The party of tolerance (political)

Pages

467 posts / 0 new
Last post
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

3. btr says when asked about a man marrying a 12 year old boy:
"If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

And right there is the example of incremental acceptance from gay marriage to what most would veiw as pedophilia. As you have mentioned, it is legal in that state for an adult to marry a child. If that state chooses to allow pedophilia, that is their choice. An adult man marrying a 12 year old boy is as much pedophilia as an adult man marrying a 12 year old girl. I thought you supported states rights?
 
The question was not about whether or not the STATE should allow it btr, (if the state wants to be that screwed up so be it) it was about whether YOU would allow it. It was asked as a question to show the incremental slide from gay marriage to what most people other than yourself consider pedophilia.

Thanks for making my argument for me.

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

btr you once again either miss or dodge the point of the question should you HAVE to hire unqualified minorities? "I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone" That was my answer. It isn't my fault that you didn't understand it. 

btr the "explanation" is simple even you should understand, the govt forces that upon you because of anti "discrimination" lawsuits.
why would you hire them? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? I would not hire and unqualified individual over a qualified individual. I don't care what race or sex they are. Unless the qualified individualis a d bag, just like I said before. 

In some states you simply do not have this choice. Sucks when the "anti discrimination" issue affects you doesn't it.

why should you accept boys going into the girls locker room? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? You don't have to accept it, just like you don't have to vote to allows gay to marry. No one has achieved it yet. You sure love logical fallacies. 

btr, I have provided a number of links to a couple of different states that have this as state law! Are you denying it?

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

When they are forcing combined bathrooms and locker rooms onto people. When they are accepting of 40 year old men "marrying" 12 year old boys if that is their "right".
Perhaps the "big bad gay man" is "out to get" people that do not hold those same moral standards. So you want to force your morals onto everyone? That's it. That's the reason you are against gay marriage?you just don't like it. I've asked you that a few times, it's ok to answer. 

btr, I have stated numerous times I believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman because that is the batting teams that are required to reproduce. Try not to deflect.

As of today btr, no mater how much you hate it, the people of North Dakota support the role of traditional marriage by banning gay marriage despite your opinion there is no valid reason to. Yes, because it hasn't been voted on since 2014. And no, it doesn't bother me.

you sure seem to act like it "bothers you" claiming everyone with this "opinion" is simply wrong.

I would be very surprised if someone from NY has as good an understanding of ND moral views as they might think. Could be. 
Prove it.

It appears btr all you are now doing is dragging the conversation away from questions you know the answers to will not support your position.

Enjoy working to change North Dakotans views on gay marriage by telling them they don't know what they are talking about and are simply wrong so their opinions are invalid and simply should not count.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

zogman Said:
I am going to give this a bump.  I would like to see BTR answer the gst and plainsman questions.

That really isn't necessary because almost all of gst's questions have been answered at least a couple times now. Or at least it seems like it. He's been going off topic a little as of late though. 

funny, most everyone else would likely believe the same points are likely being made  over and over to the point of nausea!

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

Still talking about gay marriage?

It really isn't complicated. It comes down to liberalism once again telling us that there are no absolutes. If it feels good do it, right? Right is wrong and wrong is right, the moon is really just the sun at night!

That's how these lost gomers think. If you open up marriage to gays then you must acknowledge the destruction of this premise, the premise that there are absolutes and absolutes this country was built on. We must then accept polygamy. If a man can marry a man, who are you to say a man can't marry two men? 3 men, a woman, and a shemale? Why then can't a nice man who love his female German Shepard develop a loving relationship that goes beyond what "we" call normal?? Why can't they be intimate if they both are accepting in a loving way? Who are YOU to say?

See how sick this is? See how sick liberalism is?

 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

If you want a non-religious argument for marriage remaining a hetero arrangement - this man's work sums it up pretty nicely. I understand Fargo's (ugh) Jon Lindgren struggled to define marriage when this article's author debated on this topic yesterday at NDSU.

