[quote]CaliKing wrote:
I don’t have a problem with queers, they can go and sodomize all they want, but we don’t have to have it shoved down our throats…[/quote]
I laughed out loud when I read this.
[quote]CaliKing wrote:
For all of those that claim to be conservative and feel that Prop. 2 would be infringing on our freedom, I really don’t see how banning marriage between Man and Man is somehow infringing on the freedom of sodomites. I would appreciate a little clarification on this claim. I don’t have a problem with queers, they can go and sodomize all they want, but we don’t have to have it shoved down our throats by allowing them to take part in a union that is specifically reserved for the use in between men and women. Explain it to me, I want to know how you can to that conclusion. Thanks[/quote]
First off, who said marriage is specifically reserved for a man and a woman? It’s not even discussed in your beloved bible.
Secondly, you are obviously a judgemental bastard. You use “sodomites” as some type of slam while stating that you don’t really care. Ever have anal sex with a woman? Sodomite!!!
It seems to me most people with such contempt of gays are very insecure in the own sexuality and have some secret desires for their fellow man.
If marriage was so holy, you wouldn’t see any cheating or spousal abuse, etc.
What makes you think two men or two woman can’t be just as committed to one another as any hetero couple?
Maybe politicians should specifically shun zealotry?
I mean, it isn’t hard to link fanatic ideologies with terrorism…
[quote]chadman wrote:
It seems to me most people with such contempt of gays are very insecure …[/quote]
Not to get this totally off topic, but the same could be said about those that have such contempt for christians.
I’ll say it again. If the minority in the state of Texas wrt gay marraige wants to change the way the vote is trending - they need to get off their ass and do something about it besides waiting on an activist judge to do it for them.
The system works. Even in Cali - where all of Arnolds propositions failed, the system worked.
Name calling, excuse making, and christian bashing may make you feel better right now. But what does it change? What does it matter how comfortable a I am, or am not, with my sexuality? My vote still counts the same as the most radical pro-homo activist out there.
And if you didn’t even bother to cast a vote - then you should be ashamed of yourself, and have no right to be bitching or gloating, whichever the case may be.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe politicians should specifically shun zealotry?
I mean, it isn’t hard to link fanatic ideologies with terrorism…[/quote]
That is utter bullshit. Zealot is way to strong a term to use to describe the majority of the church going public - which happens to be a substantial part of the Republican rank and file.
I guess, in lieu of actual success, if you villainize those you disagree with and call for the removal of their first amendment rights - maybe people will listen to you.
No politician in his right mind would ‘shun’ 77% of the electorate. Not even if the mighty thinktard commands them to.
You guys hold yourself up as open minded, but when something you disagree with whips your ass - you call for them to be silenced or, at the very least, to be shunned. I’m having trouble adding that one up.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
chadman wrote:
It seems to me most people with such contempt of gays are very insecure …
Not to get this totally off topic, but the same could be said about those that have such contempt for christians.
I’ll say it again. If the minority in the state of Texas wrt gay marraige wants to change the way the vote is trending - they need to get off their ass and do something about it besides waiting on an activist judge to do it for them.
The system works. Even in Cali - where all of Arnolds propositions failed, the system worked.
Name calling, excuse making, and christian bashing may make you feel better right now. But what does it change? What does it matter how comfortable a I am, or am not, with my sexuality? My vote still counts the same as the most radical pro-homo activist out there.
And if you didn’t even bother to cast a vote - then you should be ashamed of yourself, and have no right to be bitching or gloating, whichever the case may be. [/quote]
You are absolutely correct regarding voting and the system. I does tend to work well and correct imbalances. I think the big issue that you are missing is that there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. You can have conservative political views without forcing a christian right agenda. You are also assuming that those on the left are not religious and have no moral values.
I don’t want a Christian agenda pushed on me any more than I would want a Muslim or Hindu agenda pushed as state policy.
In regards to my statement about being comfortable with one’s own sexuality, it was not to say that his vote (or yours) didn’t count. It was to illuminate the possibly base of his bigoted views.
For someone so offended by the term redneck, you should equally be offended by “sodomite”, or even your own use of “pro-homo”. I know, you just abbreviated homosexual, there was to bigoted slam to the term “homo” intended…
[quote]
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.
