Tn about to get a major dose of liberalism crammed down their throats

[Guest Lester Weevils]

In a political environment where a 1 percent difference swings an election, be sure to chase off several percent of the population from ever voting fiscal conservative!

Prioritizing issues, gay marriage is among the least likely factors possibly contributing to our downfall.

Legalize gay marriages and encourage the couples to move next door to mosques. :)

[Caster]

If we're gonna get the knife out, we should go ahead and trim this fat laden porterhouse down all the way. Not just the tax credits for marriage and EIC, but all social programs. ALL of them. Now that's a beat I could march to. You'd put EVERYONE in their place in one swing. You'd put the US back on top as supernation juggernaught as our economy would take off again with the burden of carrying the lazy and inept removed from the back of the working. Put charity back in the hands of the private sector where it belongs. Churches and non religious groups would step/could step up and I'd be very inclined to give JUST as much as they steal from me, only difference being I could put my money where "I" want it to go. These annoying little special interest groups would fold because "We the Workign People" could stop funding them.

People need to wake the F up and realize freedom ain't free! You wanna be free, you gotta work for it dammit! The very idea of demanding support and special treatment, all the while not contributing (working) is my definition of slothful scum; much in need euthanasia. .....and no, I don't necessarily endorse or support European Union style euthanasia programs.

[Caster]

*Tangent Rant* ...though still relevant.

Before our founding fathers ever inked a single document, they had a very simple idea. That idea works as long as you stick to it very closely. That idea is: You are free to do ANYTHING you want so long as what you are doing does not infringe on the right of someone else to do what they want.

This plays right into state rights and why we MUST defend state rights vehemently.
As people populate and spread they will naturally segregate themselves. People tend to live with their own class and kind of people. It's not some racist BS they now try to indoctrinate us with. It's only natural and its by and large a good thing. Well, that makes the separation of different states very handy. If you like a certain lifestyle or certain whatever, live in a state where that thing is legal and welcome. If you hate a certain thing then live in a state where that sort of thing is illegal and frowned upon. DON'T move to a state and demand they conform to YOU. That's BS. The beauty part of the Union being, and what would set us apart from Europe is that you are free to move where ever you darn well please without papers or persecution.
The ONLY role the federal government should play in this country is to mediate interstate disputes and protect the union from outside threat. NOTHING else. Piss on this socialist nanny state we have become. I'd give much to see this malignant tumor surgically removed.

This system works near perfectly. Why the hell can't people get that in their thick heads!!!?!?!? Edited October 22, 2013 by Caster

[Mdunntn]

I'm I the only one who supports gay rights just as much as gun rights? Has nothing to do with religion.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[TMF]

[quote name="Mdunntn" post="1052210" timestamp="1382459400"] I'm I the only one who supports gay rights just as much as gun rights? Has nothing to do with religion. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2[/quote] Well, this is the part where I point out that there are no "rights" gays don't have that I do have. Recognizing marriage isn't a right. I don't have a "right" to a recognized marriage with my wife any more than hit lesbians have a right to marry each other. Rights aren't something given, you are just born with them. Gays have every right to make a lifelong commitment to one another as hetero couples. However, the have no right to have that marriage recognized by any public or private institution. That is something that would have to be granted. What you're talking about is what is "fair" and what is not "fair". I'll give that argument legitimacy all day, as I think it is a compelling argument, but it ultimately leads to the conclusion that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, gay or straight. Gun ownership is a right. I am born with the right to bear arms, but it isn't the government's responsibility to provide me with those arms. You can't compare gay marriage privileges with gun rights. It ain't even in the same ballpark. Edited October 22, 2013 by TMF

[Mdunntn]

I don't see how marriage "rights" are something to look over. Everything is supposed to be equal correct? There are plenty of problems that arise whenever a member of a gay relationship dies and etc. Rights to body rights to property tax breaks and so on and so on.

Homosexuals being granted the same legal perks we get for being married is pretty much a no brainer. The only argument I ever here is, its not right the bible says so etc. I honestly don't see how something wasnt done about this years ago.

I understand the whole government shouldn't be involved thing, and the only reason they got involved in the first place was tax money, but that still doesn't change anything. The fact of it is we have perks as straight married couples, that homosexual can't have simply because they are homosexual. Gay marriage will not affect anyone other then homosexuals.

