2 questions for my conservative friends

[jamesgreen]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

aborition I am not going to touch!<br />Is this not a form of discrimination? I do not understand as soon as as you have same sex marriges every body is going to merry there dogs and have mutltiple wives and husbands. What about divorce does that not have a negitave effect on family life? No one seems to have a problem with that. We are scared of what we don't understand! Give the power to the state where it should be.

 

[bootle]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

"This is so we dont realize are leaders are a bunch of crooks."<br /><br />Ken,<br />I'm sure that a vast majority Americans recognises that fact, but have allowed themselves to become apathetic.

 

[PW2]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

The federal constitution ultimately trumps all other laws in this country. States have constitutions that they can add rights to their citizens, but they cannot deny rights specifically granted in the federal constitution.<br /><br />Polygamy? What about polygamy? There ought to be a specific issue why it is forbidden that consenting adults cannot live like they wish to live. There may be a reason, but I can't think of it right off the top of my head.<br /><br />Personally I had way more trouble than I needed with one wife, but as long as everyone consents to the arrangement, why not?<br /><br />And abortion is a privacy issue between a woman, her doctor, and her body.<br /><br />Courts can decide when life officially begins, and when individual rights are conferred to the fetus, and that's why we have federal courts.<br /><br />If you say life begins at conception, there are a lot of doctors that ought to be arrested for providing normal birth control products to their patients, including IUD's.

 

[PW2]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

Gay marriage issue is why I like your Texas candidate Kinky Friedman.<br /><br />He says "why should gays not be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us!"

 

[rodbolt]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

PW<br /> I agree, once they find it cost a lot more to get out of than into it may cool off some.<br /> however I still feel if they make the commitment and purchase the license and a magistrate,judge,justice of the peace or preacher marries them its not my business.<br />JB<br /> gotta agree again, I havent had one religous nut yet show me where gods children are going to heaven or hell based on sexual preferance.<br /> something about the song red and yellow black and white sticks.<br />even the muslim with an ied is a child of god, no matter how misguided i think he may be it does not negate it if you believe in god.<br />if ya dont believe your off the hook.

 

[PW2]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

There are two completely different standards re the "sacrament" of marriage, as performed by a minister presumably in a church, and the civil aspect of the marriage union.<br /><br />I don't think any church is required currently to perform the ceremony on anyone they don't want to now. The Catholic Church, for example, won't marry anyone who has been divorced previously, unless they go thru an elaborate annulment process, where the state doesn't care. That is how it should be.<br /><br />I think a lot of people somehow think that the state is going to force their church into performing a ceremony that is against the tenants of their faith. It is simply not true.<br /><br />Don't call it marriage. Call it something else. Committed unions of consenting adults ought to be something the state, and society as a whole, encourages.<br /><br />BTW, the reason why techically dogs (or other beasts) are specifically excluded is that they, by definition, can't consent.

 

[txswinner]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

The issues of gay marriage bear support from couples could receive benefits the same as heterosexual relations ships. For this I have no problem with some perhaps know as a civil union.<br /><br />Marriage is more in line with religious beliefs and therefore should follow the rules of establishment of bonding man and woman.<br /><br />Compromise, that is what democracy is about and not refusing rights of some by overpowering majority. Course i think this is a states issue.<br /><br />The main intent of the forefathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution was in supportthe rights of the individual and protect states from a stron central government. Now that is a fact Jack.

 

[QC]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

A brother and a sister can be consenting adults . . .

 

[JB]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

There are sound biological reasons for not allowing close relatives to bear children. Of course when those rules were laid down it was a "given" that to bear children the parents must be married. Hahahahaha!! Not in the 21st Century.<br /><br />Today people make decisions to marry (or divorce) for legal reasons. Single parent families abound, as do families with unmarried principals, families with two parents of the same gender raising children of one or both, families of any mix you can think of raising adopted children, etc.<br /><br />When I was a boy one faced social ostracization for "unlawful cohabitation", bearing "illegitimate" children or even divorce. <br /><br />Well, the Senate killed that stupid amendment bill and has likewise failed to outlaw privacy and control of their own bodies for women.<br /><br />I would love to think that ends it.

 

[Texashotdog]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

It don't make any difference if it is federal or state pillow biters need to be eliminated. Hell next thing you know they will take over everything, at least they can't have kids. <br /><br />Now on abortions, I am against them but I also think we are getting too many poor babies on welfare so if momma has two kids while taking welfare she should be fixed by the state and so should the daddys.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

And abortion is a privacy issue between a woman, her doctor, and her body.<br />

Convieniently left out one more important "issue", the fetus. And a whole lot more "issues" just as important. The parents, if a minor, the parter if not. The taxpayer if the "privacy" is on their dime.<br />That's the trouble with pro-abortionists, there doesn't seem to be any compromise.<br /><br />

Plumbing is a stupid arguement.....<br />

It's probably the greatest arguement when considering same sex adoptions.<br /><br />While privacy and civil rights are Constitutional issues, same-sex adoptions are'nt a civil right.<br />And abortion is hardly a privacy issue.<br /><br />Those matters that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution should be left up to the states. Therefore you have 50 potential possibilities to compromise.<br /><br />IMO