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

By

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
Article here:
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Here is Jon's blog where he discusses yesterday's debate:
redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/02/12/gay-marriage-must-cause-some-problem-somewhere-but-what-is-it/

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I purchased a T shirt yesterday that sums things up for me.  It says "I may not be politically correct, but I am correct".

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

Alpine Said:
Still talking about gay marriage?

It really isn't complicated. It comes down to liberalism once again telling us that there are no absolutes. If it feels good do it, right? Right is wrong and wrong is right, the moon is really just the sun at night!

That's how these lost gomers think. If you open up marriage to gays then you must acknowledge the destruction of this premise, the premise that there are absolutes and absolutes this country was built on. We must then accept polygamy. If a man can marry a man, who are you to say a man can't marry two men? 3 men, a woman, and a shemale? Why then can't a nice man who love his female German Shepard develop a loving relationship that goes beyond what "we" call normal?? Why can't they be intimate if they both are accepting in a loving way? Who are YOU to say?

See how sick this is? See how sick liberalism is?

I'll offer up an absolute.  When our government grants a right to one segment of the population (in this case, the right to choose one mutually consenting adult with whom to enter into the contract of marriage, which gives government-sanctioned benefits), it must grant that same right to all segments of the population. To not do so is discrimination, and that's why courts are striking down gay marriage bans across the country.  Once again, there's an easy solution.  Get government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses and sanctioning marriage.  


sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

guywhofishes Said:

If you want a non-religious argument for marriage remaining a hetero arrangement - this man's work sums it up pretty nicely. I understand Fargo's (ugh) Jon Lindgren struggled to define marriage when this article's author debated on this topic yesterday at NDSU.

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

By

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
Article here:
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Here is Jon's blog where he discusses yesterday's debate:
redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/02/12/gay-marriage-must-cause-some-problem-somewhere-but-what-is-it/

If marriage of heterosexuals promotes those things, wouldn't the marriage of homosexuals also promote those things?  Some people like to think of homosexuals as sexually promiscuous people, if not sexual predators.  Here some of them are asking for the right to enter into the contract of marriage, which is supposed to promote all the things listed above.

As I've asked before, if the definition of marriage revolves around the ability of two people to conceive a child, should people who are biologically unable to have children be allowed to marry?  I think you are a thoughtful individual guywhofishes, and I would like to hear your perspective on it, not gst's by design business.

How precisely does allowing two gay people to marry undermine "true" marriage?  If you drive a Corvette and it is a car, and I drive a SmartCar and it is a car, is the identity of your Corvette as a car undermined?  You have every right to judge it however you like.  

It still comes down to this for me.  Marriage as recognized by our government is simply a contract between two individuals.  It's not about what anybody's church does, what anybody teaches their children in their own homes, or any of that.  When it comes to adults who are granted the ability to enter into a contract, our government must not discriminate based upon race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  Call me a libtard if you must, but I would like to point out that this is another matter of personal freedom, which FBO members generally support.


Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

Not true.  It comes down to definition, and that is what has been corrupted by an attack on common sense and morality in this country.  I'm not talking about this issue only, but in broad terms.  Marriage is and should be defined as a union between one male and one female.  PERIOD.  That, is an absolute.  An absolute our forefathers intended.

 

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

Alpine Said:
Not true.  It comes down to definition, and that is what has been corrupted by an attack on common sense and morality in this country.  I'm not talking about this issue only, but in broad terms.  Marriage is and should be defined as a union between one male and one female.  PERIOD.  That, is an absolute.  An absolute our forefathers intended.

What are you saying is not true?  

Can you provide a reference to support the statement that our forefathers intended what you contend they did?  

Even if you can, think about this.  Our forefathers intended to deny some people rights based on their race.  Does that make racial discrimination OK, because people thought it was OK over 200 years ago?

I have not denied you have the ability to define marriage however you want it to be in your life.  I don't think government entities should do the same.  

Here is what our forefathers said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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."



Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

No, what I am saying in terms of what our forefathers wanted has to do with absolutes.  There are absolutes.  Liberalism wants to destroy absolutes.  Liberlas want to destroy the Bible, destroy the Constitution, and destroy the base our forefathers gave us.
The issue should not be in the Federal courts at all, this is strictly a states issue.  Something like 37 states have ruled that the definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  Our forefathers did not directly address gays and marriage, they could never have fathomed such an outcome.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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."