I support personal freedoms and equality and small government. I think its is tremendously hypocritical to support personal freedoms, but then condemn something because it doesn't affect you. This isn't a "liberal" issue this is a personal issue, thinking all homosexuals are also liberal democrats is completely ignorant. This is one of the biggest reasons I'm not affiliated with the republican party nor the democratic party.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[bersaguy]

I am only going to say one thing on this issue. This same situation took place many many years ago in a city far far away and GOD dealt with it so if those who choose to live in that lifestyle they will meet their maker and he can judge them. I am not and never will be a judge to a persons choice of lifestyle.  Let GOD sort them out when their time comes. As long as they don't do anything to effect my life or intrude in my life I'm fine with what ever they choose. One thing I will speak out on is their ability to adopt a child should never on any condition be allowed............jmho

[Mdunntn]

There are plenty of homosexual couples who are much more fit to raise children then straight couples who have children strictly for another check. I'm Christian I have my personal beliefs, however just because that's what I believe it shouldn't be the law of the land.

Like you said above, let god sort them out. It is not our place to judge or condemn anothers lifestyle. This country was founded for freedom of religion. A lot of people can't seem to separate what they believe with controlling someone else's life, its simply not our place.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[TMF]

I don't see how marriage "rights" are something to look over. Everything is supposed to be equal correct? There are plenty of problems that arise whenever a member of a gay relationship dies and etc. Rights to body rights to property tax breaks and so on and so on.

Homosexuals being granted the same legal perks we get for being married is pretty much a no brainer. The only argument I ever here is, its not right the bible says so etc. I honestly don't see how something wasnt done about this years ago.

I understand the whole government shouldn't be involved thing, and the only reason they got involved in the first place was tax money, but that still doesn't change anything. The fact of it is we have perks as straight married couples, that homosexual can't have simply because they are homosexual. Gay marriage will not affect anyone other then homosexuals.

I support personal freedoms and equality and small government. I think its is tremendously hypocritical to support personal freedoms, but then condemn something because it doesn't affect you. This isn't a "liberal" issue this is a personal issue, thinking all homosexuals are also liberal democrats is completely ignorant. This is one of the biggest reasons I'm not affiliated with the republican party nor the democratic party.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

I don't have an issue with things being equal, but I don't like rights being confused with perks. None of us here have a "right" to have our marriages recognized by anyone. We simply don't, and shouldn't, and furthermore, why do people care so damn much what the government thinks about their marriage? This is what makes me cringe when I hear the argument being angled at equal rights when it comes to gay marriage. If the gay marriage advocates would make the rational argument versus the misleading argument then maybe people would be more receptive to the idea simply out of logic. The solution to this argument, which would make all things equal, is so damned simple yet the folks on both sides of it are so selfish and narrow minded that the solution will never be realized; it will simply be both sides trying to undermine the other side for petty and stupid reasons.

[Mdunntn]

That's what I was saying whenever I agreed about the government not habi

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[Mdunntn]

It won't let me edit that last post I'm on my phone right now. Anyway I agree about the government not having a role in marriage at all. And I guess perks would be a better terminology, but regardless they should be available to them all the same.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[Peace]

If the government is going to give "perks", then it ought to do so without prejudice.

 

 

by the way: You all are smarter, wittier, funnier, and generally more caring than most.  - glad to be a part.

[Kalel]

Never again will this be the land of the free and home of the brave. It all goes back to 2 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for supper. 51 - 49 no difference either way half will be unhappy. I infact live among and associate with like minded people..... a one percent majority either way makes the rules. Only option I see is seperate but equal, countries that is.      Land of the fee Home of the Rave.

[Hozzie]

I am only going to say one thing on this issue. This same situation took place many many years ago in a city far far away and GOD dealt with it so if those who choose to live in that lifestyle they will meet their maker and he can judge them. I am not and never will be a judge to a persons choice of lifestyle.  Let GOD sort them out when their time comes. As long as they don't do anything to effect my life or intrude in my life I'm fine with what ever they choose. One thing I will speak out on is their ability to adopt a child should never on any condition be allowed............jmho

 

I guess it's a good thing that every kid in America has a good heterosexual home to go to where they are never abused and live without fear.  This is the US, I can't imagine there will ever be a need for a loving home for some kid who could give a #### if their parents are gay or not.    

Edited October 22, 2013 by Hozzie

[Guest 6.8 AR]

These discussions always morph into bigger arguments. Big difference throwing the child in the mix. The child is a bystander

in this discussion. Almost sounds as if it is thrown out there for other reasons.

 

I said it once before. All this is is a detractor to encourage the breakdown of society for the few to feel good about themselves.

And they are pawns being used by others to keep our country in turmoil. States rights are very important because the federal

government has no rights granted by us or the Constitution to govern matters like this. Like TMF said, it isn't a right, to begin

with.

 

Mince words all day long, but, at the end of the day, the gay person is only a citizen of the US, just like you and I, and deserves

no further treatment under the law. Keep watching and getting brainwashed by the Nightly news. They'll solve all our problems,

won't they?

