as it exists so I am happy too. Our step son is gay and has been in a commited relaionship with the same man for some time.

But perhaps my family is not good for you. That is entirely up to you and them……not me.

WCinWI said:
As I have said many, many times, Palin has the Conservative gay in her corner.

The Hillbuzz boys will crawl through flaming broken glass for her too. Those guys organize like nobody’s business.

WCinWI said:
Also, I think the main issue for folks on the religious side of the issue is that gays want to change marriage to include man-man and female-female, etc. relationships. I am all for a plan where civil unions are accepted, with a non-religious bent (court house) and if the gays would be ok with this, I might even feel ok to throw in benefits and so on. However, when you have a whole group encroaching on what I feel true marriage is, you’re not gonna endear me to your cause.

Sigh! They’re not encroaching on YOUR marriage or anyone’s by asking for equal rights. Nothing defines your marriage as good or bad or holy except how you and your spouse view it and what you do. People exhibited the same bad reasining when they wanted interracial marriage to be against the law.
All the government can do is define what legal rights individuals have and what rights are given in marriage. From the governments view the issue is simply legal and gender and who does what to whom doesn’t matter at all.
It’s a moral failing that a group of citizens are being denied equal rights over something that harms no other citizen in any way. There are no rational reasonable arguments opposing SSM. It’s purely on feeling. So because people FEEL uncomfortable about it they are willing to deny their fellow citizens equality and turn a blind eye to the suffering they cause to innocent people. It’s shameful.
Like all other civil rights issues , eventually those who oppose it will have to admit they are dead wrong, as history has proven time and time again.

jim bronson 990cc said:
I guess you missed the part where she violated statute.
By your standard, Palin quit on Wasilla. Of course, after crushing the residents with a mountain of debt, it was probably a plus for the citizens:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-77525

I guess you missed the party about where all charges were dismissed, or ruled in her favor??? And a link to a CNN hit piece on Palin??? No wonder you clowns are so ill informed. You also must have missed the part on your own link where it clearly stated that the residents of Wasilla voted to build their sports center, through a .5% tax increase???

Here’s your homework assignment: How much did the population of Wasilla increase during Palin’s years in office???

And when the good people of Seattle voted DOWN, overwhelmingly, to destroy the King Dome, did they get the bill for two new sports stadiums rammed down their throats anyway???

CosmosDan said:
Sigh! They’re not encroaching on YOUR marriage or anyone’s by asking for equal rights. Nothing defines your marriage as good or bad or holy except how you and your spouse view it and what you do. People exhibited the same bad reasining when they wanted interracial marriage to be against the law.
All the government can do is define what legal rights individuals have and what rights are given in marriage. From the governments view the issue is simply legal and gender and who does what to whom doesn’t matter at all.
It’s a moral failing that a group of citizens are being denied equal rights over something that harms no other citizen in any way. There are no rational reasonable arguments opposing SSM. It’s purely on feeling. So because people FEEL uncomfortable about it they are willing to deny their fellow citizens equality and turn a blind eye to the suffering they cause to innocent people. It’s shameful.
Like all other civil rights issues , eventually those who oppose it will have to admit they are dead wrong, as history has proven time and time again.

The federal government is encroaching on everybody’s rights, more and more, everyday. Palin and most Americans are getting fed up with it. If you knew anything about history you’d know that an oppressive and overreaching government has led to tyranny time and time again.

CosmosDan said:
Sigh! They’re not encroaching on YOUR marriage or anyone’s by asking for equal rights. Nothing defines your marriage as good or bad or holy except how you and your spouse view it and what you do. People exhibited the same bad reasining when they wanted interracial marriage to be against the law.
All the government can do is define what legal rights individuals have and what rights are given in marriage. From the governments view the issue is simply legal and gender and who does what to whom doesn’t matter at all.
It’s a moral failing that a group of citizens are being denied equal rights over something that harms no other citizen in any way. There are no rational reasonable arguments opposing SSM. It’s purely on feeling. So because people FEEL uncomfortable about it they are willing to deny their fellow citizens equality and turn a blind eye to the suffering they cause to innocent people. It’s shameful.
Like all other civil rights issues , eventually those who oppose it will have to admit they are dead wrong, as history has proven time and time again.

Last I checked, the only way that you could make a baby was one man and one woman. This is what I meant by encroachment. I also meant what others have mentioned in their attitudes towards gay activism.

Why must I go along with a society that believes in things that I don’t? Why must I have to contribute to causes that I don’t believe in? When society fails to see that its lack of parenting skills along with a crumbling education system are the demise of social principles as a whole (teens having sex, teens not being smart intellectually), then we have a crisis of the mind. Stop promoting programs that define it as being ok to be a single parent. Stuff like that.

CosmosDan said:
It’s a moral failing that a group of citizens are being denied equal rights over something that harms no other citizen in any way. There are no rational reasonable arguments opposing SSM.

They’re not denied equal rights. They want new and different rights. I’m inclined to let them have them, myself. Just not precisely they way they want them.

CosmosDan said:
Sigh! They’re not encroaching on YOUR marriage or anyone’s by asking for equal rights. Nothing defines your marriage as good or bad or holy except how you and your spouse view it and what you do. People exhibited the same bad reasining when they wanted interracial marriage to be against the law.
All the government can do is define what legal rights individuals have and what rights are given in marriage. From the governments view the issue is simply legal and gender and who does what to whom doesn’t matter at all.
It’s a moral failing that a group of citizens are being denied equal rights over something that harms no other citizen in any way. There are no rational reasonable arguments opposing SSM. It’s purely on feeling. So because people FEEL uncomfortable about it they are willing to deny their fellow citizens equality and turn a blind eye to the suffering they cause to innocent people. It’s shameful.
Like all other civil rights issues , eventually those who oppose it will have to admit they are dead wrong, as history has proven time and time again.

Can you tell me where I said that I didn’t approve of civil unions or a secondary form of marriage (in some other term) for the gay population? Last I checked, I said that marriage is between a man and a woman – for child-bearing purposes.

skyfet said:
Your form of conservatism is cronyism, you have no idea what conservatism is about. The GOP add these groups when it suit them, in few years down the line these groups or their views are then combined as being conservative.
Let me break it down for ya, the GOP used the religious right when it suited them,
they are using the tp now because it suits them,
use the NRA when it suits them or the other way round.
use cultural issue when it suits them,
use fiscal issue when it suits them (not paying enough taxes, etc).
You and the rest are just tools for them, they use you and dump you when it suits them.

Capiche?

And, pretty soon we are going to use the Constitution against you, and throw all of you out of office. Ultima ratio, vae victis scientia est potentia, you little sheep clown.

VoiceofReason said:
I consider militant gay activism……..shoved in my face. You want to express youir love for your same sex partner…..knock yourself out.

Okay. I don’t think that helps anything either and I’m not interested in parades that are overtly sexual, but I know I don’t have to look so I don’t really consider that shoved in my face. I don’t know where you live but I’d say for most of the country that is a extremely rare problem.

Even militant gay activism pales in comparison to the persecution gays have suffered in this country.

VoiceofReason said:
As to freely expressing affection as openly as straight people…..sure. They are free to express their affection around me as I do with my wife. Now……I don’t find the need to lengthy tongue kissing sessions with my wife at ball games like some folks do.

I agree. Gay or straight, make out sessions in public seem unnecessary

VoiceofReason said:
Define “kid”. As I don’t feel it necessary to teach my children about sex or the family unit…..I can handle that just fine…..and schools have a tough enough time with the 3 R’s…….I don’t think teaching them Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve is a productive use of VERY limited resources.

You said forced on kids , and until they are old enough to decide for themselves. I just wondered what that meant. Decide what?
Kids are affected by the prejudices of the people around them in various ways. As homosexuality is more common on TV and in society kids will be asking questions at younger ages. It’s tricky.
I know I don’t want a teacher promoting their moral values as “the correct ones” but I expect it to come up.

Pablo said:
They’re not denied equal rights. They want new and different rights. I’m inclined to let them have them, myself. Just not precisely they way they want them.

They’re not? If they can’t get married and enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage, then they are being denied equal rights.

ndanielson said:
I guess you missed the party about where all charges were dismissed, or ruled in her favor??? And a link to a CNN hit piece on Palin??? No wonder you clowns are so ill informed. You also must have missed the part on your own link where it clearly stated that the residents of Wasilla voted to build their sports center, through a .5% tax increase??? Here’s your homework assignment: How much did the population of Wasilla increase during Palin’s years in office??? And when the good people of Seattle voted DOWN, overwhelmingly, to destroy the King Dome, did they get the bill for two new sports stadiums rammed down their throats anyway???

No, you missed the part where further action was not taken.
You can’t defend her Wasilla record, so you move onto Seattle? Try to stick with the subject!

Pablo said:
They’re not denied equal rights. They want new and different rights. I’m inclined to let them have them, myself. Just not precisely they way they want them.

Different rights? Like being able to serve openly in the military? Being able to visit their partners at the hospital? So demanding of them.

Pablo said:
loses its collective mind

Which talking head idiot started Palin is in the “collective minds”thing?She is in the media,she is a huge joke to a good number of Americans. Good for you for liking her so much.

Pablo said:
…and the left loses its collective mind over it. Who’s stupid now?

You, for using the term “collective mind”.

Memo to all gay people in America. Republicans hate your guts!

CosmosDan said:
They’re not? If they can’t get married and enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage, then they are being denied equal rights.

So they have no other options right?

I am in Indiana now but was in the Bay Area before here and I have friends who had contracts drawn up to allow them access at hospitals, blah blah blah………in essense a civil union. Legal and binding as any marriage licence.

CosmosDan said:
Okay. I don’t think that helps anything either and I’m not interested in parades that are overtly sexual, but I know I don’t have to look so I don’t really consider that shoved in my face. I don’t know where you live but I’d say for most of the country that is a extremely rare problem. Even militant gay activism pales in comparison to the persecution gays have suffered in this country. I agree. Gay or straight, make out sessions in public seem unnecessary You said forced on kids , and until they are old enough to decide for themselves. I just wondered what that meant. Decide what?Kids are affected by the prejudices of the people around them in various ways. As homosexuality is more common on TV and in society kids will be asking questions at younger ages. It’s tricky.I know I don’t want a teacher promoting their moral values as “the correct ones” but I expect it to come up.

As to the first part…..persecuted……really dude. This is part of what drives me crazy. Who out there doesn’t have some sort of persecution in their history. They need to drop the farking rock and move the fark on. My ancestors were persecuted. I have family that was interred during WWII…….by a progressive no less…..and their property stolen from them. I have American Indian blood as well.

all of us can tell our stories.

It’s when we get on with life and quit dwelling on the excuses for failure or outrage that things will get better.

But that will only happen when there is no longer a buck to turned by advocating victimhood. Or folks using it as an implement to bash those not in lockstep with their ideals.

WCinWI said:
Can you tell me where I said that I didn’t approve of civil unions or a secondary form of marriage (in some other term) for the gay population?

Why would I since I don’t address that at all? Never claimed you said that.

WCinWI said:
Last I checked, I said that marriage is between a man and a woman – for child-bearing purposes.

Which is clearly untrue. It can be and often is, but people who don’t want , or can’t have children get married all the time. In fact gay couples can have children if they choose to.
The point is there’s no reason for it to be anything else but marriage, and to insist that it is made something else is the denial of equality, based on what? Your feeling of what marriage is? That was the point of my post.
You can see marriage however you like , and individual churches can decide if they will preform ceremonies. Other citizens having equal rights , seeing it differently than you do, does not harm you or change your view of marriage in any way. OTOH, you denying them equal rights is doing harm.

jim bronson 990cc said:
You, for using the term “collective mind”.

Or you for having one?

CosmosDan said:
They’re not? If they can’t get married and enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage, then they are being denied equal rights.

They have equal rights. Straight people cannot marry the same sex, and gay people cannot marry the same sex. Sounds pretty equal to me.

And finally, some of us would like to preserve our institutions and traditions. You leftists seem to love a democracy when it works in your favor, but whine loudly when it doesn’t work out in your favor. In every state, and in every vote, gay marriage has been rejected by the people. Then you leftist clowns use FOIA to get voters’ names and names of business that make contributions, and then threaten and break things of those that oppose you.

Call your “marriages” unions or any other name you want to give them. They are not marriages. Get over it. It used to be a privilege to serve in the military, now it is a right. Why is nothing sacred, or off limits, or free from your constant chipping away and diminishing it?

VoiceofReason said:
Or you for having one?

This when the right is trying to push all of the “RINOs” out of office?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Different rights? Like being able to serve openly in the military? Being able to visit their partners at the hospital? So demanding of them.

What is serving openly? An excuse to not have to PT? A reason to not be yelled at for fu%k#ng up? A way to be different than everyone else….which is opretty much chapter and verse for many gays?

If you don’t expect exclusive or “different” treatment then WTF is the big deal?

ndanielson said:
The federal government is encroaching on everybody’s rights, more and more, everyday. Palin and most Americans are getting fed up with it. If you knew anything about history you’d know that an oppressive and overreaching government has led to tyranny time and time again.

Try responding to the subject of my post.

It’s about people making an effort to deny fellow citizens rights they already have. That has nothing to do with government encroaching on individual liberties.
Kinda takes the sting out of your snide remark when you’re not even talking about the same thing.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
This when the right is trying to push all of the “RINOs” out of office?

Actually we’d just like folks to be honest.

I think much of America is sick to death of being bullshitted. If you want amnesty……don’t bullshit us. Call it what it is, stand up and man up and defend it and let the chips fall where they may.

Don’t blow sunshine up my ass with spin, silly word games or pretending you are something you aren’t just for whatever.

VoiceofReason said:
Or you for having one?

How exactly does one have a collective mind? Please, explain.
And I thought Pablo’s statement was stupid…

CosmosDan said:
Why would I since I don’t address that at all? Never claimed you said that.