How come there aren’t more Republicans like you doogie? I tend to agree with the Republicans on economic issues, but the social agenda has indeed been taken over by religious zealots.[/quote]
Agreed. I personally don’t see a damn thing that’s actually “conservative” about the present administration. All this social issue stuff is just distracting bullshit to get people all riled up emotionally. Whatever happened to fiscal responsibility and personal freedom – which were preached once long ago as the foundation for what it meant to be a conservative?
Keep the goddamn budget in line and taxes as low as possible and let people run their own lives. “Issues” like gay marriage, abortion, and the war on medicinal marijuana have nothing to do with being a conservative, imho.
Oh, and interventionism abroad. Let’s not forget that one.
And as for whatever the vote was on Prop 2 in Texas… it’s not a democracy, people. It’s a republic. There’s a huge difference. It’s not mob rule.
I grew up in the south and I’m pretty sure that if “issues” such as interacial marriage or equal rights for blacks and jews had been voted on, the results would have been similar to what we saw in Texas yesterday.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
Maybe politicians should specifically shun zealotry?
I mean, it isn’t hard to link fanatic ideologies with terrorism…
That is utter bullshit. Zealot is way to strong a term to use to describe the majority of the church going public - which happens to be a substantial part of the Republican rank and file.
I guess, in lieu of actual success, if you villainize those you disagree with and call for the removal of their first amendment rights - maybe people will listen to you.
No politician in his right mind would ‘shun’ 77% of the electorate. Not even if the mighty thinktard commands them to.
You guys hold yourself up as open minded, but when something you disagree with whips your ass - you call for them to be silenced or, at the very least, to be shunned. I’m having trouble adding that one up. [/quote]
Do your conservatives just say ,what they think will bring them the most votes? It seems they are against gays when it comes to popular opinion,but arent several of the top politicians children openly gay and what about the gay men that paid arnolds way when he didnt have any money ,and they helped promote him and get him where he is today.Can you honestly trust someone like that as you leader???
[quote]chadman wrote:
You are absolutely correct regarding voting and the system. I does tend to work well and correct imbalances. I think the big issue that you are missing is that there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. You can have conservative political views without forcing a christian right agenda. You are also assuming that those on the left are not religious and have no moral values.[/quote]
This has nothing to do with separation of church and state - at least as far as it extends to the constitutional meaning. To say that one group’s belief system is wrong because its roots are based in the church, and the other’s is right becasue it is not, is to deny people their right to express themselves.
Additionally - to say that my beliefs which form my opinions, and the way that I vote (which is the same way the pro-gay movement does it too) should be separated from the rest of society because someone thinks I am imposing my religion on them, is ludicrous.
It’s not being pushed on you. It was done through the ballot box. Losing an election is a far cry from having a activist judiciary make law from the bench. That would be grounds for accusing that it is being pushed on you.
The pro-gay crowd lost a fair and open election. There is nothing more to it than that. You want to change the outcome? Then work harder. The fact may just well be that Texas will never accept gay marraige. But to call 77% of the voters zealots, and bemoan the fact that an ‘agenda’ was forced on you doesn’t make sense. Maybe if the outcome were even close, I would say that you have an argument. But it wasn’t. Gay marraige went down in a landslide.
I apologize if my short hand offended you. It was not meant to be a slanderous remark. My argument has nothing to do with being pro-gay, or anti-gay - it is about how the losers in this fair and open fight are now calling for the winning side to be shunned, or saying that there is a violation of the separation of church and state.
[quote]ron33 wrote:
Do your conservatives just say ,what they think will bring them the most votes? It seems they are against gays when it comes to popular opinion,but arent several of the top politicians children openly gay and what about the gay men that paid arnolds way when he didnt have any money ,and they helped promote him and get him where he is today.Can you honestly trust someone like that as you leader???
[/quote]
I’ll tell you what I can’t do and that is to read an unintelligible post. For the love of pete - learn how to convey a thought coherently through the written word, and I might respond.
[quote]CaliKing wrote:
For all of those that claim to be conservative and feel that Prop. 2 would be infringing on our freedom, I really don’t see how banning marriage between Man and Man is somehow infringing on the freedom of sodomites. I would appreciate a little clarification on this claim. I don’t have a problem with queers, they can go and sodomize all they want, but we don’t have to have it shoved down our throats by allowing them to take part in a union that is specifically reserved for the use in between men and women. Explain it to me, I want to know how you can to that conclusion. Thanks[/quote]
Eww. You’re just a reprehensible little midget, aren’t you?