They certainly were not talking about gays here, and apparently they weren't talking about slaves either.   Men are created equal, but we all must live by certain absolutes.  The idea that 3 men could marry, or 2 women and one man could marry, or a man and his German Shepard could marry is not an absolute, and an idea our forefathers could not have dreamed of. 

 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

I just posted some factoids for those interested in the debate. I've moved on from this topic with the understanding that the world I knew, and countless generations before me knew, is a dodo bird and won't be coming back.

I can long for its return and affect/influence who I can, but debating on FBO has gotten me nothing but a feeling of disdain for some some of the more passionate debaters on the other side and at some point you realize that societal slide is an avalanche that you can't manage or nudge by debating on FBO.

I will say this as a final post on this thread: Growing up without both a mother and a father yields far less desirable results on the average. Stats prove it out over and over and over and over. Adding yet another socially acceptable way for this to not to occur and to further water down the Dad-Mom-Kids recipe that just plain seems to work will yield the same predictable and absolutely undeniable result as easy divorces or non-marriage has. That is, a less healthy and happy society, more crime, more misery, and less of what ties a society together.... and more power and influence into the hands of power-hungry dictators in gov't who are there to "pick up the pieces".

Here's a guy who's scarred and hurt and, some would say, has a chip on his shoulder because his father was a POS. He eloquently points out the critical role that fathers provide. How is society fair to the kid who gets adopted by two married lesbians or two married homos and grows up without the critical support that BOTH SEXES PROVIDE? Kind of like the national debt debate.... F the kids as long as the parents get what is "fair" and makes them feel like society accepts them.


 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Alpine-Liberals want to destroy the Bible, etc....blah,.....
What a bunch of crap designed by your own simple, cramped view on life within the universe.
You parrot things and call on our forefathers to back up your close minded dribble. Absolutes? Like all men being created equal? As long a they're white land owners????
NO matter how you look at it there were some things I've noticed you consider absolute that run directly contrary to what many of our forefathers believed in like:

Were the Founding Fathers also huge fans of an unfettered market? Um, no. Here's Thomas Jefferson on banks: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies" John Adams believed that "property monopolized or in possession of a few is a curse to mankind." Ben Franklin went even further, writing that: "no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state." I think it's safe to say all of them believed that free markets require a great deal of regulation in order to meet people's needs. Since we're on the topic maybe you should view Washington's somewhat liberal views on gays in the military and some of the actions he took in regard to so called flagrant behavior at the time. Not quite the reaction that was called for at the time. The absolutes you think exist are only in your mind. Apparently with your above statements you really don't know what our forefather's, even at that time, meant and stood for!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:
 

Alpine Said:
Still talking about gay marriage?

It really isn't complicated. It comes down to liberalism once again telling us that there are no absolutes. If it feels good do it, right? Right is wrong and wrong is right, the moon is really just the sun at night!

That's how these lost gomers think. If you open up marriage to gays then you must acknowledge the destruction of this premise, the premise that there are absolutes and absolutes this country was built on. We must then accept polygamy. If a man can marry a man, who are you to say a man can't marry two men? 3 men, a woman, and a shemale? Why then can't a nice man who love his female German Shepard develop a loving relationship that goes beyond what "we" call normal?? Why can't they be intimate if they both are accepting in a loving way? Who are YOU to say?

See how sick this is? See how sick liberalism is?

I'll offer up an absolute.  When our government grants a right to one segment of the population (in this case, the right to choose one mutually consenting adult with whom to enter into the contract of marriage, which gives government-sanctioned benefits), it must grant that same right to all segments of the population. To not do so is discrimination, and that's why courts are striking down gay marriage bans across the country.  Once again, there's an easy solution.  Get government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses and sanctioning marriage.  

So if the "govt" grants the "right" to practice medicine to a medical doctor is the govt then obligated to grant that "right" to everyone else?