Which is clearly untrue. It can be and often is, but people who don’t want , or can’t have children get married all the time. In fact gay couples can have children if they choose to.
The point is there’s no reason for it to be anything else but marriage, and to insist that it is made something else is the denial of equality, based on what? Your feeling of what marriage is? That was the point of my post.
You can see marriage however you like , and individual churches can decide if they will preform ceremonies. Other citizens having equal rights , seeing it differently than you do, does not harm you or change your view of marriage in any way. OTOH, you denying them equal rights is doing harm.

So let me get this right. If we subtract technology, a man and another man can have a baby? This is news to me.

WCinWI said:
When society fails to see that its lack of parenting skills along with a crumbling education system are the demise of social principles as a whole (teens having sex, teens not being smart intellectually), then we have a crisis of the mind. Stop promoting programs that define it as being ok to be a single parent. Stuff like that.

I agree with some of this but Palin has all of this in her family.How do you defend her and disagree with her morals?

VoiceofReason said:
I don’t predicate each introduction with…..Oh Jim….BTW, I only like pussy. Yet I find that many gay folks seemingly need for everybody and their brother to know.

I know many Gay people, family as well as friends.Never has this been used as an introduction for anything.

jim bronson 990cc said:
No, you missed the part where further action was not taken.
You can’t defend her Wasilla record, so you move onto Seattle? Try to stick with the subject!

None of the 20 frivolous law suits stuck is what you are saying??? Wow how you twist words to say it, but hey, that is what clowns do. They aren’t too frivolous when you pay $500000 to defend them, but what would you know about $500000??? You have no concept of other people’s money, and certainly no respect for other people’s money.

Seattle was about showing the difference between a leader and a dictator. Palins voters supported their own sports stadium. The liberal clowns in Seattle politics had it rammed down their throats. But who would expect you to understand an analogous demonstration of liberal and conservative politics?

How’s your homework coming? Or are you changing the subject? You have always worked that way. 990cc’s of pure sheep crap.

ROCKSTEADY said:
I agree with some of this but Palin has all of this in her family.How do you defend her and disagree with her morals? I know many Gay people, family as well as friends.Never has this been used as an introduction for anything.

If knowing what an individuals sexual proclivities are is no big deal……..then why should it even come up?

BTW, and this is to any of you gay marriage advocates…….why isn’t a civil union….recognized by the federal govt as equal to marraige in all lawful principles and procedures…..good enough?

It is obvious that this is different than a man and woman entering a contract…….so why not simply a different name for the same set of rights?

jim bronson 990cc said:
How exactly does one have a collective mind? Please, explain.
And I thought Pablo’s statement was stupid…

A collective mind is called a flock. As in flock of sheep, who depend on government to do everything for them.

WCinWI said:
I said that marriage is between a man and a woman – for child-bearing purposes.

So your saying people who get married who cannot have children only get married for what?You need to open your little world more.Marriage is different to many ,many people.I don’t believe just having children is it.Bristol Palin has a child out of wedlock so whats that make her in your perfect world.We need Education of all kinds.

ndanielson said:
None of the 20 frivolous law suits stuck is what you are saying??? Wow how you twist words to say it, but hey, that is what clowns do. They aren’t too frivolous when you pay $500000 to defend them, but what would you know about $500000??? You have no concept of other people’s money, and certainly no respect for other people’s money. Seattle was about showing the difference between a leader and a dictator. Palins voters supported their own sports stadium. The liberal clowns in Seattle politics had it rammed down their throats. But who would expect you to understand an analogous demonstration of liberal and conservative politics? How’s your homework coming? Or are you changing the subject? You have always worked that way. 990cc’s of pure sheep crap.

You changed the subject from Wasilla to Seattle.
If she couldn’t handle the law suits, she should not have run for governor. Apparently, she couldn’t. She quit. It is what she does. Give Palin a homework assignment, she obviously needs to brush up on some basics.

jim bronson 990cc said:
How exactly does one have a collective mind? Please, explain.And I thought Pablo’s statement was stupid…

Try providing something outside of the hivespeak and you’ll have your answer.

And I’m sure Pablo holds your missives in similar esteem.

ndanielson said:
A collective mind is called a flock. As in flock of sheep, who depend on government to do everything for them.

Fails to answer the question. Miserably!

VoiceofReason said:
So they have no other options right?

I am in Indiana now but was in the Bay Area before here and I have friends who had contracts drawn up to allow them access at hospitals, blah blah blah………in essense a civil union. Legal and binding as any marriage licence.

Which is not the point. Fiscal conservatives ought to consider that trying to construct and legislate a new term like civil unions that has all the legal benefits of marriage costs a lot of money that it shouldn’t have to. The laws defining marriage are already in place and there is no good reason to spend tax dollars legislating a new term simply because people feel uncomfortable with some other couple being married. Kinda foolish isn’t it.
Not only that just telling fellow citizens they’re not allowed to marry the person they love, is morally repugnant.

VoiceofReason said:
What is serving openly? An excuse to not have to PT? A reason to not be yelled at for fu%k#ng up? A way to be different than everyone else….which is opretty much chapter and verse for many gays?

If you don’t expect exclusive or “different” treatment then WTF is the big deal?

They expect the same treatment. Others don’t have to hide their heterosexuality, why should they have to? That’s like asking somebody to hide their ethnicity. It’s a form of discrimination, period. There’s no way you can spin this to make it right.

VoiceofReason said:
Try providing something outside of the hivespeak and you’ll have your answer. And I’m sure Pablo holds your missives in similar esteem.

Since you are the expert on hivespeak, what exactly is it? I really don’t expect an answer. You couldn’t provide one to my last question to you.

VoiceofReason said:
If knowing what an individuals sexual proclivities are is no big deal……..then why should it even come up? BTW, and this is to any of you gay marriage advocates…….why isn’t a civil union….recognized by the federal govt as equal to marraige in all lawful principles and procedures…..good enough? It is obvious that this is different than a man and woman entering a contract…….so why not simply a different name for the same set of rights?

BTW…..how do I know who among my friends, family, coworkers, contacts or acquaintances is gay?

THEY TOLD ME.

VoiceofReason said:
Actually we’d just like folks to be honest.

I think much of America is sick to death of being bullshitted. If you want amnesty……don’t bullshit us. Call it what it is, stand up and man up and defend it and let the chips fall where they may.

Don’t blow sunshine up my ass with spin, silly word games or pretending you are something you aren’t just for whatever.

Then why the term “RINO”? Why then is the tea party targeting Scott Brown in the next election? Don’t try to bullshit me when Glenn beck is the keynote speaker at CPAC and arguing for “purity”. Stop trying to spin this and be honest.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Since you are the expert on hivespeak, what exactly is it? I really don’t expect an answer. You couldn’t provide one to my last question to you.

Everything I have seen from you in this thread sans the questioning is a PERFECT example.

You cite crap that pretty much anyone who hasn’t been under a rock the past 4 or 5 years knows is bull shit yet you fight hammer and tong…..providing even more to bolster your hivethink.

Do something outside the norm. Prove me wrong.

WCinWI said:
So let me get this right. If we subtract technology, a man and another man can have a baby? This is news to me.

It’s called adoption, maybe you’ve heard of it?
Not only that, hetero married couples use surrogates when one partner can’t conceive. There’s no reason gay couples can’t as well. I would think this stuff would be obvious.

ROCKSTEADY said:
So your saying people who get married who cannot have children only get married for what?You need to open your little world more.Marriage is different to many ,many people.I don’t believe just having children is it.Bristol Palin has a child out of wedlock so whats that make her in your perfect world.We need Education of all kinds.

1) Bristol is not perfect in my eyes. However, as a Pro-Life person, I understand and respect her choice. Humans are imperfect.

2) You learn in psychology class that the point of marriage, is for child-bearing purposes. Perhaps you haven’t been in school recently, or at all, I don’t know.

I am only saying that only a man and a woman can make a baby, without technology. This is just common sense. I don’t care if it’s a man-woman that can’t make babies or a man-man, woman-woman. Once you understand what the institution of marriage is primarily for, then perhaps you’ll understand.

jim bronson 990cc said:
How exactly does one have a collective mind? Please, explain.
And I thought Pablo’s statement was stupid…

jim bronson 990cc said:
You changed the subject from Wasilla to Seattle.
If she couldn’t handle the law suits, she should not have run for governor. Apparently, she couldn’t. She quit. It is what she does. Give Palin a homework assignment, she obviously needs to brush up on some basics.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Fails to answer the question. Miserably!

jim bronson 990cc said:
Since you are the expert on hivespeak, what exactly is it? I really don’t expect an answer. You couldn’t provide one to my last question to you.

Is there anything you say that is worth reading? Dodge and weave, smoke screens and doublespeak. You sound a lot like 0bama. No wonder he is your hero. 990cc’s of crap just like him.

CosmosDan said:
It’s called adoption, maybe you’ve heard of it?
Not only that, hetero married couples use surrogates when one partner can’t conceive. There’s no reason gay couples can’t as well. I would think this stuff would be obvious.

Correct – if gay couples would like to adopt, so be it. However, a gay couple cannot MAKE a child. It’s really a simple concept at its most simple form.

VoiceofReason said:
Everything I have seen from you in this thread sans the questioning is a PERFECT example. You cite crap that pretty much anyone who hasn’t been under a rock the past 4 or 5 years knows is bull shit yet you fight hammer and tong…..providing even more to bolster your hivethink. Do something outside the norm. Prove me wrong.

Or I can have you continue to have you duck and cover because you cannot defend your own words…

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Then why the term “RINO”? Why then is the tea party targeting Scott Brown in the next election? Don’t try to bullshit me when Glenn beck is the keynote speaker at CPAC and arguing for “purity”. Stop trying to spin this and be honest.

Tons of RINO hunting will be taking place in 2012. Hello McCaskill, Graham, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and others. *waves*

ndanielson said:
Is there anything you say that is worth reading? Dodge and weave, smoke screens and doublespeak. You sound a lot like 0bama. No wonder he is your hero. 990cc’s of crap just like him.

Since you cannot defend you own statements, I will leave the dodging and weaving to you. You have had such vast experience with it.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Then why the term “RINO”? Why then is the tea party targeting Scott Brown in the next election? Don’t try to bullshit me when Glenn beck is the keynote speaker at CPAC and arguing for “purity”. Stop trying to spin this and be honest.

Dude…..since when do I have control over the content of Beck’s speech?

As to RINO…….for me……it is an expression of exactly what I told you above. And to be clear…..RINO isn’t a term I utilize. I will however use CINO on occasion. This might dovetail into what is seemingly your beef with Beck.

He is speaking at a CONSERVATIVE convention. NOT the Republican National Convention. And I would tend to agree……if you are going to call yourself a conservative……we have certain ideals…….as least have the honesty to agree with them or provide an honest retort to why not.

Then I can take into account where you stand on those ideals, what you’ve said about them…..agreeing or disagreeing as you may……and what you have done, and make an educated decision on whether or not I want to support you.

As to why the TP is targerting Scott Brown…..you will have to ask them. I’m not their spokesperson nor a member of that affiliate.

Were I to venture a guess I would guess they feel disenfranchised by his behavior. He has promised to do something he hasn’t or promised not to do something he has. But as I don’t vote in the Mass elections…..I tend to follow other elections closer. Sorry.

That would be my motivation for campaigning against a certain politico. Or he pulled a Greg Stilson on my dog.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Or I can have you continue to have you duck and cover because you cannot defend your own words…

What words am I not defending?

WCinWI said:
Tons of RINO hunting will be taking place in 2012. Hello McCaskill, Graham, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and others. *waves*

I rest my case

“Palin appearance cancelled for safety concerns.”

MSNBC’s hosts’ hate speech against Sarah Palin has fomented unrest amongst their goon audience, and now pose a “Clear & Present Danger” to Palin and anyone disagreeing with them.

WHERE IS THE GOP TO CONDEMN, INVESTIGATE & PROSECUTE these hate-mongers?

E-mail your GOP rep., and spread this word.

WCinWI said:
Tons of RINO hunting will be taking place in 2012. Hello McCaskill, Graham, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and others. *waves*

Bill Nelson is a RINO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
Seriously? LOL!!!

CosmosDan said:
It’s called adoption, maybe you’ve heard of it?Not only that, hetero married couples use surrogates when one partner can’t conceive. There’s no reason gay couples can’t as well. I would think this stuff would be obvious.

So he is right……they cannot procreate.

VoiceofReason said:
What words am I not defending?

Hivespeak. Having a collective mind. The BS allegation.
Again, I expect no answer, as I haven’t received one yet.

jim bronson 990cc said:
No, you missed the part where further action was not taken.
You can’t defend her Wasilla record, so you move onto Seattle? Try to stick with the subject!

jim bronson 990cc said:
You, for using the term “collective mind”.

CosmosDan said:
Try responding to the subject of my post.

It’s about people making an effort to deny fellow citizens rights they already have. That has nothing to do with government encroaching on individual liberties.
Kinda takes the sting out of your snide remark when you’re not even talking about the same thing.

You guys all sound the same. Same crap different day. Your federal government is finding more and more INDIVIDUAL “RIGHTS” every single day. Isn’t that the definition of an encroaching government??? Smokescreen and double speak, dodge and weave. No wonder you all love 0bama so much

ndanielson said:
You guys all sound the same. Same crap different day. Your federal government is finding more and more INDIVIDUAL “RIGHTS” every single day. Isn’t that the definition of an encroaching government??? Smokescreen and double speak, dodge and weave. No wonder you all love 0bama so much

Have you ever read one of yur own posts? Talk about SSDD.

CosmosDan said:
Which is not the point. Fiscal conservatives ought to consider that trying to construct and legislate a new term like civil unions that has all the legal benefits of marriage costs a lot of money that it shouldn’t have to. The laws defining marriage are already in place and there is no good reason to spend tax dollars legislating a new term simply because people feel uncomfortable with some other couple being married. Kinda foolish isn’t it.Not only that just telling fellow citizens they’re not allowed to marry the person they love, is morally repugnant.

Oh Dan…..stop dude. Don’t try to cry fiscal conservative on this. I would bet that if all the other shit catering to gays was removed from the federal and state budgets, we could creat a million of these tiny naming entities and still have room to send money to Haiti.

And it isn’t because people simply feel uncomfortable. You are assailing their most heartfelt ideals. You are attacking their religion.