[quote]gojira wrote:
CaliKing wrote:
I don’t have a problem with queers, they can go and sodomize all they want, but we don’t have to have it shoved down our throats…
I laughed out loud when I read this.
[/quote]
Same here. Is getting something shoved down his throat a fear or a fantasy?
Rainjack, what the hell are you talking about?
The points you are raising haven’t even been aligned with what anyone had originally started saying.
People were basically agreeing with the sentiments of doogies post, nobody was complaining or otherwise bitching about the process.
You come along and make up a stance for everyone on the left, then proceed to go about knocking down this stance.
Wake up.
Also, when I referred to zealotry, that is exactly what I meant. I meant those that would look to find ways to legislate their beliefs on others. It has nothing to do with this particular issue – though you certainly want to go play with statistics and other malarky that isn’t on anyones mind.
Why don’t you try reading what people are saying and taking it at face value sometimes, instead of making up in your own mind what you think people really meant but didn’t say.
Sometimes people really do say what they mean… imagine that. We aren’t all career politicians you know.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Prop. 2, actually.
I’m conservative, my wife is conservative, all of my friends are conservative. We all voted against it.
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.[/quote]
Agreed, although I think this can remain a Christian country without being a fundamentalist one.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
chadman wrote:
You are absolutely correct regarding voting and the system. I does tend to work well and correct imbalances. I think the big issue that you are missing is that there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. You can have conservative political views without forcing a christian right agenda. You are also assuming that those on the left are not religious and have no moral values.
This has nothing to do with separation of church and state - at least as far as it extends to the constitutional meaning. To say that one group’s belief system is wrong because its roots are based in the church, and the other’s is right becasue it is not, is to deny people their right to express themselves.
Additionally - to say that my beliefs which form my opinions, and the way that I vote (which is the same way the pro-gay movement does it too) should be separated from the rest of society because someone thinks I am imposing my religion on them, is ludicrous.
I don’t want a Christian agenda pushed on me any more than I would want a Muslim or Hindu agenda pushed as state policy.
It’s not being pushed on you. It was done through the ballot box. Losing an election is a far cry from having a activist judiciary make law from the bench. That would be grounds for accusing that it is being pushed on you.
The pro-gay crowd lost a fair and open election. There is nothing more to it than that. You want to change the outcome? Then work harder. The fact may just well be that Texas will never accept gay marraige. But to call 77% of the voters zealots, and bemoan the fact that an ‘agenda’ was forced on you doesn’t make sense. Maybe if the outcome were even close, I would say that you have an argument. But it wasn’t. Gay marraige went down in a landslide.
For someone so offended by the term redneck, you should equally be offended by “sodomite”, or even your own use of “pro-homo”. I know, you just abbreviated homosexual, there was to bigoted slam to the term “homo” intended…
I apologize if my short hand offended you. It was not meant to be a slanderous remark. My argument has nothing to do with being pro-gay, or anti-gay - it is about how the losers in this fair and open fight are now calling for the winning side to be shunned, or saying that there is a violation of the separation of church and state.
[/quote]
RJ,
I don’t expect you not to use your religion or any other belief forming system to help make up your mind on what to vote for. However, certain issues should not be on the ballot to begin with. If there was an initiative to make Christianity the official religion of the U.S., perhaps it would pass, depending on who actually went to the polls. Does that mean it is best for the country, just because it got the most votes?
Look, most people can’t vote objectively for an All-Star team, so just because something gets the most votes doesn’t make it right. As another post said, I you’d put up many anti-black or anti-woman initiatives in the past, they would have passed by a landslide. Doesn’t make it right.
Just for fun, watch tonight’s Trading Spouses on Fox. You’ll see why the christians who are nuts give them all a bad rap.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Eww. You’re just a reprehensible little midget, aren’t you?
[/quote]
Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Little midget? I am 6’3" and weigh 255 and carry 9% BF. I’ll post photos if you want. Harris, you have really outdone yourself this time, bravo, great insult. Doesn’t really apply in this case, keep working on it.