 

Those entitlement programs Caster mentioned only accomplish something similar: to make someone special enough to vote

a certain way. They serve very little to no purpose, otherwise, except income redistribution. The word "entitlement" is a political

word, anyway, should not be used the way it is.

[MacGyver]

These discussions always morph into bigger arguments. Big difference throwing the child in the mix. The child is a bystander

in this discussion. Almost sounds as if it is thrown out there for other reasons.

 

I said it once before. All this is is a detractor to encourage the breakdown of society for the few to feel good about themselves.

And they are pawns being used by others to keep our country in turmoil. States rights are very important because the federal

government has no rights granted by us or the Constitution to govern matters like this. Like TMF said, it isn't a right, to begin

with.

 

Mark, this post doesn't sit well with me for a couple of reasons.

 

Let's deal with the question of children, first.  If we're trying to keep marriage out of the hands of the government, then shouldn't that generally extend outward to child welfare, too?  There are a lot of children that could benefit from adoption, both in the US and the world over.  Why throw additional hurdles in the way?  If a private agency is capable of looking out for a child and their well being, surely they should be the judge of whether someone or some couple ought to be able to adopt or not. 

 

I'd guess that you could break it down roughly like you would civil unions/marriage.  Let the government recognize civil unions and find a church that shares your beliefs and is willing to perform a ceremony if you want to get married.  Likewise with adoption, I'm sure there are religiously affiliated agencies that would choose not to place children in gay homes and secular agencies that might.  The problem is plenty large enough to make room for both.  But, I don't want the government dictating who is okay and who isn't just because our view currently happen to be aligned. 

 

It seems to me you have to choose one or the other, and a lot of our problems stem from trying to both have our proverbial cake and eat it at the same time.

 

Second, I agree that our federal government is far from where the founders intended it, but power is going to try to gain more power - especially in a vacuum.  Our states have ceded their powers to the federal government.  In fact, they gave it away willingly in return for federal money.  This is a huge problem, but we cannot simply say that the federal government doesn't have the rights.  Unfortunately, as all three of our "co-equal" branches of government have grabbed more power, today, they certainly see themselves as having the right.  It would take a long set of court battles to overturn this expanded power base.  This might ought to be where we put our focus.

[MacGyver]

As to the bigger question of gay marriage.  I simply don't care that much what 'Babylon' chooses to recognize or not recognize.  It doesn't much affect me or the way we raise our family. 

 

That said, I think there's a really important facet of this discussion that is conveniently left out because we would rather use the government as a hammer to mandate our way of thinking as opposed to having to think through the issue on our own.  Mind you, these comments while applicable to anyone, are mostly aimed at my fellow "church-going Americans".

 

It's easy to talk about "getting out the vote".  It's hard to see that, that person isn't really the boogeyman.

 

It's easy to talk about "marriage" being between a man and a woman.  It's harder to see that from a tax perspective you and your spouse who are married and file jointly are in fact a special class. And you willingly accept a bunch of other benefits from it, too.

 

It's easy to be dismissive about "Adam and Steve", and as Christians, fail to see those people as children of God.

 

It's easy to talk about "condoning deviant behaviors" while failing, again as Christians to see that their sins don't get them any further from God than yours or mine do.

 

It's very easy to use "holy" sounding language when in reality we dismiss the example of Jesus and how he would treat these people.

 

Like I said, I don't much care what the government says about this.  I do know how I'll talk to my children about it.  I hope that my example trends towards compassion.

[Raoul]

Well said MacGyver.

As for me it's a non issue.

[Guest nra37922]

Bottom line is once one is married its all the 'Same Sex' night after night after night.

 

Churches should wed whom they want and the government can perform the other ceremonies.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Mark, this post doesn't sit well with me for a couple of reasons.

Let's deal with the question of children, first. If we're trying to keep marriage out of the hands of the government, then shouldn't that generally extend outward to child welfare, too? There are a lot of children that could benefit from adoption, both in the US and the world over. Why throw additional hurdles in the way? If a private agency is capable of looking out for a child and their well being, surely they should be the judge of whether someone or some couple ought to be able to adopt or not.

I'd guess that you could break it down roughly like you would civil unions/marriage. Let the government recognize civil unions and find a church that shares your beliefs and is willing to perform a ceremony if you want to get married. Likewise with adoption, I'm sure there are religiously affiliated agencies that would choose not to place children in gay homes and secular agencies that might. The problem is plenty large enough to make room for both. But, I don't want the government dictating who is okay and who isn't just because our view currently happen to be aligned.