The govt "grants" the license to marry just as they grant the license to practice medicine.

To be granted these licenses the state requires certain things.

By your argument any "segment of the population" should then be able to demand the same "rights" to marry whomever or what ever they wish.

One man would then be able to have 10 wives, one woman could marry her German Shepard, a fella in Arkansas could then marry his cousin,  ect......

Where would the "right" to marry begin and end?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

spare, the law in ND states marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Regardless of "biological" reasons, there are only two sexes that can combine to create another human.

That singular concept should not be that hard to understand.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

With every post you paint yourself more the socialist fishmahn, more the dunce, more the liar.

How many quotes would you like me to come up with directly from our founders against big power government? Against socialism, even though the word was not yet popularized? You try to sell us the fact that the founding fathers were socialists! What can of azz wipe propaganda do you suck from the teat of? And you're dumb enough to believe all of it?

" John Adams believed that "property monopolized or in possession of a few is a curse to mankind."

Why don't you read the Federalist Papers. Why don't you read the Constitution. Why do you not read ALL of what Adams and the rest of the founders had to say. Their ideal of free enterprise and power to the individual and for LIMITED power to government is what grew this great nation. Capitalism is what it spawned, and ambition and prosperity for all was their vision and what capitalism provided! This system allows ALL of us to prosper, we have a right to happiness and prosperity but as Franklin said we must catch it ourselves. Our founders did not set up socialism, they set up capitalism and free enterprise with LIMITED government. You can't really believe what you've written on your own soiled diaper. Or can you?

All founding fathers and others like Andrew Jackson warned of the central bank. The central bank is a puppet of big corrupt government, and Jackson destroyed it for that reason. Today we have it in the worst way imaginable with the Federal Reserve, and leftist socialists like Obozo use it against we the people every time they print worthless money and coins that are nothing more than tokens. We can thank liberalism for that.
The central bank is not a product of free enterprise or capitalism, it is a product of big government, a product of socialism. You don't even know your own system!

Socialism shares nothing but misery and poverty for all. Socialism is the system that creates the filthy rich at the top, those in power, while we the people suffer with no options. Capitalism breeds ambition and wealth for all in contrast.

If the founding fathers were alive today Obozo and his band of merry thieves would be in prison waiting for trial with the gallows being built. HE and the blind dumb sheep like YOU are exactly what our founding fathers warned us of.

 

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

gst Said:

So if the "govt" grants the "right" to practice medicine to a medical doctor is the govt then obligated to grant that "right" to everyone else?

The govt "grants" the license to marry just as they grant the license to practice medicine.

To be granted these licenses the state requires certain things.

By your argument any "segment of the population" should then be able to demand the same "rights" to marry whomever or what ever they wish.

One man would then be able to have 10 wives, one woman could marry her German Shepard, a fella in Arkansas could then marry his cousin,  ect......

Where would the "right" to marry begin and end?

I never said the government shouldn't discriminate.  The right to practice medicine requires education, passing a few tests, and getting licensed.  Any person of any gender, race, faith, or sexual orientation, may try to meet the requirements.  

As far as the marrying whomever they wish, I would say yes, as long as that person is a consenting adult.  There is currently no law that allows for some people to marry 10 people and for some people to marry dogs.  To continue to allege that those who support gay marriage support bestiality is just a smokescreen.  

I also comprehend completely that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child.  It also takes a fertile male and a fertile female to conceive a child.  So?  If the support for heterosexual-only marriage is that it takes a man and woman to conceive a child, isn't the next logical step to limit marriage only to those who are fertile?  You never did answer directly my question about how you would handle the marriages of people with intersex conditions.


johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

sparetire Said:
 
I also comprehend completely that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child.  It also takes a fertile male and a fertile female to conceive a child.  So?  If the support for heterosexual-only marriage is that it takes a man and woman to conceive a child, isn't the next logical step to limit marriage only to those who are fertile?  You never did answer directly my question about how you would handle the marriages of people with intersex conditions.

Well you see that is why it is between a man and a woman, as they can potentially recreate. However this will be unknown until after marriage, and trying for a period of time. Then if no pregnancy happens, we will know that one of them or possibly both are infertile.

