Happy New Year 2010
by Big Dog on Jan 1, 2010 at 00:01 Political
The Big Dog Family would like to extend warm wishes for a healthy, happy and safe New Year everyone.
May God bless you and keep you safe.
And may science find a cure for liberalism.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 2010, happy new year
Bigd: “may science find a cure for liberalism.”>>
DAR
Yes, if there’s anything the world needs to be cured of, it’s liberalism.
D.
—————–
lib⋅er⋅al⋅ism
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism
And if liberalism in this country were like that it would be something to at least debate. Since liberals enslave people to government, do not care about individual rights or civil liberties and work harder and harder for more and more government then it is in need of being cured. It does nothing as described in this definition.
If only we lived by definitions then we would have a limited and small government as defined in our Constitution. And that government would be the Republican form as stated in that document.
In other words, liberals have made people less free and this is true all over the world. It is a philosophy that starts with the premise that you are unable to do for yourself and government needs to help.
Liberalism is a mental disorder and it should be listed in the DSM-IV.
Dictionaries represent common usage. You don’t get to change how society uses words.
Bigd: “liberals… do not care about individual rights or civil liberties”>>
DAR
Earlier you said you are an honest person and I took you at your word.
Since clearly liberals do care about individual rights and civil liberties, and it is an objective fact that they have throughout the years worked to support both of these things I am left with a conundrum.
a) Are you dishonest?
b) Or are you extraordinarily ignorant of American history?
Since I can’t believe you could be this stupid, I am going to go with “a,” and that’s too bad. Best to be honest and not say things that are untrue. Maybe you’ll learn this some day.
D.
——————
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
–Humpty, in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, discussing semantics and pragmatics with Alice.
Darrel’s fallback position, when he is wrong and knows it, attack the author.
Liberals care about individual rights? Then I shall be sure to thank all of them for leaving the Second Amendment alone. I do not expect to see any more gun control laws introduced from them.
Civil rights, hmmm, nope, the liberals worked against that movement. Liberals support policies that deprive minorities of their civil rights and keep them on the plantation.
You are left with a conundrum because this is opposite of what you have been indoctrinated to believe.
When I use the word moron in a scornful tone it can be interchanged with liberal.
Bigd: “…individual rights? Civil rights, hmmm, nope, the liberals worked against that movement.”>>
DAR
This is rich. I guess I could give you a grade school level lesson on history, but this has all been done for you before, many times, to no avail.
So instead I will take the easy and somewhat humorous route of showing you that liberalism is so intrinsically a part of civil LIBERTIES and individual rights, that it is actually BUILT INTO THE VERY DEFINITION of the word.
If you work for civil rights, and/or civil LIBERTIES your are, to that extent, BY DEFINITION, a liberal.
It’s what the word means.
There is being wrong, and then there is the Bigd level of being wrong. You bring being wrong to an Olympic level. Maybe in rightwing land that gets you an award or something.
Out here in the real world, it just makes you look like a fool.
D.
The War on Drugs. Never won. Greatest assault on individual liberties in the history of the nation. Allows no-knock raids, allows confiscation of private property without due process. Who began the War on Drugs?
Let’s see. Barack Hussien Obama? Nay he was only nine then. Bill Clinton? Noppo. He was running for the 3rd District Congressional seat back then.
What’s that? Richard Milhouse Nixon. By golly you nailed it. Richard Nixon, that old leftie-liberal from Kalifornya.
.
Well we could play who took liberties all day.
The point Darrel makes is a false one. Just because a name implies something does not mean that the group lives it.
ACLU. Defends non Americans. So the name does not fit. They also do not fight for everyone’s civil liberties.
No, just because one calls itself liberal does not mean that one acts as a liberal. And since liberals changed their name to progressive they obviously agree.
As for the schooling, your revisionist lunacy will not fly. Just because you said it does not mean it is true.
Bigd: “Just because a name [liberal] implies something does not mean that the group lives it.”>>
DAR
Then how did the label come to be defined this way? Is it a conspiracy? Maybe if some day conservatives start fighting for progress, change, improvement of civil rights and civil liberties, the labels will evolve and they will have this incorporated into *their* definition.