You have done a poor job at quibbling over this and please,……stop with the emotional garbage.

Abortion is repugnant. Yet we don’t end each post decrying your sides support for infanticide.

Man up.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Hivespeak. Having a collective mind. The BS allegation.Again, I expect no answer, as I haven’t received one yet.

Go back to any of your posts in this thread and show me one that is intellectually honest and wasn’t you parroting the party line or cut and pasting something somebody else wrote for you.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Hivespeak. Having a collective mind. The BS allegation.
Again, I expect no answer, as I haven’t received one yet.

For someone who never has a cogent thought on any subject, let alone an answer to any question, you sure whine a lot about not having your “questions” answered. I’ve seen you have questions answered many times, but cannot even understand the answer any way. There are no answers for someone without the intelligence, or the intellect to understand.

VoiceofReason said:
Go back to any of your posts in this thread and show me one that is intellectually honest and wasn’t you parroting the party line or cut and pasting something somebody else wrote for you.

I asked you for an answer. Once again, you could not provide it.
Batting one thousand, Voice of (should be lack of) Reason.

VoiceofReason said:
Dude…..since when do I have control over the content of Beck’s speech?

As to RINO…….for me……it is an expression of exactly what I told you above. And to be clear…..RINO isn’t a term I utilize. I will however use CINO on occasion. This might dovetail into what is seemingly your beef with Beck.

He is speaking at a CONSERVATIVE convention. NOT the Republican National Convention. And I would tend to agree……if you are going to call yourself a conservative……we have certain ideals…….as least have the honesty to agree with them or provide an honest retort to why not.

Then I can take into account where you stand on those ideals, what you’ve said about them…..agreeing or disagreeing as you may……and what you have done, and make an educated decision on whether or not I want to support you.

As to why the TP is targerting Scott Brown…..you will have to ask them. I’m not their spokesperson nor a member of that affiliate.

Were I to venture a guess I would guess they feel disenfranchised by his behavior. He has promised to do something he hasn’t or promised not to do something he has. But as I don’t vote in the Mass elections…..I tend to follow other elections closer. Sorry.

That would be my motivation for campaigning against a certain politico. Or he pulled a Greg Stilson on my dog.

I’m just listing an example. You’re saying the left has a hive mind well what better example than everybody following behind Beck’s every word?
Being honest is what you said, right? well Scott Brown was brutally honest from the beginning; he’s an independent. Yet it was the tea party and conservatives who heralded him as some type of symbol of the triumph of conservativism.
But why is it that you only want conservatives in power? Why only conservative ideals to triumph? Isn’t that a hive minded nature? If not then please tell me. If you have a narrow view of what conservativism is and incorporate only those that fit the mold into that then isn’t that hive mind?
No, they’re targeting him because he hasn’t been “hive minded” and has been doing what he thinks will be best for his state. He has never identified with the Tea Party. they want to target him because he didn’t live up to their flawed perception of him.

ndanielson said:
For someone who never has a cogent thought on any subject, let alone an answer to any question, you sure whine a lot about not having your “questions” answered. I’ve seen you have questions answered many times, but cannot even understand the answer any way. There are no answers for someone without the intelligence, or the intellect to understand.

Gosh, that was as enlightening as…well, nothing really. Failing to provide specifics is not an answer, even though you may think it is.

Here’s the volume of your work in this string. What isn’t written for you or what doesn’t actually bolster your argument when all the facts come are simply grade school bullshit. It could have easily come from any of the other hivedwellers like skyfet.

Wear it proud HiveMind.

jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 11:26 am (Quote)
5 18
Sarah is the one who needs a wake up call. She has been in a slumber since her resignation…if not before
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 12:11 pm (Quote)
4 9
ndanielson said:
Barry 0bama gave up the Illinois Senate seat to campaign, long before Sarah Palin stepped down from her Governorship. Or did you miss that time line? Have you ever had to mount a defense for a lawsuit? 20 lawsuits?
He got a promotion. She quit. Or did you miss that time line?
Whether I have or haven’t had to mount a defense to a lawsuit isn’t any of your business and has nothing to do with anything. But as far as Palin goes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7662820.stm
Hardly a “frivolous” matter.
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 12:13 pm (Quote)
2 8
NORBIT Jr. said:
Know how to get a room full of liberals scurrying around like a bevy of mice at a construction site? SARAH PALIN!
Your experiences playing with mice are quite revealing.
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 12:36 pm (Quote)
1 5
VoiceofReason said:
I guess you missed the part of the report that stated she operated within the confines of her elected mandate. Or that this was a partisan witch hunt led by detractors. BTW “he” didn’t get a promotion until LONG after he quit. And that was only the first time. He quit on the folks of his district in Ill to run for Carol Mosley Bruan’s seat in Washington and then quit on the entire state for nearly 2 years to get his “new” gig. Or is your idea for how an elected LEGISLATOR should behave is to NOT pass legislation…..rather vote present, if in attendence at all, while busily campaigning?
I guess you missed the part where she violated statute.
By your standard, Palin quit on Wasilla. Of course, after crushing the residents with a mountain of debt, it was probably a plus for the citizens:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-77525
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm (Quote)
1 1
Pablo said:
…and the left loses its collective mind over it. Who’s stupid now?
You, for using the term “collective mind”.
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm (Quote)
1 1
VoiceofReason said:
Or you for having one?
How exactly does one have a collective mind? Please, explain.
And I thought Pablo’s statement was stupid…
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm (Quote)
1 2
ndanielson said:
None of the 20 frivolous law suits stuck is what you are saying??? Wow how you twist words to say it, but hey, that is what clowns do. They aren’t too frivolous when you pay $500000 to defend them, but what would you know about $500000??? You have no concept of other people’s money, and certainly no respect for other people’s money. Seattle was about showing the difference between a leader and a dictator. Palins voters supported their own sports stadium. The liberal clowns in Seattle politics had it rammed down their throats. But who would expect you to understand an analogous demonstration of liberal and conservative politics? How’s your homework coming? Or are you changing the subject? You have always worked that way. 990cc’s of pure sheep crap.
You changed the subject from Wasilla to Seattle.
If she couldn’t handle the law suits, she should not have run for governor. Apparently, she couldn’t. She quit. It is what she does. Give Palin a homework assignment, she obviously needs to brush up on some basics.
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:13 pm (Quote)
1 1
ndanielson said:
A collective mind is called a flock. As in flock of sheep, who depend on government to do everything for them.
Fails to answer the question. Miserably!
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm (Quote)
1 1
VoiceofReason said:
Try providing something outside of the hivespeak and you’ll have your answer. And I’m sure Pablo holds your missives in similar esteem.
Since you are the expert on hivespeak, what exactly is it? I really don’t expect an answer. You couldn’t provide one to my last question to you.
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:22 pm (Quote)
0 0
VoiceofReason said:
Everything I have seen from you in this thread sans the questioning is a PERFECT example. You cite crap that pretty much anyone who hasn’t been under a rock the past 4 or 5 years knows is bull shit yet you fight hammer and tong…..providing even more to bolster your hivethink. Do something outside the norm. Prove me wrong.
Or I can have you continue to have you duck and cover because you cannot defend your own words…
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:24 pm (Quote)
0 0
ndanielson said:
Is there anything you say that is worth reading? Dodge and weave, smoke screens and doublespeak. You sound a lot like 0bama. No wonder he is your hero. 990cc’s of crap just like him.
Since you cannot defend you own statements, I will leave the dodging and weaving to you. You have had such vast experience with it.
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:26 pm (Quote)
0 0
WCinWI said:
Tons of RINO hunting will be taking place in 2012. Hello McCaskill, Graham, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and others. *waves*
Bill Nelson is a RINO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
Seriously? LOL!!!
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:28 pm (Quote)
0 0
VoiceofReason said:
What words am I not defending?
Hivespeak. Having a collective mind. The BS allegation.
Again, I expect no answer, as I haven’t received one yet.
jim bronson 990cc says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:31 pm (Quote)
0 1
ndanielson said:
You guys all sound the same. Same crap different day. Your federal government is finding more and more INDIVIDUAL “RIGHTS” every single day. Isn’t that the definition of an encroaching government??? Smokescreen and double speak, dodge and weave. No wonder you all love 0bama so much
Have you ever read one of yur own posts? Talk about SSDD.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Bill Nelson is a RINO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson
Seriously? LOL!!!

jim bronson 990cc said:
Hivespeak. Having a collective mind. The BS allegation.
Again, I expect no answer, as I haven’t received one yet.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Have you ever read one of yur own posts? Talk about SSDD.

You bring so much to the table. Like the rest of your sheep.

Palin is stealing it all from you liberals. Gay, feminism, the NRA and the Constitution. Meanwhile you look for “answers” here??? Keep looking.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I rest my case

So I guess we are free to judge you by the stupid things that eminate in skyfet’s fingertips and appear on our screens as well huh?

ndanielson said:
You bring so much to the table. Like the rest of your sheep.

Palin is stealing it all from you liberals. Gay, feminism, the NRA and the Constitution. Meanwhile you look for “answers” here??? Keep looking.

990cc’s of crap always plays the “you didn’t answer me” game. He is the dodge and weave king here. Such a waste. He should be collectively ignored.

ndanielson said:
990cc’s of crap always plays the “you didn’t answer me” game. He is the dodge and weave king here. Such a waste. He should be collectively ignored.

Ah, the irony!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I’m just listing an example. You’re saying the left has a hive mind well what better example than everybody following behind Beck’s every word?Being honest is what you said, right? well Scott Brown was brutally honest from the beginning; he’s an independent. Yet it was the tea party and conservatives who heralded him as some type of symbol of the triumph of conservativism.But why is it that you only want conservatives in power? Why only conservative ideals to triumph? Isn’t that a hive minded nature? If not then please tell me. If you have a narrow view of what conservativism is and incorporate only those that fit the mold into that then isn’t that hive mind?No, they’re targeting him because he hasn’t been “hive minded” and has been doing what he thinks will be best for his state. He has never identified with the Tea Party. they want to target him because he didn’t live up to their flawed perception of him.

Woah slow down.

Again….you want to fight about Brown. I don’t have a dog in that hunt. Should I bitch at you about DailyKos going after Obama?

Would you like to talk about a pol I have a say in electing?

BTW, TP folks and conservatives heralded Brown as one thing and one thing only……the stop to Obamacare. That really worked out well for us huh? Perhaps that could be at the root of some of the displeasure with Brown.

Again…..I don’t know…..I don’t follow Mass senatorial poklitics that closely because I can’t cast a vote. My misses might have some family there….but other than that I have nothing going in or for Mass.

I want conservatives power because like you…..I support the person who closest represents my ideals…….and I happen to be more conservative than liberal. Not that I don’t have some non-conservative thoughts.

But you know what……I won’t ever lie to you and tell I support something just because I want to fool you into supporting me. And if our idelas don’t match up…..I will discuss mine to the best of my abilities. You are free to do likewise.

As to your trying to link support for certain conservative principles to a hivemind as expressed by some here…..sorry. I find fault in EVERYONE. Hive mind is the driving force that causes many here to exclude reason and logic and appeal emotionally with garbage they really know isn’t true and might not even be what they truly believe….but it is what the lib group professes……so that’s my position too is seemingly their approach.

And if it is as you state….Brown isn’t a hivemind like them…..that’s their bad right? Not mine, right?

VoiceofReason said:
Here’s the volume of your work in this string. What isn’t written for you or what doesn’t actually bolster your argument when all the facts come are simply grade school bullshit. It could have easily come from any of the other hivedwellers like skyfet. Wear it proud HiveMind. jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 11:26 am (Quote)5 18Sarah is the one who needs a wake up call. She has been in a slumber since her resignation…if not beforejim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 12:11 pm (Quote)4 9ndanielson said:Barry 0bama gave up the Illinois Senate seat to campaign, long before Sarah Palin stepped down from her Governorship. Or did you miss that time line? Have you ever had to mount a defense for a lawsuit? 20 lawsuits?He got a promotion. She quit. Or did you miss that time line?Whether I have or haven’t had to mount a defense to a lawsuit isn’t any of your business and has nothing to do with anything. But as far as Palin goes:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7662820.stmHardly a “frivolous” matter.jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 12:13 pm (Quote)2 8NORBIT Jr. said:Know how to get a room full of liberals scurrying around like a bevy of mice at a construction site? SARAH PALIN!Your experiences playing with mice are quite revealing.jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 12:36 pm (Quote)1 5VoiceofReason said:I guess you missed the part of the report that stated she operated within the confines of her elected mandate. Or that this was a partisan witch hunt led by detractors. BTW “he” didn’t get a promotion until LONG after he quit. And that was only the first time. He quit on the folks of his district in Ill to run for Carol Mosley Bruan’s seat in Washington and then quit on the entire state for nearly 2 years to get his “new” gig. Or is your idea for how an elected LEGISLATOR should behave is to NOT pass legislation…..rather vote present, if in attendence at all, while busily campaigning?I guess you missed the part where she violated statute.By your standard, Palin quit on Wasilla. Of course, after crushing the residents with a mountain of debt, it was probably a plus for the citizens:http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-77525jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm (Quote)1 1Pablo said:…and the left loses its collective mind over it. Who’s stupid now?You, for using the term “collective mind”.jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:03 pm (Quote)1 1VoiceofReason said:Or you for having one?How exactly does one have a collective mind? Please, explain.And I thought Pablo’s statement was stupid…jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm (Quote)1 2ndanielson said:None of the 20 frivolous law suits stuck is what you are saying??? Wow how you twist words to say it, but hey, that is what clowns do. They aren’t too frivolous when you pay $500000 to defend them, but what would you know about $500000??? You have no concept of other people’s money, and certainly no respect for other people’s money. Seattle was about showing the difference between a leader and a dictator. Palins voters supported their own sports stadium. The liberal clowns in Seattle politics had it rammed down their throats. But who would expect you to understand an analogous demonstration of liberal and conservative politics? How’s your homework coming? Or are you changing the subject? You have always worked that way. 990cc’s of pure sheep crap.You changed the subject from Wasilla to Seattle.If she couldn’t handle the law suits, she should not have run for governor. Apparently, she couldn’t. She quit. It is what she does. Give Palin a homework assignment, she obviously needs to brush up on some basics.jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:13 pm (Quote)1 1ndanielson said:A collective mind is called a flock. As in flock of sheep, who depend on government to do everything for them.Fails to answer the question. Miserably!jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm (Quote)1 1VoiceofReason said:Try providing something outside of the hivespeak and you’ll have your answer. And I’m sure Pablo holds your missives in similar esteem.Since you are the expert on hivespeak, what exactly is it? I really don’t expect an answer. You couldn’t provide one to my last question to you.jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:22 pm (Quote)0 0VoiceofReason said:Everything I have seen from you in this thread sans the questioning is a PERFECT example. You cite crap that pretty much anyone who hasn’t been under a rock the past 4 or 5 years knows is bull shit yet you fight hammer and tong…..providing even more to bolster your hivethink. Do something outside the norm. Prove me wrong.Or I can have you continue to have you duck and cover because you cannot defend your own words…jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:24 pm (Quote)0 0ndanielson said:Is there anything you say that is worth reading? Dodge and weave, smoke screens and doublespeak. You sound a lot like 0bama. No wonder he is your hero. 990cc’s of crap just like him.Since you cannot defend you own statements, I will leave the dodging and weaving to you. You have had such vast experience with it.jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:26 pm (Quote)0 0WCinWI said:Tons of RINO hunting will be taking place in 2012. Hello McCaskill, Graham, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and others. *waves*Bill Nelson is a RINO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_NelsonSeriously? LOL!!!jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:28 pm (Quote)0 0VoiceofReason said:What words am I not defending?Hivespeak. Having a collective mind. The BS allegation.Again, I expect no answer, as I haven’t received one yet.jim bronson 990cc says:February 7, 2011 at 2:31 pm (Quote)0 1ndanielson said:You guys all sound the same. Same crap different day. Your federal government is finding more and more INDIVIDUAL “RIGHTS” every single day. Isn’t that the definition of an encroaching government??? Smokescreen and double speak, dodge and weave. No wonder you all love 0bama so muchHave you ever read one of yur own posts? Talk about SSDD.