As for Chadman, the definition of marriage is the civil/religious union between a man and a woman. Don’t try to rewrite history, it has been that way since antiquity. Where did I ever mention the Bible? You speak as though you have contempt for the Bible, I don’t blame you, if I were a sodomite I would try to deligitimize what was said within and those who wrote said book. Your anger is understandable.
As far as having anal sex with a woman, no, never have, never will, not because religion tells me no, but because science tells me know. Particularly my two uncles who are physicians speak quite openly about how couples should avoid anal sex. The anus/rectum is a particularly unclean area of the body and penetration with a penis can cause tears in the dermis of the anal spinchter, thus leaving the particapant open to infection and anal difigurement. For someone with a small penis such as yourself, you could probably get away with it, me on the other hand.
It isn’t intolerant to denounce evil. I don’t dislike homosexuals, I have several queer friends, I don’t condone what they do. Their lifestyle is their choice, they will deal with the consequences when the time comes. I believe that it is foolish to allow our government to in essence sanction an immoral act, by saying the engaging in homosexuality has now become a normal practice within societal activity. Sorry, not normal. You guys need to come up with new arguments, I am not a religious zealot.
[quote]futuredave wrote:
True conservatives are for freedom. Religous zealots are for a Christian America.
How come there aren’t more Republicans like you doogie? I tend to agree with the Republicans on economic issues, but the social agenda has indeed been taken over by religious zealots.
Agreed. I personally don’t see a damn thing that’s actually “conservative” about the present administration. All this social issue stuff is just distracting bullshit to get people all riled up emotionally. Whatever happened to fiscal responsibility and personal freedom – which were preached once long ago as the foundation for what it meant to be a conservative?
Keep the goddamn budget in line and taxes as low as possible and let people run their own lives. “Issues” like gay marriage, abortion, and the war on medicinal marijuana have nothing to do with being a conservative, imho.
Oh, and interventionism abroad. Let’s not forget that one.
And as for whatever the vote was on Prop 2 in Texas… it’s not a democracy, people. It’s a republic. There’s a huge difference. It’s not mob rule.
I grew up in the south and I’m pretty sure that if “issues” such as interacial marriage or equal rights for blacks and jews had been voted on, the results would have been similar to what we saw in Texas yesterday.
[/quote]
The best, and most insightful, post on this thread.
Nice job!
[quote]CaliKing wrote:
It isn’t intolerant to denounce evil. I don’t dislike homosexuals, I have several queer friends…
[/quote]
- CLASSIC!!
[quote]chadman wrote:
I don’t expect you not to use your religion or any other belief forming system to help make up your mind on what to vote for. However, certain issues should not be on the ballot to begin with. [/quote]
Says who? You? The pro-gay marraige crowd? Who is the one to say that an issue should or should not be brought to the people for a vote?
I think that is why we have the courts - to determine what is constituttional and what is not. Being that there is no constitutional amendment allowing, or outlawing gay marraige, I am going to have to disagree with you idea of what should or shouldn’t be brought before the voters.
That undermines the entire process.
And that would be ruled unconstitutional before it even got close to being on the ballot. You know that. Please quit creating strawmen to make you case.
Right is as subjective as you can get. Who is the arbitor of “right”? That’s why we vote. You can’t lose the election and then say - “Well, it should have never been brought to a vote in the first place…It’s just not right”. If this election was unconstitutional - it will be found out as such, and struck down. But since this was a referendum over creating an amendment - I doubt that will happen.
You don’t have the right to tell me what is right and what is wrong, or what should be allowed on the ballot, or not. That is forcing your beliefs on me. Isn’t that the exact thing you were accusing the church people of trying to do to you? Majority wins. You may not think it is fair - hell I think the voters of Cali got it wrong at every turn - but that is the way it goes.
Here is a crazy thought.
Marriage was originally a religious institution. Why is there no one screaming seperation of Church and State over this?
Instead everyone is saying lets keep the religious ceramony, and get rid of the “Zealots”.
why is this issue a double standard. I am ok with the state recognizing couples of all sorts. I am not ok with them regulating marriage. That is only because in my mind it was a religious service long before it was the states.
I do feel like this is a double standard though from people who are always screaming about Church and State. Why not scream about this?
See everyone gets their freedoms then, and this issue can go away.