But then they wouldn’t be “conservatives” would they.
con⋅serv⋅a⋅tism
1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservatism
Words have common meanings and usage and dictionaries represent common usage. The category of fighting for progress, change and modernization of civil rights and civil liberties is a specific attribute of “liberals” and quite contrary to the attributes of conservatives, by definition.
An obvious example is gay rights. Almost without exception those fighting against gay rights are conservatives, and those fighting for them, are some variety of liberal. It’s the latest civil rights battle and the lines drawn are the same. It will be over shortly and conservatives can then move on to finding some other minority to disenfranchise.
D.
The name or definition may well have applied to those folks when it was written but the people have strayed from it.
Gays have rights and they have the right to civil unions and they can visit each other in the hospital and pass property to each other without being married.
As you are fond of saying, there are laws and those laws define marriage. There is nothing wrong or bigoted in fighting to maintain those laws. Why is it that you can claim that people who fight for abortion are not fighting for murder because, per you, the law does not define it as such. Yet, people who fight to keep marriage defined as it is are bigots in your mind when they are only fighting to keep what is the legal definition.
You said that if you don’t like something work to have it changed. That also means that you can work to keep it the same and neither makes you a bigot. The law is clear right now and if you fight to keep it that way you are not a bigot.
And yes Darrel, words have meanings. SInce you used the definition of liberal that starts with “a political philosophy” then you should use the same one for conservative:
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
This is a bit different than what you referenced but let us keep the level playing field otherwise we could use the definitions of liberalism that indicate religious movements…
As one can see the conservative is opposed to SUDDEN change, government activism, and has respect for traditional values.
Nothing wrong with that.
Once again though, no one is fighting against gay rights, we are fighting to preserve established law. There is nothing bigoted about that because, as you say, it is the law and it is not wrong at the time it is in place.
Bigd: Gays have rights and they have the right to civil unions [visitation] and pass[ing] property to each other…”>>
DAR
Again, this melts down to something like, “blacks can drink water, ride the bus and eat at restaurants they just have to use their own fountain, ride in the back and eat in the back.
I say this because:
“The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.”
The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions.
Bigd: “…there are laws and those laws define marriage. There is nothing wrong or bigoted in fighting to maintain those laws.”>>
DAR
Only in the sense that there was “nothing wrong” with the people who fought to keep blacks and other minorities from getting their civil rights decades ago. You know full well that we now look upon those actions as driven by bigotry and intolerance. You know this SO well that you try to pretend, contrary to the facts, that your team (conservatives) were working on the right side of this when they, with few exceptions, were not.
Bigd: “people who fight to keep marriage defined as it is are bigots in your mind when they are only fighting to keep what is the legal definition.”>>
DAR
Words and definitions change, constantly. The actual title is not important but rather a union that provides full and equal status. Problem is, it’s hard to see how this could happen with another title. Calling it “mini marriage” or “marriage II” is going to be second class. If it has the EXACT same rights, as it must, why not use the exact same word. Makes no sense unless the desire is to bestow a lower class status. Which of course is the desire of those fighting against gay marriage.
People who fight to keep marriage defined as it is are bigots in my mind because they want to keep a class of humans from having full and equal protection under the law and for no good reason other than “tradition.” That’s not a good enough reason.
Bigd: “you can work to keep [the law] the same and neither makes you a bigot.”>>
DAR
Show me a logical argument for keeping blacks and other minorities from having full and equal rights. We can probably agree that there are none. Same for left handed folks, same for gays.
Bigd: The law is clear right now and if you fight to keep it that way you are not a bigot.”>>
DAR
What the law is or is not is quite incidental and irrelevant to considering the motivation of whether something is being pursued because of bigotry.
People certainly had the right to fight to preserve the laws that upheld slavery. But we consider their motivations based upon bigotry, intolerance and the idea that Blacks were less than human.
Bigd: “conservative is opposed to SUDDEN change, government activism, and has respect for traditional values. Nothing wrong with that.>>
DAR
It certainly has it’s value and it’s place. Don’t want to go over board though.
Good post and good questions.
D.
Regardless of what rights they do or do not have, this is the law and it is always right at the time. People can work to change it and later we can see that it was unfair or bigoted but it is right for today.
