http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-news/1226386/posts
Your familiar with Antonio Gramsci, aren't you?
A lot of folks here just don't get it.
George Santayana:
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
It’s absolutely amazing that there are still people who think sanctioning same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in the size and scope of government. They’ll still be saying that even after the first Christian restaurant owner gets fined $15,000 for not providing same-sex “couples” with discounts on Valentine’s Day, or when the state orders private dating services to provide same-sex match-ups or be closed down.
What's so bad is that 232 years after the declaration of independence someone has to explain this to people.
You could have saved us both much more time if you'd simply declared your intellectual superiority from the beginning. Then I could have proceeded directly to bowing and genuflecting in defeat before the overwhelming weight of your arguments.
I never said he did, I only said that He's the same God in both Testaments. And BTW, have you read a book called Revelation? If not, you may want to check into it.
Secondly, you never answered my position that I believe we are more moral now than in the past.
Actually, the reason I didn't answer that is because I never said we're all less moral, I said that damage is being done to the societal fabric. Two words: Gummi bricks. Then there's the fact that if I let a guy con me, that doesn't make me immoral. He's the only one who's immoral, but that doesn't get me my money back, does it?
It is sanctimonius for you to tell me what to pray for.
Nah, doesn't fit the definition, because I wasn't implying (nor do I think) I am morally superior to you. Perhaps I should have just said you were being arrogant. And make no mistake, you were being arrogant. Really, really arrogant.
I understand your religious views. I am pointing out that it's is wrong for you to try and impose them on everyone and for you to tell me how things have been for thousands of years. I answered that before. Tell it to women and slaves and evryone else who had their rights repressed.
The fact that women and slaves were once oppressed doesn't mean we have to invent new rights and acknowledge classes of victims that aren't victims. And it really is ludicrous for you to keep saying that an argument for preserving marriage as is constitutes me "imposing my religion" on anyone. Where is the clause in Prop 22 that requires everyone to convert to Christianity?
Heck, you could make an argument that almost any useful law is a case of someone imposing their religion, because almost every serious offense is something banned by multiple religions.
Merci, mon ami.
Why even vote on anything, let the Courts decide everything that is in our best interest.
I wonder if this will go to the United States Supreme Court?
The DEMS want every vote to count, until it doesn't fit their agenda.
I don't even live in California, but this makes me furious!
I feel sorry for you 1035. If you think San Fran is crazy wait til you get all the wackos coming to your State to get married and decide to stay.
Do you suppose that the policymakers who conceived Aid to Dependent Children ever thought they were in the process of destroying the black family?
It's the results of the action that count in the end; not the intent. Look beyond the immediate effect to the eventual impact.
Well, there's the rub...the question is whether it's "unnecessary" or not. I say it is necessary, not only because it would be so damaging, but because we're legalizing something that can't exist. That's not going to work out well.
If you're so interested in families, campaign to outlaw divorce and single parents.
1. DING-DING-DING! I knew it was only a matter of time before that chestnut came up! Yes, because we have stupid heterosexuals ruining their lives, we shouldn't worry that we could possibly make it worse. No, really, now that we've moved from the brick house to the stick house, it's sanctimoious to say it's a bad idea to move to the straw house. Fine reasoning there.
2. Are you saying that the citizenry has the sovereign right to outlaw divorce and single parenting? Wouldn't that imply that you believe that outlawing these things is necessary? A strange view...
The rest of your post is nonsense. In fact, do what you want, I'm through with you.
Wait...I'm confused. Are you saying it's nonsense that Leo Childs, Scott Brockie, Ake Green, Scott Savage, Crystal Dixon, and Ene Kiildi all had their basic freedoms assaulted by the gay rights crowd, or are you saying it's nonsense for the people of California to outlaw polygamy and incest?
And if you're so much more correct and devoted to freedom than a sanctimonious sort like me, shouldn't you have an answer for that? Especially the part about the folks who got the Gaystapo treatment? After all, it appears that their pursuit of happiness was unnecessarily restricted.
You said it, brother! Allow me to add this list...
Leo Childs, Scott Brockie, Ake Green, Scott Savage, Crystal Dixon, and Ene Kiildi
...to your examples.