No matter how many times Lance tries to get Jim pregnant it just aint happening...

And worse yet is the poor child that has to go thru life having Lance and Jim as his loving gay dads. Kids are cruel, and I just dont see the love in adding to that.

A child needs a mother and a father, regardless of what nonsense talking points are out there. Do Lance and Jim love the adopted child? I am sure as much as any parent would. Does that make it a great situation? I guess I really dont think so, as love is only one aspect of what comes from a mother and a father in learning lifes lessons.

A couple of dudes or chicks want that life style, whatever, but to call it a marriage, and put some children into the mix, I just dont see the good. However I am a Christian, and also a conservative, and a North Dakotan, who raised/raising 4 kids, so what the hell do I know.

Neat

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

And where do you get off trying to imply our founding fathers approved of homo's?   Under British law it was a capital offense.  ALL 13 colonies made it illegal, and followed through with it!

George Washington approved of homo soldiers?   In one instance he court martialed one and had him shot for perjury and other crimes when everyone knew the real reason.  In other instances soldiers were court martialed and marched out of camp and that is well documented.
In "Notes to the States of Virginia" Jefferson called for castration of those involved.  Practically ALL of the founding fathers openly condemned the act, and none would have allowed it openly.  THAT'S just to set the record straight.

Back to the issue at hand.   Consenting adults?  Consenting adults should be able to do what they want you say?  So then 3 men can marry.  4 women can marry.  A man and his well cared for and loved German Shepard can openly enjoy marriage and all the fun stuff that comes with it, right?  WHO are YOU to say????

 

sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

johnr Said:

Well you see that is why it is between a man and a woman, as they can potentially recreate. However this will be unknown until after marriage, and trying for a period of time. Then if no pregnancy happens, we will know that one of them or possibly both are infertile.  

No matter how many times Lance tries to get Jim pregnant it just aint happening...  Just as no matter how many times Lance tries to get post-menopausal Judy pregnant, it ain't happening. Should post-menopausal women be allowed to marry?  Should women with androgen insensitivity syndrome be allowed to marry?

And worse yet is the poor child that has to go thru life having Lance and Jim as his loving gay dads. Kids are cruel, and I just dont see the love in adding to that.

A child needs a mother and a father, regardless of what nonsense talking points are out there. Do Lance and Jim love the adopted child? I am sure as much as any parent would. Does that make it a great situation? I guess I really dont think so, as love is only one aspect of what comes from a mother and a father in learning lifes lessons.

A couple of dudes or chicks want that life style, whatever, but to call it a marriage, and put some children into the mix, I just dont see the good. However I am a Christian, and also a conservative, and a North Dakotan, who raised/raising 4 kids, so what the hell do I know.

The who should be allowed to have kids can be a whole different discussion.  There are HORRIBLE heterosexual parents out there.  

Again, why not take the government out of the business of licensing marriages?  


sparetire's picture
sparetire
Offline
Joined: 5/14/09

 

Alpine Said:
And where do you get off trying to imply our founding fathers approved of homo's?   Under British law it was a capital offense.  ALL 13 colonies made it illegal, and followed through with it!

George Washington approved of homo soldiers?   In one instance he court martialed one and had him shot for perjury and other crimes when everyone knew the real reason.  In other instances soldiers were court martialed and marched out of camp and that is well documented.
In "Notes to the States of Virginia" Jefferson called for castration of those involved.  Practically ALL of the founding fathers openly condemned the act, and none would have allowed it openly.  THAT'S just to set the record straight.

Back to the issue at hand.   Consenting adults?  Consenting adults should be able to do what they want you say?  So then 3 men can marry.  4 women can marry.  A man and his well cared for and loved German Shepard can openly enjoy marriage and all the fun stuff that comes with it, right?  WHO are YOU to say????