I think I made it clear that I believe this is a state’s issue and not a federal one. If a state allows it then it is the state’s business and if a state does not that is also the state’s business. I do not believe the federal government should impose any law on the states. It would be a violation of the Constitution (Tenth Amendment).
People should be free to debate this issue and decide among themselves. If a state allows it and one does not then people who oppose either position have a place to move to.
Maybe instead of worrying about what benefits these people do not have we should be removing them from all people and decrease the amount of government in our lives. Go with a flat tax and marital status will not matter.
I do not think people are bigots because they oppose an issue. You can say the motivation is bigotry so would it be fair to say that those who support keeping abortion are motivated by the desire to support killing unborn children?
All are issues that can be debated but I do not intend to let anyone tell me what I have to believe or support.
In one state a photographer was sued because he refused to photograph some civil union or marriage. He should have that right because it was against his beliefs. Just like no doctor or nurse should be required to assist or perform an abortion if they are morally opposed to it. I would never do that no matter what they said I had to do.
Bigd: “this is the law and it is always right at the time.”>>
DAR
What nonsense. Something being a law has nothing to do with it being moral or immoral. Good grief.
In some countries it is the “law” that you can mutilate the genitals of little girls or that you can stone women for fornication. Does that make it “right?” How absurd.
Bigd: “would it be fair to say that those who support keeping abortion are motivated by the desire to support killing unborn children?”>>
DAR
No, because that is obviously false.
Bigd: “People can work to change it and later we can see that it was unfair or bigoted but it is right for today.”>>
DAR
If it was “right” you would be able to provide a good argument for it. But you cannot just like the folks in the 50’s and ’60’s couldn’t when they fought to oppress people who were different.
D.
Big Dog said: “As one can see the conservative is opposed to SUDDEN change, government activism, and has respect for traditional values.”
Oh yes, “SUDDEN” change, riiiight. Don’t you mean change, period? Did you know that the first known gay rights group was formed in 1924 and here we are over 80 years later and they are STILL having to fight for equal rights.
When do “traditional values” simply become stubborn adherence to a set of values that no longer apply to the modern world?
Wake up and smell the future. Very few people in the younger generation believe that alienating gay people is the right thing to do. So sooner or later you conservatives will be left in the dust with nothing but your opinions, again.
It took 80 years for them to come out of the closet
Gee, I wonder why? But that is a crock anyhow, almost 30 years ago gay people were already coming out bigtime. Remember Boy George? So, when is change not “SUDDEN”, 50 years?, 40? what?
I think you might be a tad mistaken here- gays, per se, are not the problem EXCEPT as they have decided to poke their finger in the eye of religious conservatives by their insistance on the word “marriage”- a word that holds great religious connotations to many people.
If they had been smart, instead of trying to be outrageous, they would have accepted “civil union” for now, and worked ggradually towards the other term. All of the rights and privileges they would have, and none of the downside, but nooooooo-
They had to have it all and have it NOW, and so they have gotten pushback-
“Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey.”
You still think the 2nd means you can have any gun any where at any time and to say otherwise is a violation of the amendment.
You still think it was liberals in the Democratic party that opposed civil rights and not the conservatives who switched parties to the GOP after too many liberals set the Dems agenda.
These are both wrong of course but you keep repeating yourself so often I’m sure you’ve mislead at least one person out there somewhere.
And I love how you continue to suggest backhandedly that minorities are incapable of reaching real political conclusions on their own and they vote Democrat only because they have been duped or held down by liberal policy. This is a real slick piece of racism you toss around a lot.
It is fact. The Democrats decided under Johnson to make the black community dependent on government and the Democrats would always have a base of voters. There is a reason over 90% of blacks vote Democrat.
It is not racist to state that Democrat programs are designed to keep blacks down. It is not I that believes they are unable of reaching any conclusions on their own, it is the Democrats. The Democrats don’t believe they can achieve without a hand. The Democrats believe they need handouts to make it. The Democrats make them dependent so they vote Democrat.
Just a simple truth.
It was liberals who opposed civil rights (there were some conservatives too).
I don’t see what my view of the Second Amendment has to do with this story since it is about any gun and not a specific kind and is about a man who would not use one to defend his children.