 

[QC]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

JB,<br /><br />I was brought up by a single mother who also obtained a Masters and a PHD while raising my two brothers and me. I have an enormous amount of respect for single parents, adoptive parents and families of all shapes and sizes. With that said, there is no question in my mind that the ideal is a loving father and a loving mother. Both bring individual talents, skills, ideas, love and different influences to children. If one can step back and recognize (admit) that this is a fact, then it can be understood that again, the ideal is one of each. If that is so, and I strongly believe that it is, then shouldn't we all aspire to bring that model to children? This ideal takes nothing away from the achievements of my mother and countless other iterations of loving families. It only recognizes that the special responsibility of raising our planet's future should be encouraged to come from that ideal. It is not correct or logical to pretend that all examples are equal. They are not. There are things that you have given to your children that cannot be given by the best mother imaginable, just as there are things your children's mother has provided that you cannot.<br /><br />Kevin

 

[KRS]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

nvrmnd

 

[PW2]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

QC<br /><br />I am sure the ideal is indeed Ward and June Cleaver, with little Beaver tagging along. It should definitely be encouraged. No question.<br /><br />It can't be legislated that way, and the world is not yet, nor is it soon to be, composed of perfect people.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

In a fairytale world everything would be perfect....<br />We ain't even close to that.....<br />Civilized society has moved beyond the need for the classic "hunter/gatherer" mentality....<br />"Family" should be available to anyone who is willing to step up & accept the mantle of responsibility, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation....<br />I think that we all would agree that any good parent is better than no parent, or the state as your parent.....<br />The real problem most people have with gays is because of their religion, or their religious upbringing.....<br />Skinny, sorry but plumbing has no bearing on whether you are a good parent or not.....<br />Texaspneanderthalhotdog<br /> <br />FYI, "pillowbiters" can & do have children....

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

Pillowbiters! lol<br />Texaspistachiodisguisiohotdog

 

[QC]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

HM & PW2,<br /><br />Your points do not support a need for gay marriage . . . ? I agree perfection is not attainable, but there should be some recognition of the ideal. Not to punish anyone. Not to impose religious anything. I have noted before that my position on this issue is not religious based. I always mention this because the "R" word is usually used to trivialize a debate. Just as HM has above . . . <br /><br />The plumbing was my first point, because it is the logical origin of this debate. Not Religion.<br /><br />I have a taped interview with a Canadian editor of a College newspaper. In it she explains an article she wrote noting that when she grew up she sought boys, believed that she would marry and never even thought to question her sexual orientation. She literally goes on to explain that after watching modern television (MTV stuff) and after her University instructors opened her mind, she now knows there is no distinction between her pursuing women or men. The only difference being tax benefits of marrying heterosexually. That is some very scary stuff from a bright, articulate young woman. Very well spoken, very matter of fact. Modern society has taught her that sexual orientation is meaningless and she is proud to report that . . . Wow.

 

[PW2]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

The constitution, and fundamental fairness, does.<br /><br />Why should a couple that want to enter a committed legalized union, and enjoy the benefits and responsibilities that entails, be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation? <br /><br />And how is that not blatant discrimination?

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

QC, what is your point?<br />How would gay marrige be detrimental to society?<br />I will leave religion out of it....<br />What I am saying is that most people's homophobia is caused by their religous upbringing....<br />The woman you speak of actually sounds rather weak-minded, IMHO......<br />Has it ever crossed your mind that this could be a part of evoloution?<br />I'm not saying it is.....<br />What I am saying is that just because you don't like something, it doesn't automatically make it evil ......<br />That is blatent discrimination, plain & simple....<br />Why do you care?<br />Because you feel it sets a bad example for those with their head in the sand, like the newspaper person?<br />& when confronted with a choice they don't choose what you would?<br />Her name wasn't Ann Coulter, was it? .....JK

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: 2 questions for my conservative friends

QC, why do you always fall into the trap of these useless debates? These liberals don't care for reasoning or rationality. They use reasonable sounding words to manipulate and connive there way into an immoral society that embraces immoral activity and rewards the weak.<br />Here's how it works:<br />|................................................|<br />Lib............................................Con<br /><br />"reasonable agreement/middle ground"<br /><br />|....................|............................<br />Lib.................Con<br /><br />"more reasonable agreement/middle ground"<br /><br />|..........|......................................<br />Lib.......Con<br /><br />"even more reasonable agreement/middle ground"<br /><br />|.....|...........................................<br />Lib..Con<br /><br />etc, etc<br />Next thing you know we'll all be cross dressers using cloning to ensure the survival of the species.<br />They won't be happy until they've destroyed every aspect of this countries heritage. They often reference the constituion. Show me the part where it says it's ok to murder babies in the woman, have gay marriage, etc. Oh yeah, that stuffs not in there. Ok, well show me where the founding fathers personal writings indicate an exceptance of this. Oh yeah, they (the founding fathers) couldn't even imagine this stuff.<br /><br />Why am I writing a treatise here? I sometimes forget I don't fall into this trap....