I never said that consenting adults can always do what they want, nor would I ever say that.  What I said was that government allows TWO consenting adults to enter into a contract, as long as one of them is a woman and one is a man.  That is gender discrimination.  Since our government doesn't allow polygamy, I have no basis to argue that the right to polygamy should extend to all consenting adults.  This is that same old tired incrementalism argument.


fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Alpine-I see you really should brush up on your history instead of letting your mouth run. Your caustic but very simplistic approach is nauseating to say the least. Franklin signed the Treaty of Paris , the Declaration and the Constitution and also the first abolitionist petition to Congress. HE believed in diversity, enlightenment and progress. By your standards what would he be,...a socialist? How about James Madison' s 10 commandments of civil rights and liberty? How about Abe Lincoln freeing black people. Guess he was a totalitarian hmmm? IF you look at most of the forefathers they loathed self appointed stooges to an official church telling everyone else what to believe. IF you, Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh had been around you would have been crying for the Crown to intercede! I suggest you do more then sit around and gab but actually enroll in a few classes to further your understanding so everything isn't so confusing, If this seems too much for you perhaps you'd feel better if you actually went out and actually contributed a little more to society by working a little.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"HE believed in diversity, enlightenment and progress."
   And you're dope enough to think socialism stands for diversity, enlightenment, and PROGRESS???   Franklin BELIEVED in the individual, he believed in free enterprise, he believed more than anything in limited government.  He would have as staunchly fought todays stinking socialists as he did the British.

You have zero understanding of this countries own history, and I don't think you even understand Marxism or Fascism.  You only blindly follow the bed wetter in front of you.

 How about James Madison' s 10 commandments of civil rights and liberty?

Yes, what about them?  Madison more so than any of our founders left more documentation of his loathing of big government and the ideals that became todays socialism.  He would have clearly seen "gay issues" as states issues, not for the federal government to be involved.  He was strongly in favor of the laws that all 13 colonies and then states carried at the time regarding so.
 
How about Abe Lincoln freeing black people. Guess he was a totalitarian hmmm?

What does he and this have to do with anything?   Socialists desperately trying to grab any figure from history they can associate themselves and their tainted beliefs with no matter how much of it is a lie.  Similar to what gays do to many figures from history, many of which were NOT gay.  Lincoln had many profound writings and quotes clearly AGAINST socialism.  The only totalitarians are socialists, you won't find any among supporters of free enterprise, capitalism, or the individual.

 

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

 "IF you, Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh"

Another blind and dumb sheep ragging on the likes of Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh.  While they quietly gobble up everything Matthews, Shultz, and Madow offer as news!

A demonstration of their cluelessness.

 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Great words alpy! I see if you don't interject diaper, boogers, Marxist or socialist you're somewhat of a hollow drone. Or ....did you get a paper route? IF so, I apologize. Just carry on.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Alpine we need a definition of what tolerance has become today.  Liberals will hold it up as a virtue when in truth it's simply a lack of principles.  Tolerance is what conservatives have.  They put up with things they don't agree with as long as it doesn't interfere with social dignity.  Liberals on the other  hand have changed it to acceptance.  The fewer principles you have the more tolerant you can be today.  If you have no principles you can accept even murder.  We see liberals today more angry with a firearm than the criminal.  That's enlightening to their true character and lack of reason. 

I will have to say more and more each day I see the democrat party as the party of immorality, and dishonesty.  They call black white, up down, light dark etc.  You don't have to go to New York or Chicago to find human screwed up liberal thinking.

I have talked with people who say it's natural even one male dog will jump another.  Yes, but they don't understand canine behavior either.  There is nothing sexual happening only one dog showing dominance by insult to the other dog.  It would be like one man shoving another or spitting on them. 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Plainsman Said:
Alpine we need a definition of what tolerance has become today.  Liberals will hold it up as a virtue when in truth it's simply a lack of principles.  Tolerance is what conservatives have.  They put up with things they don't agree with as long as it doesn't interfere with social dignity.  Liberals on the other  hand have changed it to acceptance.  The fewer principles you have the more tolerant you can be today.  If you have no principles you can accept even murder.  We see liberals today more angry with a firearm than the criminal.  That's enlightening to their true character and lack of reason. 