I believe that I have the right to carry any gun that would be used in defense of this nation any time I want. That is what the Amendment means and it is backed up by the people who wrote it. Read what they wrote.
Big Dog said “It was liberals who opposed civil rights (there were some conservatives too).”
You know just repeating something over and over does not make it true I’m afraid. Truth requires evidence.
Perhaps if you wer to read some real history, (not the liberal pap you are taught in public schools) you might actually learn something.
The Republicans freed the slaves in 1865, and it was the conservatives who championedtrue equality, and the voting rights act in the ’60s- it was Democcrat KKKers like Byrd, Wallace, and Maddox who tried to prevent true assimilation in the schools and elsewhere.
And it is STILL the liberals, like the NAACP, LULAC, the Black Muslims and others, who have a stake in promoting the “Perception of Racism”, as they would have to go out an dfind a REAL job in order to get their money, instead of fostering hatred, and promoting, no actively ADVOCATING the differences between the races, instead of the similarities.
Sp Tamara, what do you want? Do you expect people to go along with things they do not believe? Do you expect that because you or some other person likes it we should all like it? Do we all have to support it because the gays want it?
There has been plenty of change in this area. I personally believe in live and let live and don’t care who is gay and who is not. I am tired of agendas being pushed on people. If I do not like it I don’t have to support it.
You have a problem with that? If so then perhaps we can find a cause you are against and FORCE you to like it.
If you are tired of agendas being forced on people then why would you care if gay people married or not? “Live and let live” you say, so let them get married and live like the rest of us. Stop forcing your bias on them and allow them equal rights. Easy stuff.
And yes I do expect people to “go along with things they don’t believe”. That is what democracy is all about. The majority decides, not the individual.
And there are already lots of causes I am forced to go along with. I don’t believe in many of the drug laws, but am forced to obey them. I don’t agree that men should be allowed to go topless in public and women can’t, but I can’t force men to cover up or display my chest in public. Etc, etc.
Well Tamara, go back and read the civil rights history. First introduced after the Civil War and updated through the years. Eisenhower introduced it first in the modern era and it ended up being signed by Johnson but it was supported by more Republicans in the Congress (you can look up the vote totals by percentage).
Johnson was able to get northern liberals to support it and southern conservatives to support it but people from both groups opposed it.
Funny Darrel, I am just using your arguments that the laws that have been interpreted by the courts (particularly the SCOTUS) cannot be wrong.
You were the one who made the big production about it all.
Bigd: “your arguments that the laws that have been interpreted by the courts (particularly the SCOTUS) cannot be wrong.”>>
DAR
Cannot be *legally* wrong. This has nothing whatsoever to do with “morally wrong” (which is much more ambiguous).
You mistake a moral question, with a legal question. These are two very different things.
Tamara, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. The majority does not decide or Al Gore would have been president because he got more of the votes cast. We are guaranteed a Republican form of government (US Constitution Article IV Section 4).
Yes, you are forced to follow the laws, event he ones you do not like. Right now, in many states, the law defines marriage as one man and one woman. You have to follow that law. If the states change it then the people will have to follow the laws of the state. If a state does no then the laws will be one man and one woman.
What if a person wants to marry a dog or more than one husband or wife? I am not being smart, I just want to know where you draw the line of tolerance.
Really Big Dog, gay marriage is the same as bigamy and bestiality now?
Or are these your main arguments?
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) Marriage belongs under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) All gay relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Gay marriage is contrary to God’s will, and
4) Gay marriage is somehow “unnatural.”
As to 1)- correct- the control of the states is proper, inso much as this power has not been given to the Federal Government.
2)-If the states do not allow civil unions, or recognize the partnership of two gay people, then yes, it would be illicit sex. I might not agree with that interpretation, but it is what it is.
3)- Gay marriage is contrary to the words in the Bible- I cannot pretend to know God’s will, but the Bible says its a no- no.
And, 4)- Gay sex is certainly unnatural- because there can never be procreation from such a union- no progeny possibilities mean ipso facto, unnatural sex. Affection and a desire to have a union with another person, is, however, natural, for we are social creatures, and we do search for others who we can love. I get that also.
But your four points are essentially correct,even if you might think they are morally flawed.