Nice cut and paste, but it shows no attempt at putting together a coherent answer. It is completely lacking in specifics. I am sorry if this was too large a task for you. I won’t ask again.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Nice cut and paste, but it shows no attempt at putting together a coherent answer. It is completely lacking in specifics. I am sorry if this was too large a task for you. I won’t ask again.

dude……I just posted the volume of your work here as an example of your hivemind.

I know you don’t want to address it. but trying to ignore it and then cutesy (really weak) comments like you are somehow above the fray doesn’t garner you the esteem you seemingly desire.

It makes you look like a boob for picking a fight you couldn’t win because you were caught at something you then feebly attempted to deny.

Quit while you’re behind.

WCinWI said:
Last I checked, the only way that you could make a baby was one man and one woman. This is what I meant by encroachment

And you’re still wrong. It’s very obvious that marriage is not just for pro creation, as I just pointed out. Not only that, nobody is encroaching on your personal beliefs about marriage simply because they see it differently. Just as nobody is encroaching on Christianity by being Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist.

WCinWI said:
Why must I go along with a society that believes in things that I don’t?

Wow, you need a better understanding of what equal rights represents. If you’d like to find a commune where people all share the same view that’s your prerogative. In this country we have basic principles of human rights and a history of a struggle for equality. It’s really quite a wonderful thing, the concept of equality in a diverse nation. You defend your freedom to believe as you will by defending that freedom for others who believe differently. You defend your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by defending it for others, even though they find happiness differently than you do.

WCinWI said:
Why must I have to contribute to causes that I don’t believe in?

That’s how a society works. We don’t get to designate where our tax dollars go individually, although you’re welcome to work toward that arrangement.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Ah, the irony!

More insight on your part right?

Did that take you long to formulate?

VoiceofReason said:
The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I rest my case

You rested your brain so long ago that it has rotted. You’re a troll just like 990cc. It is so telling to go back and look at you sheep, and your pathetic posts. Do you guys make yourselves proud to be in such classy company, and of such like mind?

The Tea Party and Palin are taking all of your issues away from you. Soon, all you will have is your class envy, and you will be exposed for the blood sucking leeches that you are. By then it will be too late, because the Constitution is getting a re-birth, and was to be a means to stop your liberal, socialist garbage in the first place. The woman you most despise is drawing attention to malaise that liberalism has brought down upon us. Not too shabby for a country girl without that liberal pedigree that is so important to impress the sheep.

CosmosDan said:
That’s how a society works. We don’t get to designate where our tax dollars go individually, although you’re welcome to work toward that arrangement.

Our society was not to work under an overreaching federal government, but you seem to dense to understand that, no matter how many times it gets mentioned here.

VoiceofReason said:
More insight on your part right?

Did that take you long to formulate?

He’s a waste.

WCinWI said:
Correct – if gay couples would like to adopt, so be it. However, a gay couple cannot MAKE a child. It’s really a simple concept at its most simple form.

And totally irrelevant to the issue of marriage. There are absolutely no restrictions on hetero couples who can’t have children , or choose not to, getting married.

So, unless you’d like to explain how not being able to have children relates to marriage and equal rights, there’s no need to keep bringing it up when Same Sex Marriage comes up. and yet you always do.

CosmosDan said:
And totally irrelevant to the issue of marriage. There are absolutely no restrictions on hetero couples who can’t have children , or choose not to, getting married.

So, unless you’d like to explain how not being able to have children relates to marriage and equal rights, there’s no need to keep bringing it up when Same Sex Marriage comes up. and yet you always do.

Gays and straights have equal rights. Both can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex. Both cannot marry anyone they want of the same sex! THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION of either group. Wake up.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Don’t try to bullshit me when Glenn beck is the keynote speaker at CPAC and arguing for “purity”. Stop trying to spin this and be honest.

This is the disease. This is the disease in America. It’s not just spending, it’s not just taxes, it’s not just corruption. It is progressivism. And it is in both parties. It is in the Republicans and the Democrats. I mean it’s – it really is. I mean, I’m so sick of hearing people say, oh, well the Republicans are going to solve it all. Really? It’s just progressive-lite that – lite. That’s like somebody sticking a screwdriver in your eye and saying, stop! Stop! And somebody else pulls it out and then puts a pin in your eye. I don’t want stuff in my eyes! Stop stabbing in the eyes!

The word purity does not appear in the speech. So, yeah, let’s be honest and not spin this. Don’t bullshit us, OK?

VoiceofReason said:
So he is right……they cannot procreate.

I think it’s she , but not sure,

The subject is SSM, Procreation is only relevant in that context, and in that context, there is no rational argument against SSM that includes procreation or a lack of it.

CosmosDan said:
They’re not? If they can’t get married and enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage, then they are being denied equal rights.

They can get married and enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage. But that doesn’t seem like something a gay person would want to do.

ndanielson said:
Gays and straights have equal rights. Both can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex. Both cannot marry anyone they want of the same sex! THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION of either group. Wake up.

This is a totally bullshit argument. Heteros can and do marry who they romantically love, gays cannot. There is no good rational reason to deny them this equality, They simply want equality that offers no harm to any other citizens, and yet other citizens try to deny them.

Your argument sounds just like the ones that were made to try and keep interracial marriage illegal. Almost everybody sees how ridiculous they are. Can’t you?

jim bronson 990cc said:
You, for using the term “collective mind”.

Your ignorance does not make me stupid, jimmy. Here’s a free tip to help you out with that little problem of yours: If you don’t understand something, look it up.

ndanielson said:
Our society was not to work under an overreaching federal government, but you seem to dense to understand that, no matter how many times it gets mentioned here.

LOL! You’re funny. You seem to insist on inserting that in with some snotty little insult, even when it’s irrelevant to the post you’re responding to.

CosmosDan said:
Heteros can and do marry who they romantically love, gays cannot.

Sometimes. Sometimes they marry for security. Sometimes they marry for easy sex. Sometimes they marry for money. Sometimes they don’t even pick who they marry. Sometimes they settle for someone who is not the one they love.

CosmosDan said:
This is a totally bullshit argument. Heteros can and do marry who they romantically love, gays cannot. There is no good rational reason to deny them this equality, They simply want equality that offers no harm to any other citizens, and yet other citizens try to deny them.

Your argument sounds just like the ones that were made to try and keep interracial marriage illegal. Almost everybody sees how ridiculous they are. Can’t you?

Well, dense one, some people are religious, whether you like it or not. Some of those people actually own businesses, and actually have policies that they extend BENEFITS to family members when they employ them. Are you keeping up so far??? When you have a federal government that says ‘”You must provide gay people with benefits REGARDLESS of your BELIEFS” they have taken a right from one to give to another. DO YOU SEE HOW THIS IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF SOMEONE’S CIVIL RIGHTS???? OR do civil rights only mean something when they affect issues that you believe in? Wake up.

Forcing someone to go against their beliefs is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION in any way shape or form. Dense one.

CosmosDan said:
LOL! You’re funny. You seem to insist on inserting that in with some snotty little insult, even when it’s irrelevant to the post you’re responding to.

A federal government forcing gay rights on business owners to provide benefits against their beliefs is not relevant to your argument? Wow. Someone being told by the federal government to shove your beliefs up your a$$ is irreverent to the gay marriage issue??? Wow. Who knew???

CosmosDan said:
Your argument sounds just like the ones that were made to try and keep interracial marriage illegal. Almost everybody sees how ridiculous they are. Can’t you?

False equivocation. The inter-racial marriage is STILL one man- one woman. This is what marriage is

CosmosDan said:
Heteros can and do marry who they romantically love, gays cannot. There is no good rational reason to deny them this equality

So, why limit marriage to one person? Why not 4? Or 40? Or, 400?

Just Tex said:
So, why limit marriage to one person? Why not 4? Or 40? Or, 400?

Why limit it to only humans? What if one wants to “marry” inanimate objects? Animals?

ndanielson said:
A federal government forcing gay rights on business owners to provide benefits against their beliefs is not relevant to your argument? Wow. Someone being told by the federal government to shove your beliefs up your a$$ is irreverent to the gay marriage issue??? Wow. Who knew???

Doctors who have religious beliefs against abortion are being compelled to provide abortions, too. Did you know that? Or are you dense about that, too? the hell with their rights, huh? If you have religious beliefs in America, tough sh!t, huh cosmosdan? Wow, some people’s rights trump other people’s rights outright, huh dan????

Isn’t this the same folks who scream from the rooftops “YOU CAN’T LEGISTLATE MORALITY” ? Seems like they are trying to do just that

ndanielson said:
Gays and straights have equal rights. Both can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex. Both cannot marry anyone they want of the same sex! THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION of either group. Wake up.

Agreed. The definition of marriage is one man, one woman (Gen. 2:24).
P.S.- Marriage was determined WAY before any form of government

BTW- Just because someone disagrees with someone else that does not make them a “hater” or “anti” anything….

Dsiscokid said:
BTW- Just because someone disagrees with someone else that does not make them a “hater” or “anti” anything….

Hater

Dsiscokid said:
Why limit it to only humans? What if one wants to “marry” inanimate objects? Animals?

There’s no stopping love.

CosmosDan said:
LOL! You’re funny. You seem to insist on inserting that in with some snotty little insult, even when it’s irrelevant to the post you’re responding to.

That’s because your relentless disregard for any view but your own, and your inability to follow the relevance of the argument, and sniveling at someone else for it, is insulting.

VoiceofReason said:
So I guess we are free to judge you by the stupid things that eminate in skyfet’s fingertips and appear on our screens as well huh?

No, but if you make a statement and somebody exemplifies that then feel free to implicate them.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
No, but if you make a statement and somebody exemplifies that then feel free to implicate them.

So then c’mon man. You cannot slam him because of something stupid somebody else says or does simply because they share points of ideology.

Fair is fair.

VoiceofReason said:
Woah slow down.

Again….you want to fight about Brown. I don’t have a dog in that hunt. Should I bitch at you about DailyKos going after Obama?

Would you like to talk about a pol I have a say in electing?

BTW, TP folks and conservatives heralded Brown as one thing and one thing only……the stop to Obamacare. That really worked out well for us huh? Perhaps that could be at the root of some of the displeasure with Brown.

Again…..I don’t know…..I don’t follow Mass senatorial poklitics that closely because I can’t cast a vote. My misses might have some family there….but other than that I have nothing going in or for Mass.

I want conservatives power because like you…..I support the person who closest represents my ideals…….and I happen to be more conservative than liberal. Not that I don’t have some non-conservative thoughts.

But you know what……I won’t ever lie to you and tell I support something just because I want to fool you into supporting me. And if our idelas don’t match up…..I will discuss mine to the best of my abilities. You are free to do likewise.

As to your trying to link support for certain conservative principles to a hivemind as expressed by some here…..sorry. I find fault in EVERYONE. Hive mind is the driving force that causes many here to exclude reason and logic and appeal emotionally with garbage they really know isn’t true and might not even be what they truly believe….but it is what the lib group professes……so that’s my position too is seemingly their approach.

And if it is as you state….Brown isn’t a hivemind like them…..that’s their bad right? Not mine, right?

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I use Brown only as an example of the problem; if you don’t fall in line those who are hive-minded will do their best to exorcise you.
I have to disagree, many hailed Scott Brown as more than that. He was hailed as proof that even liberals were rejecting Obama and they expected him to tow the line, he obviously didn’t.
I wish that all politicians shared yours and my sentiments, but that is not the case. Think of how much of their pledge the Republicans lived up to in the 90s. I still have yet to see anything about term limits. They promised adult conversation yet they pass legislation called “repeal the job killing healthcare law act”. You seem like a reasonable person, so you must see the contradiction there.
That’s not what liberals profess. Democrats are supposedly the “liberal” party yet the democrats have more moderates among their congressional ranks than the Republicans. So I ask you by that definition which is the more “hive minded” the one with moderates and varying opinions or the ones who want “purity” among their ranks and target those who disagree?

VoiceofReason said:
So then c’mon man. You cannot slam him because of something stupid somebody else says or does simply because they share points of ideology.