How can someone of the same sex be a mate?
Doing away with slavery was a monumental change, women voting was a monumental change, how many times do I have to say this, shall I go on?
Last time I checked, both of those "monumental changes" were accomplished via constitutional amendments ratified by the legislative branches of government. When a comparable amendment sanctioning same-sex "marriage" is ratified, you'll have an analogy.
In a free society the right is there unless you can justify the restriction. Your religious beliefs or because you think it's icky is not sufficient to continue the restriction.
So why are there restrictions against human-animal "marriage"? Better yet, why did it take constitutional amendments to abolish slavery and give women a federally guaranteed right to vote? BTW, don't bet on these liberal judges recognizing the right of a landlord to refuse to rent to a same-sex couple. They'll readily find it perfectly justifiable for the state to force a Christian landlord to permit sodomy on his property.
What's so bad is that 232 years after the declaration of independence someone has to explain this to people.
I was unaware that we declared our independence from Britain so that men could marry each other. Glad you explained it to me.
I doubt it, but as Jim Noble said, what if the moon were made of green cheese? A freedom-loving people is not going to pass a slavery law, but a freedom-loving people DID pass a preservation of marriage law.
If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry his sister, should that be overturned? If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry two women, should that be overturned? If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry his dog, or a 12 year old, should that be overturned? If not, why not?
That's what's happening. It's really getting bad here, we plan on leaving the state in 8 years.
If it goes to the SCOTUS, I hope it's quick. Right now we stand a chance. If Obama gets elected we can forget about it. The court will be useless to us if Obama replaces the next two judges.
Um...something you can do anytime without government interference IS a protected right. You said it's no business of yours or government's if someone is screwing a sheep behind closed doors. Sounds like a right to me.
Do you have any to oppose it?
I think the thriving of the species in heterosexual family arrangements over the last 10,000 years or so is evidence we shouldn't screw with it. We don't have evidence that painting your kid purple won't help him have a better life, either, but I ain't making my kids the guinea pigs.
Speaking of supporting data, you have any credible data on this?
I've seen a number of studies and can dig a couple of more up, but for starters, Get Off My Honor by Hans Zeigler cites a 1998 study that showed a doubled rate of alcohol use and 14 times as much cocaine use among homosexual youth as heterosexual youth. I can find others, if need be.
More importantly, any proof that they're the same people that are trying to adopt?
Let me ask you this: Are you really trusting lib social workers to look all that hard? (Not that all of them are bad, but I'm just sayin', it ain't like they listen to Limbaugh a lot, you know?)
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'm not touching this one for now.
I was. My point is that the fact that some kids may benefit should not be used to enable government to shaft us all. At best, we're talking about moving a very small number of kids from the fire to the frying pan, and doing so by allowing a tyrannical move by courts and extremists.
I mean, heck, if it'll get kids out of foster care and singl-mom homes, let's do away with the First Amendment while we're at it. It's for the children.
Seriously, if you think legalizing gay marriage will do anything to reduce government power, be advised I have a bridge for sale, and I'm letting her go cheap.
The Swedes gave the homosexuals and inch, they took a mile: Ake Green
You fail to understand. Modern libertarianism depends on one particular object: A magic wand. Gay marriage comes up? Well, it’s OK to enable it, because someday we’re going to wave the magic wand and end 500 years of state-regulated marriage, get rid of all those government marriage benefits and completely rewrite the family law statutes to reflect it. Best of all, making it a solely religious issue won’t enable Sharia law in Muslim communities, because we’ll have the magic wand handy. Either that, or Princess Giselle will call in a friendly rat or two to type the new stautes out for us.
Hmmmm...see post 414.
Nice post. See the first couple of links in post 189 for confirmation that you're 100% correct.
Seriously, if you think that homosexuality is just heterosexuality with one person having different genitalia, you're really naive.
http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-news/1226386/posts
Your familiar with Antonio Gramsci, aren't you?
A lot of folks here just don't get it.
George Santayana:
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Tom, have you noticed that every time we who support marriage prefer the voice of the people over the dictates of black-robed oligarchs, we are accused of preferring a theocracy?
Somebody skipped civics class!
See post 154.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.