BLK: “3)- Gay marriage… the Bible says its a no- no.”>>
DAR
The Bible says a lot of things, including that women should not:
a) braid their hair
b) wear gold or pearls
c) speak in church
d) pray with their head uncovered
(1 Tim 2:9; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Cor. 11:3-10)
Are you just as concerned that our secular laws follow these rules? I didn’t think so. Christians aren’t either.
Nobody follows the rules in the Bible. No one. Everyone cherry picks, cafeteria style.
“I’ll one of those, two of those, and oh, I don’t like that one at all.”
D.
—————-
“If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament he would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the New, he would be insane.”
–Robert Ingersoll
BLK: “four points are essentially correct,even if you might think they are morally flawed.”>>
DAR
She posted those “four points” because they are the exact same failed arguments that were used against allowing interracial marriage.
D.
————-
“President Obama has appointed Amanda Simpson, a transgender woman, to be the Senior Technical Adviser to the Commerce Department.” Link
Bigd: “What if a person wants to marry a dog…>>
DAR
Not a human, so does not apply to an issue of “human rights.” And never will.
Bigd: or more than one husband or wife?”>>
DAR
Having libertarian leanings, I have no problem with consenting adults (21+) engaging in such contracts. Problem is, the religious folks who seem to get into this the most (it’s approved by the God of the Bible, see below), usually find the women folk aren’t so into it unless they are seriously oppressed or brainwashed from childhood, so they quickly turn it into rampant and abusive pedophilia.
D.
————-
“Thus says the LORD,… I gave you your master’s house, and your MASTER’S WIVES into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.”
–2 Sam 12:7-8
I am not comparing any of it. I want to know where you draw the line. If some group of people decides that it is their right to marry several people are they OK to do that or is it wrong? If some group of people decides they want to marry their animals is that OK or wrong? Where do you draw the line. Right now you are saying that society should allow gays to marry because that is what they want and it is bigoted not to allow it. Would it not be bigoted to disallow someone who wanted to marry three other people? Are you not denying them a right they think they should have? I only want to know how far you go. Are you saying that the gays have rights but the others don’t and if you are, are you not being the kind of person you accuse me of being?
I agree with number 1.
Technically number 2 cannot be unless the sex is illegal. If sex out of wedlock is illegal then the orientation of the person does not matter, it would be illicit. If gays cannot marry then the sex would only be illicit if there are sodomy laws. If they are not allowed to marry then they can’t break a law against premarital sex because they can be premarital.
Number 3 can be true or false depending upon your religious beliefs.
Number four might be true depending upon what you mean by unnatural. Certainly gay sex is unnatural. Nature made the plumbing different so we can reproduce and two people of the same sex cannot do that. They do not have complimentary parts. Yes, it is unnatural for two beings of the same gender to have sex.
I think that the whole gay sex might be that Darwin thing you all talk about. The fittest will reproduce and those that don’t will die off.
This completely confuses moral questions with legal questions throughout. I don’t want to avoid your questions but you will need to specify to which you are referring.
Obviously gay marriage is “against the law” in most places in the US. So no need to ask that one.
Bottomline, you keep avoiding the fact that you have no argument, no good reasons, for withholding equal rights to this minority. And nothing beyond what was used to keep blacks and women down in the past.
If you have a good reason, lets see it.
Bigd: “Certainly gay sex is unnatural. Nature made the plumbing different”>>
DAR
Gay sex is replete throughout the animal kingdom. So there goes that one (along with your notion that it will die off by lack of reproduction).
D.
————
“…homosexuality [has] been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life.”
The Gay Animal Kingdom
Morally wrong would depend upon the moral values of the individual. I think abortion is immoral and those who support it do not.
So moral or immoral is a matter of belief. Society defines some of it under our social mores but some is left to personal belief. Therefore, no one can necessarily be right or wrong based upon their beliefs.
Of course it made sense to have more than one wife when the Earth needed to be populated.
The OT is filled with that but the NT does not seem to mention it. It says a man takes A (that is singular) wife.
The law is one man and one woman and i am fine with that. I would not want to see multiple wives or husbands because we would end up paying for seven wives on welfare or 75 children on welfare. There should be a law, if you are on welfare you cannot have children. And if people ever get to marry more than one person welfare must not be allowed for any of them.