Fair is fair.

I wasn’t slamming him. I made a statement and he exemplified it which is why I rested my case. Surely he doesn’t speak for the entirety, but his views are indicative of what has been presented.

ndanielson said:
You rested your brain so long ago that it has rotted. You’re a troll just like 990cc. It is so telling to go back and look at you sheep, and your pathetic posts. Do you guys make yourselves proud to be in such classy company, and of such like mind?

The Tea Party and Palin are taking all of your issues away from you. Soon, all you will have is your class envy, and you will be exposed for the blood sucking leeches that you are. By then it will be too late, because the Constitution is getting a re-birth, and was to be a means to stop your liberal, socialist garbage in the first place. The woman you most despise is drawing attention to malaise that liberalism has brought down upon us. Not too shabby for a country girl without that liberal pedigree that is so important to impress the sheep.

Have a nice day, notsosmart. Go back to your main account.

CosmosDan said:
And you’re still wrong. It’s very obvious that marriage is not just for pro creation, as I just pointed out. Not only that, nobody is encroaching on your personal beliefs about marriage simply because they see it differently. Just as nobody is encroaching on Christianity by being Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist.

Wow, you need a better understanding of what equal rights represents. If you’d like to find a commune where people all share the same view that’s your prerogative. In this country we have basic principles of human rights and a history of a struggle for equality. It’s really quite a wonderful thing, the concept of equality in a diverse nation. You defend your freedom to believe as you will by defending that freedom for others who believe differently. You defend your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by defending it for others, even though they find happiness differently than you do.

That’s how a society works. We don’t get to designate where our tax dollars go individually, although you’re welcome to work toward that arrangement.

I’m assuming with this logic that you’re ready to get rid of Pell Grants and Affirmative Action in the acceptance rates of law students too right?

Please tell me. What is marriage for then? The last I checked, it was for one man and one woman to declare their love to one another and to procreate. If that’s not the case, then you might as well go around to college campuses and tell those Psych professors that that’s not the case.

I am for equal rights. I’m not for changing the term marriage to mean what it is not meant to represent. Two different concepts.

You’re right. I’m will work my strengths towards voting for politicians interested in getting rid of agencies like the EPA, defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood and other such causes as I see fit.

Come back, CosmosDan. Tell my why your gay rights can allow the government to trump my religious beliefs and force me to pay for your gay rights?

VoiceofReason said:
Oh Dan…..stop dude. Don’t try to cry fiscal conservative on this. I would bet that if all the other shit catering to gays was removed from the federal and state budgets, we could creat a million of these tiny naming entities and still have room to send money to Haiti.

Again, irrelevant. You don’t defend unnecessary spending by pointing to other spending you think is unnecessary. It still costs far far more to create new legislation and it’s incredibly unnecessary, AND perpetuates and finances a moral failing, by trying to legislate inequality.

VoiceofReason said:
And it isn’t because people simply feel uncomfortable. You are assailing their most heartfelt ideals. You are attacking their religion.

Nonsense
Nobody is attacking anyone’s religion It’s tragic they delude themselves into thinking so. People are free to practice their religion as they see fit. If they want to consider their marriage holier than the sin of SSM they can. If they want to believe gays are going to hell, they can.

VoiceofReason said:
You have done a poor job at quibbling over this and please,……stop with the emotional garbage.

Since you’ve done no job at all in offering a counter argument , I’ll give this argument all the consideration it deserves. If you can dismiss equal rights for your fellow citizens as overly emotional and quibbling that’s yopur call, but I sure won’t be embarrassed for defending them.

VoiceofReason said:
Abortion is repugnant. Yet we don’t end each post decrying your sides support for infanticide.

Irrelevant and changing the subject.

Pro-choice about supporting the individuals right to make a choice for themselves, and is made more complex by the unresolved issue of when is a fetus , a person in need of protection. Still, every pro-choice person will respect and defend someone’s right to choose to have a baby.
SSM on the other harms no other person in any way and the only people harmed are those being denied equality by those who want to impose their version of morality on others.
It’s no different than all the other civil rights and equality issues this country has faced.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Have a nice day, notsosmart. Go back to your main account.

It so much more exciting to go back and forth between them. You’re too boring and slow, otherwise.

ndanielson said:
Come back, CosmosDan. Tell my why your gay rights can allow the government to trump my religious beliefs and force me to pay for your gay rights?

Religious beliefs are not above the law. You have the freedom to believe what you want, but that doesn’t mean a Rastafarian can legally smoke weed or that a mormon can legally marry multiple wives. The fact that you believe gays shouldn’t marry means nothing to the law. The law isn’t about beliefs. It’s about rights and freedoms.

ndanielson said:
It so much more exciting to go back and forth between them. You’re too boring and slow, otherwise.

Isn’t it funny to you that you, who have multiple accounts, call me a troll? Isn’t that ironic when all you ever do is hurl insults?

CosmosDan said:
Again, irrelevant. You don’t defend unnecessary spending by pointing to other spending you think is unnecessary. It still costs far far more to create new legislation and it’s incredibly unnecessary, AND perpetuates and finances a moral failing, by trying to legislate inequality.

Nonsense
Nobody is attacking anyone’s religion It’s tragic they delude themselves into thinking so. People are free to practice their religion as they see fit. If they want to consider their marriage holier than the sin of SSM they can. If they want to believe gays are going to hell, they can.

Since you’ve done no job at all in offering a counter argument , I’ll give this argument all the consideration it deserves. If you can dismiss equal rights for your fellow citizens as overly emotional and quibbling that’s yopur call, but I sure won’t be embarrassed for defending them.

Irrelevant and changing the subject.

Pro-choice about supporting the individuals right to make a choice for themselves, and is made more complex by the unresolved issue of when is a fetus , a person in need of protection. Still, every pro-choice person will respect and defend someone’s right to choose to have a baby.
SSM on the other harms no other person in any way and the only people harmed are those being denied equality by those who want to impose their version of morality on others.
It’s no different than all the other civil rights and equality issues this country has faced.

Everything is too irrelevant when you’re too dense to find relevance.

Hey cosmos is this relevant

ndanielson said:
Tell my why your gay rights can allow the government to trump my religious beliefs and force me to pay for your gay rights?

:

VoiceofReason said:
Hater

lol!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Religious beliefs are not above the law. You have the freedom to believe what you want, but that doesn’t mean a Rastafarian can legally smoke weed or that a mormon can legally marry multiple wives. The fact that you believe gays shouldn’t marry means nothing to the law. The law isn’t about beliefs. It’s about rights and freedoms.

The government taking my right to force me to PAY for your right is unconstitutional. Wake up. Dense one.

As a religious business owner, if I am forced to PAY for your benefits for your gay lover, it is unconstitutional. Get it, now? Dense one. No one should be forced by the government to pay for your lifestyle, get it even more, now? Dense one.

Pablo said:
Sometimes. Sometimes they marry for security. Sometimes they marry for easy sex. Sometimes they marry for money. Sometimes they don’t even pick who they marry. Sometimes they settle for someone who is not the one they love.

True and irrelevant to the issue. Individuals should be able to marry who they choose to marry and who wants to marry them. The personal details of why don’t matter in this discussion. It’s still a denial of equal rights as citizens.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Isn’t it funny to you that you, who have multiple accounts, call me a troll? Isn’t that ironic when all you ever do is hurl insults?

That you think government should force business owners to pay for your lifestyle is an insult, and unconstitutional. Pay for your own gay lifestyle.

ndanielson said:
The government taking my right to force me to PAY for your right is unconstitutional. Wake up. Dense one.

As a religious business owner, if I am forced to PAY for your benefits for your gay lover, it is unconstitutional. Get it, now? Dense one. No one should be forced by the government to pay for your lifestyle, get it even more, now? Dense one.

How is that taking your rights? What rights of yours have been infringed upon by allowing gays to marry? By that same logic it was unconstitutional to free slaves because people had to pay for it.

How is it unconstitutional? You pay for a spouse’s benefits now then it would be the same; they would still be a spouse. You’re not making an argument and you’re not making any sense. You’re just talking in idiotic circles.

CosmosDan said:
True and irrelevant to the issue. Individuals should be able to marry who they choose to marry and who wants to marry them. The personal details of why don’t matter in this discussion. It’s still a denial of equal rights as citizens.

Can you tell us someone on this site who has said that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry? I think conservatives have said that’s fine. Just to not change the definition of marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman.

ndanielson said:
That you think government should force business owners to pay for your lifestyle is an insult, and unconstitutional. Pay for your own gay lifestyle.

I’m not gay and frankly your attempts to portray me as such mean absolutely nothing because I don’t view the lifestyle as any more degrading than the mass amounts of casual sex which occur. You have this idiotic view that gays are evil and dirty when statistically speaking they are cleaner and more well off than heterosexuals. Take the idiocy somewhere else, notsosmart. See if snooki will let you smoosh smoosh.

CosmosDan said:
True and irrelevant to the issue. Individuals should be able to marry who they choose to marry and who wants to marry them. The personal details of why don’t matter in this discussion. It’s still a denial of equal rights as citizens.

Every thing is irrelevant. Wow.

You can marry who ever you want, but forcing business owners to pay for your lifestyle is unconstitutional. Always has been. That is why it is a gay union, and not a marriage. Wake up.

CosmosDan said:

Heteros can and do marry who they romantically love, gays cannot. There is no good rational reason to deny them this equality

So, why limit marriage to one person? Why not 4? Or 40? Or, 400?

WCinWI said:
Can you tell us someone on this site who has said that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry? I think conservatives have said that’s fine. Just to not change the definition of marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman.

Nobody’s changing the definition, you’re trying to narrow the definition. If you say they can marry but you call it something else then it’s not really marriage, now is it?

Just Tex said:
So, why limit marriage to one person? Why not 4? Or 40? Or, 400?

Why are you trying to argue with straw mans here? That’s like saying allowing gay marriage would allow bestiality; it’s simply not true.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I’m not gay and frankly your attempts to portray me as such mean absolutely nothing because I don’t view the lifestyle as any more degrading than the mass amounts of casual sex which occur. You have this idiotic view that gays are evil and dirty when statistically speaking they are cleaner and more well off than heterosexuals. Take the idiocy somewhere else, notsosmart. See if snooki will let you smoosh smoosh.

I don’t care if they are as clean as a class 10 clean room. A government has no right to force business owners to pay for your lifestyle. Not the government that our founders set forth. Where is that right in the constitution???

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
I’m not gay and frankly your attempts to portray me as such mean absolutely nothing because I don’t view the lifestyle as any more degrading than the mass amounts of casual sex which occur. You have this idiotic view that gays are evil and dirty when statistically speaking they are cleaner and more well off than heterosexuals. Take the idiocy somewhere else, notsosmart. See if snooki will let you smoosh smoosh.

I don’t care if they are as clean as a class 10 clean room. A government has no right to force business owners to pay for your lifestyle. Not the government that our founders set forth. Where is that right in the constitution???

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
How is that taking your rights? What rights of yours have been infringed upon by allowing gays to marry? By that same logic it was unconstitutional to free slaves because people had to pay for it.

How is it unconstitutional? You pay for a spouse’s benefits now then it would be the same; they would still be a spouse. You’re not making an argument and you’re not making any sense. You’re just talking in idiotic circles.

If the government forces business owners to pay benefits for your gay lover, it is unconstitutional. See how simple that is?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Nobody’s changing the definition, you’re trying to narrow the definition. If you say they can marry but you call it something else then it’s not really marriage, now is it?

Take an object. Let’s say a gun. Let’s say a law is created that renames a gun to any other word. Say broom. Does the broom still not shoot?

ndanielson said:
I don’t care if they are as clean as a class 10 clean room. A government has no right to force business owners to pay for your lifestyle. Not the government that our founders set forth. Where is that right in the constitution???

If the government forces business owners to pay benefits for your gay lover, it is unconstitutional. See how simple that is?

You’re not even trying anymore. If the business pays spousal support and gay lovers are recognized as spouses by the government (meaning that gay marriage is legalized), then the business has no right to deny them coverage. Do you see how simple that is? Where in the Constitution does it say that gays can’t get marries? I’m afraid if you can’t form something coherent I’m going to have to be done with you.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Why are you trying to argue with straw mans here? That’s like saying allowing gay marriage would allow bestiality; it’s simply not true.

It’s called a slipper slope. It’s what the current health care law is about too.

WCinWI said:
Take an object. Let’s say a gun. Let’s say a law is created that renames a gun to any other word. Say broom. Does the broom still not shoot?

How Shakespearean of you. But that’s a straw man and you know it. It’s not a gun anymore, it’s a broom. I shot you with my broom, not my gun. I probably sweep with my gun at this point.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
How Shakespearean of you. But that’s a straw man and you know it. It’s not a gun anymore, it’s a broom. I shot you with my broom, not my gun. I probably sweep with my gun at this point.

Please tell me how a man and a man can physically make a baby? I’m waiting to hear how this is possible without technology.

And as I said to CosmosDan, are you then for getting rid of scholarships to minorities and Affirmative Action policies?

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
How Shakespearean of you. But that’s a straw man and you know it. It’s not a gun anymore, it’s a broom. I shot you with my broom, not my gun. I probably sweep with my gun at this point.

Also, how would this law be worded? Would it say something to the effect of “This law allows for one person to marry another person of his or her choosing…” and if so, how is person defined?

WCinWI said:
It’s called a slipper slope. It’s what the current health care law is about too.

It’s called an overreaching federal government. Something that no lib can understand. It is a waste of time to discuss it with them. A Constitutional summit is long over due in this country to be done with these clowns once and for all. Forcing people to PAY for a lifestyle that they do not believe in…if that isn’t unconstitutional to them, they will never get it.

WCinWI said:
I’m assuming with this logic that you’re ready to get rid of Pell Grants and Affirmative Action in the acceptance rates of law students too right?

Irrelevant Not interested in getting sidetracked.

WCinWI said:
Please tell me. What is marriage for then? The last I checked, it was for one man and one woman to declare their love to one another and to procreate. If that’s not the case, then you might as well go around to college campuses and tell those Psych professors that that’s not the case.