It seems to me you have to choose one or the other, and a lot of our problems stem from trying to both have our proverbial cake and eat it at the same time.

Second, I agree that our federal government is far from where the founders intended it, but power is going to try to gain more power - especially in a vacuum. Our states have ceded their powers to the federal government. In fact, they gave it away willingly in return for federal money. This is a huge problem, but we cannot simply say that the federal government doesn't have the rights. Unfortunately, as all three of our "co-equal" branches of government have grabbed more power, today, they certainly see themselves as having the right. It would take a long set of court battles to overturn this expanded power base. This might ought to be where we put our focus.

And I agree with all you said, but putting the children in the argument only
throws tis in a different direction. And what about those who want to play
the "born or reared" coin. I just didn't want to see this go in that direction
when it is a secondary consideration.

personally, I wouldn't want to see mass adoptions by such politically
charged people. It would be fine if the politics were left out and there
were some real nurturing, but that's for another day. The moral
majority isn't without its problems, also, but they didn't start this. I really
think all this stems from the constant attempt of communist doctrine
to break down the family unit.

If these idiots weren't so useful and you could show that I'm wrong
I would gladly accept it, but this gay thing hasn't been around for
more than a couple decades. If they are so sincere, they should
become more respectable and less politically charged and try leading
by example, instead of forcing something on others. Edited October 22, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Peace]

Bottom line is once one is married its all the 'Same Sex' night after night after night.

 

Churches should wed whom they want and the government can perform the other ceremonies.

 

See, you guys are witty.  Now that is funny.

 

-out.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Peace

[Guest 6.8 AR]

When you can see so many signs of societal breakdown, why would
you wish to add fuel to the fire? We have so many problems already
that I just think this is a ridiculous venture.

[MacGyver]

When you can see so many signs of societal breakdown, why would
you wish to add fuel to the fire? We have so many problems already
that I just think this is a ridiculous venture.

If you look at it from that perspective, I think we've still got a problem - namely that we keep swinging at every pitch.

There are real problems out there. Ones that really matter. This isn't one of those, really. But, look at our dialog at the national level. Conservatives are losing traction by spending so many cycles on this instead of talking about the larger issues.

Party platforms are being dictated by these tiny "constituencies" that are in reality the people who donate to campaigns and show up to vote in primaries. Couple that with the fact that most folks in the "middle" simply don't care one way or another, and that puts us in a really dangerous place.

Add in the fact that the GOP has successfully gerrymandered a lot of these districts to the point that the DNC couldn't rig an election to win in most of them, and you find out that what might seem like a good thing is in fact a bad one. These politicians in these districts, bought by their "constituency" with their moral agenda have zero incentive to negotiate, much less compromise. Their constituents might in fact prefer them walk this whole thing off the cliff.

I hope they don't get the chance, but in the meantime I wish we'd keep from getting all lathered up every time they mention it and instead talk about problems that really matter.

Oh. Except this is convenient for the GOP leadership, too. Maybe if we keep everybody spun up about this they won't realize we don't have a clue how to address $16 trillion dollars in debt or the stomach to actually make any of the hard choices it'll take to get there.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

A strategery that boosted turnout and helped GWB win re-election in 2004-- Most likely a strategery invented by Rove, or at least he bragged about it as if it were his legitimate child--

 

They managed to get lots of gay marriage issues on state ballots that election, which brought anti-gay knee-jerkers to the polls in droves, and brought bush a lot of votes while they were there. Including a lot of normally D voters who happened to be seriously homophobic pro-welfare-state voters. Many in the hispanic and black communities fit that description. So some folks showed up and accidentally voted along with bush to sate the homophobic reaction, who would have ordinarily stayed home or voted D.

 

IMO, not only is that dishonest "cheating" to try to win an election on a "who cares" issue, but bites the party in the butt a few years later when people get less homophobic.

[Oh Shoot]

...Churches should wed whom they want and the government can perform the other ceremonies.

 

Well, that's exactly the way it is now. The JP has to marry you if you quality under the laws of the state, whether the church will or not.

 

The federal government is clear that it recognizes same sex marriage if the state does, and this won't change now regardless of future party balance in DC.

 

The battle will continue for a while state by state, over recognizing and/or fully sanctioning same sex unions, but it will eventually be federalized with subsequent SCOTUS decisions if nothing else. Remember, this right now is likely the most conservative SCOTUS we'll see for at least the next 25 years, and I'm fairly certain they'll decide on the "equality under the law" of same sex unions.

 

No other way around it, since both federal and state governments do give bennies to "married" couples, a LOT of bennies,  and have since the Revolutionary War. Actually, even before the Declaration on state levels.

 

- OS

Edited October 23, 2013 by Oh Shoot