As for animals, we already give them rights. Animals have no rights because in order to have a right you have to be able to comprehend the right. But we give animals rights.
They should be treated humanely but they have no rights. However, if a person wants the right to marry an animal the issue would be the person’s rights and not the animal’s. As I stated, animals have no rights so the person’s rights would be the issue. If a person wanted the right to marry an animal should he be allowed?
More red herrings and the slippery slope fallacy too.
Bigd: “If a person wanted the right to marry an animal should he be allowed?>>
DAR
I say no because an animal cannot give legal consent. The legal matter is settled and I don’t know of anyone, never mind millions of people (same species), lining up asking for the law to be changed. So introducing an inter-species question into this matter is just a stupid rightwing herring fallacy brought up to distract from the fact you have no good arguments for your belief, beyond the same bigotry used each and every other time conservatives tried to preserve the status quo in order to withhold equal right from a a minority that is a little different than them.
D.
Of course you are comparing it. You are trying to make some sort of slippery slope argument. But by your own logic why allow anyone to marry then? If a man and woman marrying could lead to a man wanting to marry multiple women then perhaps the line should be drawn that no one can do it. There’s some equality for you.
And just so you know that list of four points were the four main arguments used between 1880 and 1950 to prevent interracial marriage.
And the second argument could have technically been used only a mere 7 years ago just before the sodomy laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Tick, tock, it’s only a matter of time and then you’ll be pretending that you were never against it in the first place, lest you appear bigoted.
Tam: “that list of four points were the four main arguments used between 1880 and 1950 to prevent interracial marriage.”>>
DAR
Bingo. Same song, second verse. I wonder if Bigd approves of interracial marriage.
D.
I will never appear as if I were for it. If it happens it happens but I do not have to agree with it or support it.
I see no comparison between interracial marriage and same sex marriage.
Bigd: “I see no comparison between interracial marriage and same sex marriage.”>>
DAR
Interesting that they use the exact same arguments. If those arguments don’t work for interracial marriage, why do they work for gay marriage?
Animals also eat each other, do not use cutlery and can’t drive or use computers.
If we have evolved then have we not evolved to the higher form of species.
In other words, just because animals do it are we supposed to?
Bigd: “just because animals do it are we supposed to?”>>
DAR
a) We are animals.
b) No one is making that argument.
Homosexuality didn’t arise in humans because people were watching “Wild Kingdom” and said, “hey, there’s an idea.”
Homosexuality is a part of nature. Some people are left handed. It’s no big deal and these people should all be treated equally.
D.
Some people grow up to become serial murderers also- are they a “part of nature”?
Lions eat their young- should we?
How far do you want to take this idiocy?
We are people, and we should know better- there are consequences for our behaviors, some of them not so attractive.
Homosexuality is an abberant behavior pattern, or else we would all do that. It is counter to human reproduction, thus, nature would classify that as useless endeavors.
BLK: “Some people grow up to become serial murderers also- are they a “part of nature”?>>
DAR
Yes.
BLK: Lions eat their young- should we?>>
DAR
No.
BLK: How far do you want to take this idiocy?>>
DAR
These are your questions, not mine.
BLK: Homosexuality is an abberant behavior pattern, or else we would all do that.>>
DAR
Only aberrant in the sense that being left handed is aberrant behavior. We don’t all do that. But we do find ways to accommodate left handed people and give them equal rights.
D.
I have no problem with interracial marriage. I don’t care hat the color of a person’s skin is.
In a few years/decades from now conservatives will be saying “I have no problem with gay marriage. I don’t care what a person’s sexual orientation is.”
Just a little behind the curve, that’s all.
I never said the arguments held water, they might or might not. Interracial marriage between a man and a woman is fine with me.
I will not say I have no problem with gay marriage. What I will say and what I have said is that it is up to the state. If the people of the state vote for it then fine if they do not then that too is fine.
The last refuge, and one of the main, failed arguments by those conservatives who fought against interracial marriage.
“Marriage belongs under the control of the states rather than the federal government.”
“[This] quote [is] from the 1960’s from the conservative movement against interracial marriage. These arguments were used during the era of Virginia and Richard Loving, who’s case went to the Supreme Court in which they overturned the state of Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.”