I will have to say more and more each day I see the democrat party as the party of immorality, and dishonesty.  They call black white, up down, light dark etc.  You don't have to go to New York or Chicago to find human screwed up liberal thinking.

I have talked with people who say it's natural even one male dog will jump another.  Yes, but they don't understand canine behavior either.  There is nothing sexual happening only one dog showing dominance by insult to the other dog.  It would be like one man shoving another or spitting on them. 

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:
 

gst Said:

So if the "govt" grants the "right" to practice medicine to a medical doctor is the govt then obligated to grant that "right" to everyone else?

The govt "grants" the license to marry just as they grant the license to practice medicine.

To be granted these licenses the state requires certain things.

By your argument any "segment of the population" should then be able to demand the same "rights" to marry whomever or what ever they wish.

One man would then be able to have 10 wives, one woman could marry her German Shepard, a fella in Arkansas could then marry his cousin,  ect......

Where would the "right" to marry begin and end?

I never said the government shouldn't discriminate.  The right to practice medicine requires education, passing a few tests, and getting licensed.  Any person of any gender, race, faith, or sexual orientation, may try to meet the requirements.  

As far as the marrying whomever they wish, I would say yes, as long as that person is a consenting adult.  There is currently no law that allows for some people to marry 10 people and for some people to marry dogs.  To continue to allege that those who support gay marriage support bestiality is just a smokescreen.  

I also comprehend completely that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child.  It also takes a fertile male and a fertile female to conceive a child.  So?  If the support for heterosexual-only marriage is that it takes a man and woman to conceive a child, isn't the next logical step to limit marriage only to those who are fertile?  You never did answer directly my question about how you would handle the marriages of people with intersex conditions.

Spare, no one is saying people that support gay marriage support pedophilia or bestiality. I thought you would have understood that. What is being suggested is that as each incremental step is taken to ":change" in the name of "non discrimination" it becomes harder to stop that incremental movement and finally decide to discriminate against someone at some point.

Spare I did answer your question. I can't help if you do not understand.

I have yet to see ND issue a "transgender" drivers license or official ID. (I would imagine at some point if we are not there already some state will be forced to do so in avoidance of "discrimination".

Once you are identified as a male or female for all purposes in life that legal matters pertain to, that suffices to abide by a law that states marriage should be between a man and a woman. Whether they CAN have a child or not is not the issue it is whether they are of the right sexes to reproduce.

No matter how you slice it, only a man and a woman can reproduce.

sparetire Said:

The who should be allowed to have kids can be a whole different discussion.  There are HORRIBLE heterosexual parents out there.  

Again, why not take the government out of the business of licensing marriages?  

It appears from this statement that you do not seem to be following through with your "rights granted to a group of people" theory here because of YOUR viewpoint.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"Liberals will hold it up as a virtue when in truth it's simply a lack of principles." 

No sentence more profound than this one.  The rest of your post Plainsman spot on.
Liberalism stands for nothing more than the decay and end to the freedom and liberties of the citizen in exchange for a power state with big government crushing the skull of the individual citizen.  To think how many liberal blind sheep socialists are teaching our kids in government schools.  Government has seized our schools, our health care from the private sector.  From the people.  Guns and energy are next.

The Democratic party has become nothing more than a far left wing radical Socialist Party.  The liberals are doing their best to make the Republican Party even more liberal than they presently are.  Then they'll have a Marxist/Fascist party called the Democrats, and a liberal socialist party that can be considered "conservative".  Those will be your two choices.  It's time to turn that around right now, and it's going to take a lot of Americans to wake up to do it.  We'll start by moving the House more conservative. Not just more Republican, and taking the Senate from the socialists.

Impeachment proceedings in the waiting for OBOZO if he makes further unconstitutional move regarding executive orders.

 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fish, despite what you think of your own self intellect you are out of your league in discussing the ideals and intents of those who founded this nation.

But the nature of the progressive liberal automatically negates the true understanding because it is in direct conflict with your principals and ideals so you have no choice but to twist things to fit your views.

It seems now according to the liberal education standards  under Common Core, Lincolns religious views were "liberal" .

Pages