Really? You don’t think Psych professors know that people get married for lots of reasons other than pro creation? You’re fooling yourself. The point is that people are free to marry the person they choose, who wants to marry them. Unless they are gay and then they are denied those rights that others have long enjoyed.
It appears your entire argument opposing SSM is that it doesn’t seem right to you. It’s not that it harms anyone, or that gays are undeserving of equal rights. It’s that somehow SS couples calling it marriage will have an adverse affect on your view of marriage in some way and they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. It’s as if by being able to call it marriage, they somehow harm others, even though the details of that harm can’t be explained in any rational way.

WCinWI said:
I am for equal rights. I’m not for changing the term marriage to mean what it is not meant to represent. Two different concepts.

Who gets to declare what it represents? Certainly in the world and even in our own country marriage has not always been the same thing, and varies. Does it diminish your commitment or your marriage in any way if people get married for reasons your wouldn’t?
You know we used to define marriage as same race as well, but were eventually wise enough to see that as immoral. And guess what, expanding the definition of marriage to allow others to marry who they love never harmed anyone in any way.
The definition of marriage, and the quality of commitment, the depth of love, is set within the hearts of the two people making that choice. No place else. There’s no way to improve the quality of your marriage or any marriage , by denying SS couples that right. If anything, denying equal rights , and trying to justify it, can only diminish us as a society

CosmosDan said:
Irrelevant Not interested in getting sidetracked.

Really? You don’t think Psych professors know that people get married for lots of reasons other than pro creation? You’re fooling yourself. The point is that people are free to marry the person they choose, who wants to marry them. Unless they are gay and then they are denied those rights that others have long enjoyed.
It appears your entire argument opposing SSM is that it doesn’t seem right to you. It’s not that it harms anyone, or that gays are undeserving of equal rights. It’s that somehow SS couples calling it marriage will have an adverse affect on your view of marriage in some way and they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. It’s as if by being able to call it marriage, they somehow harm others, even though the details of that harm can’t be explained in any rational way.

Who gets to declare what it represents? Certainly in the world and even in our own country marriage has not always been the same thing, and varies. Does it diminish your commitment or your marriage in any way if people get married for reasons your wouldn’t?
You know we used to define marriage as same race as well, but were eventually wise enough to see that as immoral. And guess what, expanding the definition of marriage to allow others to marry who they love never harmed anyone in any way.
The definition of marriage, and the quality of commitment, the depth of love, is set within the hearts of the two people making that choice. No place else. There’s no way to improve the quality of your marriage or any marriage , by denying SS couples that right. If anything, denying equal rights , and trying to justify it, can only diminish us as a society

Too much diversion in that. You’re not going to change my opinion on the matter.

It’s really simple. The act of marriage is to procreate between one man and one woman, since that’s how it’s done. If married couples don’t wish to have children, then they don’t get preggers. Simple as that. Don’t talk to me about a diversion (what marriage used to be) and then yell at me for asking you if you were for equal rights in other forms.

We can all just disagree on what purpose marriage serves. That is all.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
That’s like saying allowing gay marriage would allow bestiality; it’s simply not true.

In dissent to the majority opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas (Texas’s struck down sodomy law), Justice Scalia argued:

“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a “fundamental right” (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.”

So what’s to stop the court from ruling that you can “marry” 5 people? Or, your dog, a tree, or an aircraft?

Nothing. Especially when considering the court’s previous failings in applying law, in accordance with long held, accepted, and wholly reasonable logic.

CosmosDan said:
Irrelevant Not interested in getting sidetracked.

Really? You don’t think Psych professors know that people get married for lots of reasons other than pro creation? You’re fooling yourself. The point is that people are free to marry the person they choose, who wants to marry them. Unless they are gay and then they are denied those rights that others have long enjoyed.
It appears your entire argument opposing SSM is that it doesn’t seem right to you. It’s not that it harms anyone, or that gays are undeserving of equal rights. It’s that somehow SS couples calling it marriage will have an adverse affect on your view of marriage in some way and they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. It’s as if by being able to call it marriage, they somehow harm others, even though the details of that harm can’t be explained in any rational way.

Who gets to declare what it represents? Certainly in the world and even in our own country marriage has not always been the same thing, and varies. Does it diminish your commitment or your marriage in any way if people get married for reasons your wouldn’t?
You know we used to define marriage as same race as well, but were eventually wise enough to see that as immoral. And guess what, expanding the definition of marriage to allow others to marry who they love never harmed anyone in any way.
The definition of marriage, and the quality of commitment, the depth of love, is set within the hearts of the two people making that choice. No place else. There’s no way to improve the quality of your marriage or any marriage , by denying SS couples that right. If anything, denying equal rights , and trying to justify it, can only diminish us as a society

Per your last statement, then you would be for Affirmative Action and scholarships to minority students to be abolished. It’s nice that we can agree on that point.

Dsiscokid said:
False equivocation. The inter-racial marriage is STILL one man- one woman. This is what marriage is

It is certainly not false since the Bible was used in a failed attempt to deny mixed race marriages as well.
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

Our history in this country is one of struggling against those who sought to deny equality to certain groups. Women, minorities, etc. As the injustice of denying equality becomes more and more obvious , those who support that denial are consistently proved wrong. this issue will be no different.

There simply are no rational and reasonable arguments available for denying equal rights and status to our fellow citizens. You’d think people could look at our history of struggling for equality and see that.

Just Tex said:
So, why limit marriage to one person? Why not 4? Or 40? Or, 400?

Irrelevant and a separate issue.

CosmosDan said:
It is certainly not false since the Bible was used in a failed attempt to deny mixed race marriages as well.
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

Our history in this country is one of struggling against those who sought to deny equality to certain groups. Women, minorities, etc. As the injustice of denying equality becomes more and more obvious , those who support that denial are consistently proved wrong. this issue will be no different.

There simply are no rational and reasonable arguments available for denying equal rights and status to our fellow citizens. You’d think people could look at our history of struggling for equality and see that.

And you’d think that a government forcing someone to pay for the lifestyles and actions of others, for religious beliefs, or any beliefs at all, would be clear for all to see as unconstitutional, but that is irrelevant to a liberal.

CosmosDan said:
Irrelevant and a separate issue.

Dismissed as irrelevant, once again. Wow.

CosmosDan said:
Irrelevant and a separate issue.

Of course my argument is “relevant”. But since you can’t deal with that being so, or anything else based on logic, you’ve created a very simple minded straw man. Because simple minds can only create simple straw men. And absolutely nothing more.

CosmosDan said:
There simply are no rational and reasonable arguments available for denying equal rights and status to our fellow citizens. You’d think people could look at our history of struggling for equality and see that.

They have not been denied any so-called “rights”. Marriage is one man, one woman.
As I posted earlier on this thread, the same folks who decry “YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY” are attempting to “LEGISLATE MORALITY” with this issue. If two adults want to sign a contract, that’s on them. But to call it marriage is beyond laughable, because marriage is between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:25)

CosmosDan said:
Irrelevant and a separate issue.

That’s a fair question.

Honestly, with ALL the issues this Nation of ours faces, with particular issue gets WAY too much press, IMHO

ndanielson said:
A federal government forcing gay rights on business owners to provide benefits against their beliefs is not relevant to your argument? Wow. Someone being told by the federal government to shove your beliefs up your a$$ is irreverent to the gay marriage issue??? Wow. Who knew???

Required health care is a separate issue. Should Christian business owners be able to deny health coverage to non Christians? Maybe the government shouldn’t require anything of private businesses and we can return to days of discrimination, but that’s a separate argument.

ndanielson said:
Dismissed as irrelevant, once again. Wow.

Sorry you can’t tell the difference and stay on subject.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Religious beliefs are not above the law. You have the freedom to believe what you want, but that doesn’t mean a Rastafarian can legally smoke weed or that a mormon can legally marry multiple wives. The fact that you believe gays shouldn’t marry means nothing to the law. The law isn’t about beliefs. It’s about rights and freedoms.

this

CosmosDan said:
Should Christian business owners be able to deny health coverage to non Christians?

Why don’t you try to explain to us why they should or shouldn’t?

CosmosDan said:
Required health care is a separate issue. Should Christian business owners be able to deny health coverage to non Christians? Maybe the government shouldn’t require anything of private businesses and we can return to days of discrimination, but that’s a separate argument.

Irrelevant gibberish to the constitution. Dismissed.

CosmosDan said:
Sorry you can’t tell the difference and stay on subject.

Irrelevant based on your liberal opinion. Dismissed.

CosmosDan said:
this

Irrelevant base on the Constitution. Forcing someone to pay for your lifestyle…not in there!

Wow, that was easy.

CosmosDan said:
The fact that you believe gays shouldn’t marry means nothing to the law. The law isn’t about beliefs. It’s about rights and freedoms.

Who defines “rights” and “freedoms”? The fact that one believes sodomites (the proper, correct term) should “marry” constitutes a “right” is way beyond any definition of the Law in any civilization, Christian and non-Christian. Marriage is one man, one woman naturally, regardless of any ill-conceived “right”. Thoughts?

Jeez, listening to some of the garbage so many of you spew in here is fcukin’ hilarious! I thought America was all about advanced citizenship? it’s 2011 and you’re still with all the gay issues? Grow the fuck up America and join is in the 21st century already.

Just Tex said:
Of course my argument is “relevant”. But since you can’t deal with that being so, or anything else based on logic, you’ve created a very simple minded straw man. Because simple minds can only create simple straw men. And absolutely nothing more.

No it isn’t relevant to a discussion of SSM. It’s apples and oranges. If we’re discussing what’s good or bad about apples , the discussion is apples. It’s not relevant to jump in with
“but what about oranges” just because it’s also a fruit.
You’re welcome to make a logical argument opposing SSM if you like. Suppose you explain what straw man I presented because I don’t believe I did.

Dsiscokid said:
They have not been denied any so-called “rights”. Marriage is one man, one woman.
As I posted earlier on this thread, the same folks who decry “YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY” are attempting to “LEGISLATE MORALITY” with this issue. If two adults want to sign a contract, that’s on them. But to call it marriage is beyond laughable, because marriage is between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:25)

Dude, that is irrelevant to a liberal. In fact your beliefs, your religion, your lifestyles are all irrelevant unless they are liberal. Wake up.

If there is money in it the half-term nit wit will support it.

ndanielson said:
Come back, CosmosDan. Tell my why your gay rights can allow the government to trump my religious beliefs and force me to pay for your gay rights?

You are jamming together two separate arguments in an unreasonable way.
The question is should gays have equality by being allowed to marry. Having equal rights doesn’t cost anybody anything extra.

Discussing what the government requires of a business in the way of benefits provided is a separate argument.
Maybe the government shouldn’t require anything and private business should be able to discriminate against anyone they want to.

Or maybe if you hire someone for your business and they do a good job as an employee their private life shouldn’t matter and you shouldn’t try to impose your religious beliefs on your employees.
But none of that relates to whether gays, or anyone else, should have equal rights.

Hey cosmo, why don’t you pay for my hunting license and my tags, and my fishing license next year? My lifestyle is one where I love to hunt and fish, and I’m a little strapped for cash sometimes.

Dsiscokid said:
Thoughts?

Precisely. Society as a whole, not the courts or some other ~progressive~ (which actually means RE-gressive) or just disgruntled subset of the general population, defines the terms we use, and how we use them.

However, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of United States, our “Rights” are granted by the “Creator”. Meaning, they are recognized within our law as inherent, and therefore can’t ever be lawfully taken away.

CosmosDan said:
The question is should gays have equality by being allowed to marry.

Indeed. And the obvious answer to that question is, providing you chose to marry someone of the opposite sex, you can marry whoever you chose.

Consummatum est

CosmosDan said:
You are jamming together two separate arguments in an unreasonable way.
The question is should gays have equality by being allowed to marry. Having equal rights doesn’t cost anybody anything extra.

Discussing what the government requires of a business in the way of benefits provided is a separate argument.
Maybe the government shouldn’t require anything and private business should be able to discriminate against anyone they want to.

Or maybe if you hire someone for your business and they do a good job as an employee their private life shouldn’t matter and you shouldn’t try to impose your religious beliefs on your employees.
But none of that relates to whether gays, or anyone else, should have equal rights.

Your whole argument is irrelevant. Having the government force businesses, through benefits to spouses, to pay for your lifestyle is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You do not have the right to live any way you choose and have another person FORCED to pay for it.

WCinWI said:
Can you tell us someone on this site who has said that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry? I think conservatives have said that’s fine. Just to not change the definition of marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman.

this statement kinda contradicts itself doesn’t it?
Look we expanded the definition of marriage to include interracial couples and we discovered society did not crumble into moral decay. Does anybody still believe that interracial marriage harms society as a whole and diminishes marriage in some way?
Can you tell me in what way expanding it to include same sex couples does any harm to anyone?

WCinWI said:
And as I said to CosmosDan, are you then for getting rid of scholarships to minorities and Affirmative Action policies?

I have no idea how you are relating this to the topic of SSM.

ndanielson said:
Your whole argument is irrelevant. Having the government force businesses, through benefits to spouses, to pay for your lifestyle is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You do not have the right to live any way you choose and have another person FORCED to pay for it.

Just Tex said:
CosmosDan

Otherwise the government would be in violation of suspending someones RELIGIOUS beliefs to BENEFIT another. That is DE FACTO discrimination AND THEREFORE, unconstitutional.

Just Tex said:
So what’s to stop the court from ruling that you can “marry” 5 people? Or, your dog, a tree, or an aircraft?

Well for one thing, there’s the issue of consent. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults so the bestiality and aircraft mention is ludicrous.

The issue of polygamy is separate. I haven’t examined it but I’ve heard that studies done indicate some harm is done to those participating. Personally it’s none of my business, but it is a separate issue. The difference is that now certain citizens have rights as individuals that others do not.

The argument of , this could lead to bad stuff is not a defensible one.

Just Tex said:
Why don’t you try to explain to us why they should or shouldn’t?

It wasn’t my argument so, no thanks.

ndanielson said:
Forcing someone to pay for your lifestyle…not in there!