Link
It’s just a ruse to give the backwoods folks little (red) areas where they can solidify and consolidate their bigotry and racist tendencies. Best to cure these civil rights issues at the national level and be done with it. Why? Because there is no good reason whatsoever to deny full equal rights to these people or anyone else.
And deep down, you know it.
D.
It was you liberals lynching black folks while we conservatives were passing laws against it.
Last refuge? No, it is the way the Constitution is supposed to be. Read the Tenth Amendment. Then look in the Constitution and show me where it discusses marriage. When you do not find it refer back to the Tenth.
The last gasp of liberal morons, usurp the Constitution and hijack society.
Follow the rules boys and girls.
You don’t follow the rules of your precious Constitution…”all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” when you deny homosexuals the right to marry and pursue happiness as heterosexuals can.
We aren’t the ones trying to “usurp the Constitution”, you are. And you wish to suppress the rights of a minority group while doing so just because you are uncomfortable when thinking about their sex acts. That is the ONLY reason you’ve got. There is NO argument that is without bias and inequality that exists. There is not one rational reason to deny this group equal rights. There is only an immature, emotional reaction of distaste that is keeping these folks down.
I can one up your random assertions! I am the KING of random! There goes:
It was also you CONSERVATIVES who intentionally invaded Iraq so that you could start a war leading to the deaths of millions of american soldiers so that you could use your liquid argon laser in orbit to vaporize their bodies thus releasing energy that was then harnessed and used to coat smurfs in thermite which were crazy glued onto the support structures of the world trade center towers at which point you used the kregar waves from the adapted alien technology at area 51 to ignite the smurfs and bring down the towers…..That’s right….hail to the king baby!
Kevin
Tamara- read the Constitution- no really- READ it!
The powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, is given TO THE STATES, or to the people.
Marriage is one of those things- you might not like it, but its one of those pesky laws that you will just have to follow.
The only alternative would be to amend the Constitution.
Good Luck with that.
BLK: “read the Constitution- no really- READ it!”>>
DAR
Why? There is no point. You shouldn’t even be allowed to have one. It just makes you confused.
You should take a cue from the devoted catholic. The Bible is a nice book, and it’s important but no real need to read it, or certainly not “understand it” (whatever that means). Why? Because the pope, the church, decides what it means. Hence for years, it was read to Catholics, in latin. They might as well have read it in Klingon. And yet it didn’t matter whether the laity “understood” or not, because there IS a designated mechanism of interpretation, as with the Constitution. And it’s the interpretation that matters. Entirely.
And you have no, none, zero, zip, voice or input on what the Constitution actually “means.” As an aside, there is some training and level of understanding necessary to grasp constitutional law. You have none of that. So you’re reading it is pointless exercise except perhaps as a novelty. You might as well not read it. Or read it backwards. Or get a latin version. Doesn’t matter. For Catholics, the pope/church decides. For the USA, SCOTUS decides.
D.
I am not uncomfortable thinking about their sex acts because I do not think about them. I don’t care what they do in their own bedroom.
We have laws (established under the US Constitution and the Constitutions of each state) and the law says one man and one woman.
It is not usurping the Constitution to want to follow the laws.
A piece of paper saying you are married does not produce happiness. The life experiences of the people produce happiness and they are free to pursue them all they want.
Bigd: “the law says one man and one woman.”>>
DAR
For a little while longer, then it won’t.
The real question here is, *should* the law say that. In a few short years, such a law will be viewed as we now view the laws upholding segregation and white supremacy.
And we know how we now view those conservatives who fought FOR those things.
Bigots.
D.
.
BD: “Then look in the Constitution and show me where it discusses marriage.”
Then tell us why it was a 90% Repub-Conservative DOMA that was introduced. Seems Repubs-Conservatives are very happy to bypass the 10th Amendment when it suits their purpose.
.
Elwood, the Constitution does not mention marriage that is whay it was introduced as an amendment, the way our Founders gave us to change the document. I don’t necessarily agree with the DOMA because this is a state’s rights issue BUT the federal government keeps trying to inject itself in the issue so there has to be a way to stop them since no one seems to want to hold them to the Tenth.