And I did not advocate this in any way. Your argument makes little sense.

If you’d like business owners to be able to discriminate at will as an expression of their liberties you can make that argument, but not to me in this thread, because it’s not what I’m talking about.

CosmosDan said:
Well for one thing, there’s the issue of consent. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults so the bestiality and aircraft mention is ludicrous.

The issue of polygamy is separate. I haven’t examined it but I’ve heard that studies done indicate some harm is done to those participating. Personally it’s none of my business, but it is a separate issue. The difference is that now certain citizens have rights as individuals that others do not.

The argument of , this could lead to bad stuff is not a defensible one.

Marriage for gays is about benefits. So is the argument, therein, about benefits. Forcing someone to pay for your benefits so you can live your chosen lifestyle is unconstitutional because it imposes a government force suppressing the right of another. Your argument is irrelevant. On all grounds your argument is irrelevant.

CosmosDan said:
And I did not advocate this in any way. Your argument makes little sense.

If you’d like business owners to be able to discriminate at will as an expression of their liberties you can make that argument, but not to me in this thread, because it’s not what I’m talking about.

The government practices discrimination when it suspends the religious rights of one to benefit another, through force. Wake up.

Dsiscokid said:
Who defines “rights” and “freedoms”? The fact that one believes sodomites (the proper, correct term) should “marry” constitutes a “right” is way beyond any definition of the Law in any civilization, Christian and non-Christian. Marriage is one man, one woman naturally, regardless of any ill-conceived “right”. Thoughts?

My “thoughts” are that your argument is preposterous. How one achieves orgasm should have no bearing on their ability to marry. Should couples that have anal sex also be prohibited from marrying? That’s sodomy and that makes them “sodomites”. You yourself said who decides “rights” and “freedoms” so who are you to decide what a person can and cannot do and what they are and are not entitled to. You’re contradicting yourself.

Pablo said:
Your ignorance does not make me stupid, jimmy. Here’s a free tip to help you out with that little problem of yours: If you don’t understand something, look it up.

No help, but help is what you need!

Dsiscokid said:
Who defines “rights” and “freedoms”? The fact that one believes sodomites (the proper, correct term) should “marry” constitutes a “right” is way beyond any definition of the Law in any civilization, Christian and non-Christian. Marriage is one man, one woman naturally, regardless of any ill-conceived “right”. Thoughts?

We do as a society, as we grow. We made the attempt to define it with words in the our Declaration and ion our Constitution and bill of rights, and we have been struggling with it ever since. We treated native Americans horribly, We owned slaves , and denied equality to women and minorities, but over time and generations these groups and people who saw the ideal of equality and our founding principles as crucial , worked against the opposition to live up to the ideal of equality for our fellow citizens.
That’s what is happening now with this issue. Eventually , inevitably, justice will prevail and generations from now those who oppose equality will be seen in the same light as those who have in the past.

ndanielson said:
Marriage for gays is about benefits. So is the argument, therein, about benefits. Forcing someone to pay for your benefits so you can live your chosen lifestyle is unconstitutional because it imposes a government force suppressing the right of another. Your argument is irrelevant. On all grounds your argument is irrelevant.

Your argument is transparent and idiotic. Benefits offered to spouses would go to the significant other. how is that any different than the way it is done now? oh that’s right because it challenges your narrow perception of the world. I’m convinced that you’re not being serious anymore, only trolling.

VoiceofReason said:
dude……I just posted the volume of your work here as an example of your hivemind. I know you don’t want to address it. but trying to ignore it and then cutesy (really weak) comments like you are somehow above the fray doesn’t garner you the esteem you seemingly desire. It makes you look like a boob for picking a fight you couldn’t win because you were caught at something you then feebly attempted to deny. Quit while you’re behind.

“Dude”, you posted old posts. Nothing more, nothing less. I know you want to believe it is more, but that does not make it so. If you do not understand the difference between a response and an answer, consult a dictionary, thesaurus…fill in the blank. There is nothing to deny, because you don’t answer.

ndanielson said:
The government practices discrimination when it suspends the religious rights of one to benefit another, through force. Wake up.

How is anybody suspending your “religious rights”? Nobody is stoping you from believing what you believe. Regardless as to your religion, government has a stated purpose to uphold the right of all to the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not gays get married has nothing to do with you or your own pursuit.

Just Tex said:
Precisely. Society as a whole, not the courts or some other ~progressive~ (which actually means RE-gressive) or just disgruntled subset of the general population, defines the terms we use, and how we use them.

However, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of United States, our “Rights” are granted by the “Creator”. Meaning, they are recognized within our law as inherent, and therefore can’t ever be lawfully taken away.

You might want to tell that to the Supreme Court, Moron.

Just Tex said:
Precisely. Society as a whole, not the courts or some other ~progressive~ (which actually means RE-gressive) or just disgruntled subset of the general population, defines the terms we use, and how we use them.

However, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of United States, our “Rights” are granted by the “Creator”. Meaning, they are recognized within our law as inherent, and therefore can’t ever be lawfully taken away.

Yet it was done to African Americans for hundreds of years.

Dsiscokid said:
The fact that one believes sodomites (the proper, correct term) should “marry” constitutes a “right” is way beyond any definition of the Law in any civilization,

Are you joking? Are lesbians sodomites? Are gay men who don’t practice sodomy, still sodomites? Aren’t hetero couples free to practice sodomy without getting arrested? Do you think that act should be illegal and prosecuted regardless of who does it?

Dsiscokid said:
Christian and non-Christian. Marriage is one man, one woman naturally, regardless of any ill-conceived “right”. Thoughts?

Once again, the same argument of,” It’s unnatural” was made in opposition to interracial marriage , not all that long ago. They quoted the Bible too, were they right?
Since homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom and humans beings are born that way, it is perfectly natural. Religions will have to grow up eventually.
and this

“As I posted earlier on this thread, the same folks who decry “YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY” are attempting to “LEGISLATE MORALITY””
Nobody here has argued that. In fact we have and we do try to legislate morality. That’s what the civil rights movement was about. I think the point is not to harm others by trying to enforce your code of morality on them, when they are not harming you. it’s a question of equal rights for all citizens.

ndanielson said:
Your whole argument is irrelevant. Having the government force businesses, through benefits to spouses, to pay for your lifestyle is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You do not have the right to live any way you choose and have another person FORCED to pay for it.

I’ve already explained this. You’re forcing two separate issues together.
You can argue that forcing employers to not arbitrarily discriminate against blacks or gays or women or whomever is unconstitutional but not to me.. It’s a separate issue. It does not directly relate to SSM as a civil rights issue.

Does anyone notice the deer-in-the-headlights look the half-term nit wit has in the photo? This is symbolic of Palin. The nit wit has no idea what she is saying.

Sarah Palin!! America’s second biggest buffoon.

She’s great a criticizing, but still has absolutely nothing to offer.

ndanielson said:
The government practices discrimination when it suspends the religious rights of one to benefit another, through force. Wake up.

So, discrimination is perfectly fine, as long as you have a religious foundation for it? Or is it just that private business should be allowed to discriminate at will?

CosmosDan said:
there’s the issue of consent.

Many types of animals are fully capable of granting “consent”. Both with and without coercion. So why not be allowed to “marry” your dog? Or any other sentient creature?

CosmosDan said:
Marriage is a contract between consenting adults

By your own irrational reasoning, that’s discriminatory. Who’s idea is that anyway? Why not re-define that to include children and the completely cognitively impaired as well, instead of what you call “adults”?

CosmosDan said:
The issue of polygamy is separate.

Why? Who has the power to decide that? Why not be allowed to “marry” forty or even four hundred people?

Just Tex said:
However, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of United States, our “Rights” are granted by the “Creator”. Meaning, they are recognized within our law as inherent, and therefore can’t ever be lawfully taken away.

and yet we have a history of doing exactly that until those rights are fought for and won by those being denied.

If you’re opposing SSM you are opposing the equality and the civil rights of your fellow citizens in the same way those in the past opposed interracial marriage, equality for minorities etc. They all felt morally justified in doing so and often quoted the Bible. Check out the link I provided showing the similarities in the arguments.

Just Tex said:
Many types of animals are fully capable of granting “consent”. Both with and without coercion. So why not be allowed to “marry” your dog? Or any other sentient creature? By your own irrational reasoning, that’s discriminatory. Who’s idea is that anyway? Why not re-define that to include children and the completely cognitively impaired as well, instead of what you call “adults”? Why? Who has the power to decide that? Why not be allowed to “marry” forty or even four hundred people?

Because animals are not sui juris under the law!

Just Tex said:
Many types of animals are fully capable of granting “consent”. Both with and without coercion. So why not be allowed to “marry” your dog? Or any other sentient creature?

nonsense. Expressing affection and having the understanding and awareness to give consent are vastly different.

Just Tex said:
By your own irrational reasoning, that’s discriminatory. Who’s idea is that anyway? Why not re-define that to include children and the completely cognitively impaired as well, instead of what you call “adults”?

I’m not the one being irrational. You’re trying to make , “this is wrong because it may lead to this” argument.
It’s a huge fail because you can’t establish it as factual or show any precedent to indicate it’s true.

Just Tex said:
Why? Who has the power to decide that? Why not be allowed to “marry” forty or even four hundred people?

It’s because polygamy and monogamy are two different things If you can show me that SSM will eventually lead to polygamy you might have an argument, but you can’t, so stop bringing it up.

CosmosDan said:
Check out the link I provided showing the similarities in the arguments.

Anyone can make any type of argument, using any of several easily recognized formats. However, making an argument doesn’t make what you’re claiming so.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Because animals are not sui juris under the law!

Yet.

CosmosDan said:
Expressing affection and having the understanding and awareness to give consent are vastly different.

According to who? You’ll claim will undoubtedly be “society”, However, it’s important to recognize that “society” has already passed judgment on SSM numerous times, and each time it’s come to the vote, this “society” has chosen to keep M/F marriage as it’s lawfully recognized standard.

CosmosDan said:
I’m not the one being irrational.

Nonsense. You switch tactics faster than Ricky Martin switched sides, when his career began to lag.

CosmosDan said:
It’s because polygamy and monogamy are two different things

According to who? You? You’ve already proven yourself to be irrational. So you don’t get to decide. Make an ass of yourself once and you’re forgiven. Twice, and the rest of us begin to get concerned. Do it over and over and over again, as you certainly have done here, and we treat you for the lunatic you are.

That’s the way societies work. And that’s the way it will always be, regardless of your jejune inability to recognize reality as it stands.

CosmosDan said:
Since homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom and humans beings are born that way, it is perfectly natural.

….that in and of its self is not “natural”. The natural urge between man and woman is natural

CosmosDan said:
Nobody here has argued that. In fact we have and we do try to legislate morality. That’s what the civil rights movement was about. I think the point is not to harm others by trying to enforce your code of morality on them, when they are not harming you. it’s a question of equal rights for all citizens.

That is EXACTLY what you are trying to do under the guise of “equality”. This issue IS an attempt to force YOUR code of morality onto others. Marriage IS ONE MAN , ONE WOMAN. There is no way around that. As much as one attempts to twist and contort facts with this isssue to fit an agenda, it simply will not work and it is a blantant attempt to re-define marriage. Those that compare this issue to slavery or any REAL Civil Rights issue are lying to themselves.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
My “thoughts” are that your argument is preposterous. How one achieves orgasm should have no bearing on their ability to marry. Should couples that have anal sex also be prohibited from marrying? That’s sodomy and that makes them “sodomites”. You yourself said who decides “rights” and “freedoms” so who are you to decide what a person can and cannot do and what they are and are not entitled to. You’re contradicting yourself.

All I am saying is that Marriage by definition, in the natural world and in almost every civilization on the Earth, is between one man and one woman. Who are YOU to decide that the definition of marriage can be changed? BTW- to compare this issue to Blacks and Civil Rights is shameful and a total farce, IMHO

Just Tex said:
Anyone can make any type of argument, using any of several easily recognized formats. However, making an argument doesn’t make what you’re claiming so.

???? No I think reality does that and eventually history will demonstrate it.

I’m simply pointing out , with evidence and accuracy , that the arguments against interracial marriage , and the arguments against SSM. are very similar included being based on bible passages.

Now, years later we widely recognize that the arguments against interracial marriage were without substance and somewhat foolish. Since there is no shred of evidence that SSM harms anyone , or society in general, I predict that a few generations from now the purely emotional arguments being used now will be viewed that same then, as we view the ones against interracial marriage now.

CosmosDan said:
The question is should gays have equality by being allowed to marry. Having equal rights doesn’t cost anybody anything extra.

They have the right to marry. Marriage is one man and one woman.

CosmosDan said:
that the arguments against interracial marriage , and the arguments against SSM. are very similar included being based on bible passages.
Now, years later we widely recognize that the arguments against interracial marriage were without substance and somewhat foolish. Since there is no shred of evidence that SSM harms anyone , or society in general, I predict that a few generations from now the purely emotional arguments being used now will be viewed that same then, as we view the ones against interracial marriage now.

Once again, inter-racial marriage is STILL one man, one woman. Comparing that issue to this issue is comparing apples and oranges

If marriage is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation, women past menopause are ineligible to marry. Men who have suffered prostate cancer and other diseases that render them incapable of sexual relations, likewise. The question is, who is going to be in charge of the exams necessary for a wedding license? It’s called “reducto ad absurdo”, and the absurdo is you.

It’s sad that so many homosexuals keep trying to force their way into the Republican party, when they’re clearly going to remain a favorite social target of theirs. Forever.

Some people never learn.

Just Tex said:
Yet.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

CosmosDan said:
I predict that a few generations from now the purely emotional arguments being used now will be viewed that same then, as we view the ones against interracial marriage now.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Just Tex said:
According to who? You’ll claim will undoubtedly be “society”,

Yes actually, it is society , or those in power, that set the standards. Even under the banner of religion, what is moral or immoral has changed. That’s clearly true as we look at history and mankind’s progress. We’ve tried to find a moral code that is just and our concept of what is just has changed, as our history as a nation clearly shows.

Just Tex said:
However, it’s important to recognize that “society” has already passed judgment on SSM numerous times, and each time it’s come to the vote, this “society” has chosen to keep M/F marriage as it’s lawfully recognized standard.

Sure, and that helps make my point. Society has approved all sorts of things we find morally objectionable now. right? One of the reasons we have grown away from those things is the founding principles of equality for all citizens and the concept that the majority should not usurp the rights of minorities or the individual. Eventually, with effort and struggle the injustice is so glaringly obvious to the majority that it cannot be denied.
SSM will become law because those who oppose it have no rational argument , no justification that will stand the test of justice and equality. I see more and more conservative who support SSM as a matter of equality.

Just Tex said:
According to who? You?

According to the standards of equality this country was established on and has struggled to live up to ever since. Here’s the thing. I’m not claiming I get to arbitrarily decide what is right. I can present a rational argument backed up with facts and history. You’re welcome to defend your position with something similar if you can.

Just Tex said:
You’ve already proven yourself to be irrational.

How so, specifically? I’ve worked at staying on target and discussing one issue rather than allow people to distract and misdirect. If I’ve said something is irrelevant it’s because that’s how I see it, but if you can defend it’s relevance to the issue of SSM feel free to do so. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but you need more than empty assertion and accusations to make it so.

Just Tex said:
Make an ass of yourself once and you’re forgiven. Twice, and the rest of us begin to get concerned. Do it over and over and over again, as you certainly have done here, and we treat you for the lunatic you are.

So that’s what you’ve got? Personal insults rather than any substantial argument based on relevant facts and historical context. Good for you. That’s really about all the opposition has left these days. You can fight for the majorities right to maintain discrimination , but in the end , it will be recognized for what it is.

Just Tex said:
That’s the way societies work. And that’s the way it will always be, regardless of your jejune inability to recognize reality as it stands.

I know how societies work. The majority, those with the power, can choose to deny the rights of the minorities, or the powerless. History demonstrates this quite clearly. It also demonstrates that the struggle for justice goes on and eventually, in civilized nations that recognize human rights as a worthy goal, equality fought for will eventually be gained as injustice and the denial of human rights is exposed as indefensible.

Dsiscokid said:
They have the right to marry. Marriage is one man and one woman.

Please don’t waste time on this argument. Equal rights means a person being able to marry whom they choose to marry, based on love, security, companionship, lust, or whatever combination moves them, just the same as heteros.

If two human beings fall in love, and want to enter into a committed relationship that is legally recognized as any other, they should have that right.
This is a good example of what I mean by the arguments against interracial marriage being so similar.
It’s unnatural. It’s against the bible. And hey, they can marry who they want to as long as it’s the same race, so it’s not about equality. You really need to check out that link I gave you. It offers valuable historical perspective.

Dsiscokid said:
Once again, inter-racial marriage is STILL one man, one woman. Comparing that issue to this issue is comparing apples and oranges

It’s about equality and moral judgements
I’m comparing the historical arguments to demonstrate that the ones against SSM do not hold up to scrutiny. You and those that agree with you, have no right to deny human beings the same rights you enjoy , without being able to demonstrate that the specific differences are harmful to you or society in some way. That you cannot do.
That was true of interracial marriage and it’s equally true now.

Dsiscokid said:
….that in and of its self is not “natural”. The natural urge between man and woman is natural

this is a self contradicting statement. What occurs in the natural world is not natural? Because it’s a smaller % doesn’t make it less natural. Being left handed isn’t unnatural. Having red hair isn’t unnatural. Because you don’t like it and it seems gross to you, doesn’t make it unnatural.

Dsiscokid said:
That is EXACTLY what you are trying to do under the guise of “equality”. This issue IS an attempt to force YOUR code of morality onto others. Marriage IS ONE MAN , ONE WOMAN. There is no way around that. As much as one attempts to twist and contort facts with this isssue to fit an agenda, it simply will not work and it is a blantant attempt to re-define marriage.

I never understand how people make this argument. Nobody is insisting you marry someone of the same gender or that you have to believe it’s okay. NOBODY is trying to impose their moral standard on YOU. Twisting it around won’t change that,
People in the south thought the north was imposing their morals on them by saying slavery was wrong and black Americans should be able to use the same fountains, and bathrooms. They were wrong, so are you.

Mankind has NOT had one definition of marriage, not even in our own short history as a nation. Pretending it has is a denial of reality. More than that , the idea that the definition can’t or shouldn’t change at all, without any rational reason why that is so, fails completely.

Dsiscokid said:
Those that compare this issue to slavery or any REAL Civil Rights issue are lying to themselves.

The exact opposite is true. You need to deny it’s a civil rights issue to maintain some moral legitimacy, but you won’t be able to keep that up.

Dsiscokid said:
All I am saying is that Marriage by definition, in the natural world and in almost every civilization on the Earth, is between one man and one woman.

That is simply untrue and becoming more untrue every passing year. There is no inherent moral defense in a tradition , or “most people think”
BTW; marriage doesn’t exist in the natural world so maybe you should aim for more accurate language. Homosexuality certainly does so any argument that it is unnatural is easily proved wrong.

Some_Dude said:
It’s sad that so many homosexuals keep trying to force their way into the Republican party, when they’re clearly going to remain a favorite social target of theirs. Forever.

Some people never learn.

That’s beginning to change and will continue to do so. I appreciate the efforts of gay republicans. Lots of conservatives support equality and SSM and will speak out against that as a platform issue.

CosmosDan said:
That’s beginning to change and will continue to do so. I appreciate the efforts of gay republicans. Lots of conservatives support equality and SSM and will speak out against that as a platform issue.

But at the end of the day, when the government forces someone to do things that go against their religion to benefit another, it is de facto discrimination. You are too dense to see that, but that is liberalism. We’re used to it.

CosmosDan said:
BTW; marriage doesn’t exist in the natural world so maybe you should aim for more accurate language. Homosexuality certainly does so any argument that it is unnatural is easily proved wrong.

The practicing homosexuals in the animal world…They are called animals, I think? They also practice pedophilia, necrophilia and sexual cannibalism. Dense one.

ndanielson said:
But at the end of the day, when the government forces someone to do things that go against their religion to benefit another, it is de facto discrimination. You are too dense to see that, but that is liberalism. We’re used to it.

You keep repeating that nonsense even after you’ve been shown it’s ridiculous. Pretty much takes all the weight out of your accusations and insults. You’re complaining about discrimination against religion while advocating the business owners right to arbitrarily discriminate. Good sound reasoning there.

ndanielson said:
The practicing homosexuals in the animal world…They are called animals, I think? They also practice pedophilia, necrophilia and sexual cannibalism. Dense one.

Sure, but it does show that the argument of “it’s unnatural” is pure nonsense. It occurs in nature , so it is natural by definition.

CosmosDan said:
Sure, but it does show that the argument of “it’s unnatural” is pure nonsense. It occurs in nature , so it is natural by definition.

Ignorance must be bliss. You’d know.

If the government forces someone to do something to benefit another it is called discrimination, and that is unconstitutional. i know you liberals have a problem with the Constitution, but that is going to get fixed soon.

ndanielson said:
Ignorance must be bliss. You’d know.

Oh you are far, far, to clever for me with piercing wit like this. I guess I’d better quit.

CosmosDan said:
Oh you are far, far, to clever for me with piercing wit like this. I guess I’d better quit.

And you are as constitutionally challenged as 0bama. Necrophilia, pedophilia and sexual cannibalism are as natural as homosexuality in the animal kingdom, so it’s okay, dan? Wow.

CosmosDan said:
If two human beings fall in love, and want to enter into a committed relationship that is legally recognized as any other, they should have that right.

For the last time, Marriage is one man and one woman.

CosmosDan said:
NOBODY is trying to impose their moral standard on YOU.

CosmosDan said:
That’s beginning to change and will continue to do so. I appreciate the efforts of gay republicans. Lots of conservatives support equality and SSM and will speak out against that as a platform issue.

The last two statements you make seem to contradict each other. BTW- If you want to truly defend equally and justice and morality and you want to stand on the right side of history, you would stand in defense of children in utereo who have been butchered over the last 4 decades in this nation.

BTW- Like I posted earlier in this thread this nation has bigger issues to deal with than this faux civil rights issue. Were these folks ever held in slavery? Were these folks told to get “in the back of the bus”? Have these folks been denied the right to vote? NO. This perversion of the human body, natural or not, should never be put on a pedestal and called a “civil right”.

With that being said, what two consenting adults do this country is their business, that’s on them. But what they are doing is not marriage, by any stretch of the imagination…….

Dsiscokid said:
CosmosDan said:
NOBODY is trying to impose their moral standard on YOU.

He will however impose, his lack of moral standards on society, and is happy that government can force business owners to pay for it.

First Amendment rights are another weak point for liberals: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. James Madison clarified (for even the most dense to understand) and some states have adopted his explicit language in their state constitutions: Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

Infringe on rights of conscience??? Like forcing Christian business owners to offer benefits to those joined in gay unions???

Like taxing Christian tax payers, so that they are forced to pay for abortion through Planned Parenthood???

Like Christian doctors forced to perform abortions???

Like the constitutionally challenged 0bama, the sheep are clueless about “rights” in America.

If you doubters would CARE to look at Palin’s record while AK Governor, you would see that her remarks are completely consistent with said record, to wit: while Governor, the state legislature passed a law for her to sign which banned gays next of kin rights for state workers. Well, Palin VETOED it, saying that it was unconstitutional, and that if the people of AK wanted this law they could pass a state referendum (like the one they passed banning homosexuality) BUT she wasn’t going to be a party to it.

She also is on video in a debate with Ron Paul saying that while she wouldn’t go so far as to endorse legalization of pot, she also would not waste taxpayer dollars to persecute people who want to light one up and smoke out in the privacy of their own homes.

Palin’s not as right-wing as the Leftie smear machine would have you believe (OR as much as the Far Right wants to co-opt her as), and while I have my doubts about whether she is experienced enough or tefloned enough to take on a presidential candidacy, I take the Paglia view that she is one helluva independent thinker and new western woman. I respect her and her right to be taken seriously. I see exactly why McCain chose her: he hoped she would keep him on a reformer’s path, and had they been elected, we might just have had a real pro-USA energy policy at work right now. It’s very sad how the Left has demonized her…it is why this lifelong Democrat left the party for good in 2008 and became a true independent (the Right scares me almost as much). The goal is what’s best for this country, not who wins a party contest.

Scrapette Jones said:
If you doubters would CARE to look at Palin’s record while AK Governor, you would see that her remarks are completely consistent with said record, to wit: while Governor, the state legislature passed a law for her to sign which banned gays next of kin rights for state workers. Well, Palin VETOED it, saying that it was unconstitutional, and that if the people of AK wanted this law they could pass a state referendum (like the one they passed banning homosexuality) BUT she wasn’t going to be a party to it. She also is on video in a debate with Ron Paul saying that while she wouldn’t go so far as to endorse legalization of pot, she also would not waste taxpayer dollars to persecute people who want to light one up and smoke out in the privacy of their own homes. Palin’s not as right-wing as the Leftie smear machine would have you believe (OR as much as the Far Right wants to co-opt her as), and while I have my doubts about whether she is experienced enough or tefloned enough to take on a presidential candidacy, I take the Paglia view that she is one helluva independent thinker and new western woman. I respect her and her right to be taken seriously. I see exactly why McCain chose her: he hoped she would keep him on a reformer’s path, and had they been elected, we might just have had a real pro-USA energy policy at work right now. It’s very sad how the Left has demonized her…it is why this lifelong Democrat left the party for good in 2008 and became a true independent (the Right scares me almost as much). The goal is what’s best for this country, not who wins a party contest.

Well Said

Dsiscokid said:
For the last time, Marriage is one man and one woman.

Repeating it over and over won’t make it so or change the facts. Same sex marriage has existed in different societies since ancient times.In recent years more and more nations have recognized Same Sex marriage included our immediate neighbors to the north and south.

Dsiscokid said:
The last two statements you make seem to contradict each other.

Not at all. People struggling to gain equality are not forcing their beliefs on anyone. Nobody is asking you to do anything you morally object to. You don’t have to approve of SSM, or attend any, or preform them at your church.
I suppose there is a way that wanting equality is pushing a morality on those who refuse to grant it but in general , this issue requires very little of anyone. It simply grants other citizens the same rights other citizens already have, and harms no one.

Dsiscokid said:
BTW- If you want to truly defend equally and justice and morality and you want to stand on the right side of history, you would stand in defense of children in utereo who have been butchered over the last 4 decades in this nation.

That’s a separate and more complex issue.

Dsiscokid said:
BTW- Like I posted earlier in this thread this nation has bigger issues to deal with than this faux civil rights issue. Were these folks ever held in slavery? Were these folks told to get “in the back of the bus”? Have these folks been denied the right to vote? NO.

Are you seriously unaware of the kind of persecution gays have suffered in this country? Please don’t minimize the suffering of other people to try and make your point. Arrested, beaten, killed. not to mention degradation, humiliation, and portrayed as sick. Discrimination so severe that many gay people have had to hide who they really are or pretend to be straight simply to function in society.

Dsiscokid said:
This perversion of the human body, natural or not, should never be put on a pedestal and called a “civil right”.

There’s no way to look at the history of civil rights in this country , discrimination , and persecution , and not see gay rights as a human rights, civil rights issue.
It harms no other person
It it not detrimental to marriage as an institution , and has no effect on any other person’s marriage.
There is no shred of credible evidence that it damages society in any way. The unnatural, immoral, decay of society argument are exactly the ones made about interracial marriage. They simply aren’t true.

Scrapette Jones said:
The goal is what’s best for this country, not who wins a party contest.

I agree. I wish more citizen’s , average working individuals, would recognize this.

ndanielson said:
Infringe on rights of conscience??? Like forcing Christian business owners to offer benefits to those joined in gay unions???

Like taxing Christian tax payers, so that they are forced to pay for abortion through Planned Parenthood???

Like Christian doctors forced to perform abortions???

Like the constitutionally challenged 0bama, the sheep are clueless about “rights” in America.

You know we’ve all been paying for two wars for ten years right? Is that a violation of my constitutional rights?