youre saying we will have a polarizing president?

no this.... cant be....

10/19/2006 3:30:08 AM

what, that you got, completely owned in that previous post?

while many conservatives see the importance of a true family with a mother and father, we are not the ones that harp on it like it is some shocking american crisis, as hooksaw alluded to.

Quote :

"For many conservatives, the gay marriage issue isn’t even on our radar screens; we really don’t care that much about it. (2) If the Democrats are SO fucking high on gay marriage, why haven’t they introduced a constitutional amendment in support of gay marriage? "

what is so wrong with at least leaving things the way it is now?

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 7:33 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 7:31:46 AM

Because, you know, it was totally the liberals in Congress who proposed the measure to make an Amendment to our Constitution banning same sex marriage.

10/19/2006 7:36:35 AM

only because liberals threatened to force the nation to recognize it, it was a reactionary measure.

10/19/2006 7:38:14 AM

Yeah, how dare we promote equality in this country.

10/19/2006 7:39:24 AM

should we "promote the equality" of polygamists? pedophiles? if you legislate this one thing, you set a precedent to legislate similar proposals down the road, and thats why many of us are opposed to recognizing gay marriage nationally.

not to mention, as stated before, BILL CLINTON voted to not allow same sex marriage!

btw, what i speak of here is party stance. in the tradition of the united states and its limited government tradition, this should NOT be legislated on. however, i and many others believe it is a sign of god, to act on this. including a statement reaffirming a belief in a true family would be legislation, but it would be in-line with previous precedent, and would PREVENT even further legislation that would lead us futher and futher away from our traditions and institutions in this nation.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 7:48 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 7:43:24 AM

No you fucking don't. Stop trying to lump together all of the things that you don't like. Wake the fuck up for once and learn the distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality. And what kind of precident does it set by marginalizing people based on their beliefs and personal preferences who, if you anti-gay amendment was passed, would lose out on normal tax breaks and benefits afforded to married couples?

Stop trying to push your "God" onto other people. That is VERY unAmerican of you. Since you are such a fan of defining a family as having a mother and a father, what about single parent homes? You didn't even adiquitely address this the last time it was asked.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 7:55 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 7:51:21 AM

You might not think it should, but i guarantee you that there are plenty of NAMBLA members ready to go to court once that decision goes down.

10/19/2006 7:54:20 AM

How has this gotten so far off topic ... Oh, that's right, the topic was stupid to start with ...

Extreme people talk in extremes. They can't be reasoned with, because they are beyond reason. It's hate that drives them. Thank God it's liberals, because if it wasn't them it would be someone else. Me thinks Randy has issues ...

Democrats are pediphiles? Haven't you been reading the news? ....

10/19/2006 8:23:52 AM

Quote :

"Socialized Healthcare makes more sense than cutting the estate tax, that's for damn sure."

Actually, did you know that the estate tax doesn't even bring in enough revenue to pay for the cost of administering it? The Estate tax only affects those who have had the foresight and savvy to build up substantial wealth in their lifetimes. If you have worked hard and smart enough to build up more than $10 million of net worth in your lifetime, the government will steal 77% of it when you die. I think this tax starts at 30%.
So, it sounds like a lot of money is raised by the estate tax, right? Wrong. So few people attain that kind of wealth that the cost of administering the tax is more than it brings in. So, all it does is steal money from families who work hard and strive to succeed.
It's rediculous, and it amounts to little more than theivery for the sake of it.

10/19/2006 9:53:14 AM

^Actually, I spoke too soon. They have revamped the estate tax laws, but they have also left themselves an escape hatch just in case they want to steal more of our inheritance in the future.

http://www.kiplinger.com/personalfinance/features/archives/2003/04/rules.html?

10/19/2006 10:16:21 AM

What I'M saying about the gay marriage thing is the following: First, I don't care who's fucking whom; to each his or her own. I don't bring God or gods into it, but I think civil unions are the way to go. There is no redefining involved and I don't think there should be and neither do the Democrats.

Second, at least the most visible Republican, President Bush--and keep in mind that I am NOT a Republican--has made his position clear on gay marriage, whether one likes it or not. The Democrats, as you can see in the plank I posted from their platform, offer a wishy-washy, have-it-both-ways position--as they do on many issues.

Third (repeat), concerning the 2008 presidential election, the Democrats have NOBODY. If the party nominates Hillary Clinton, they might as well give the presidency away. Furthermore, if she is nominated, we will see sociopolitical division in the United States such as we have not experienced in our lifetimes--there will be very little middle ground remaining. Address THIS point, please.

10/19/2006 11:17:59 AM

Quote :

"should we "promote the equality" of polygamists? pedophiles? if you legislate this one thing, you set a precedent to legislate similar proposals down the road, and thats why many of us are opposed to recognizing gay marriage nationally."

This is a slippery slope argument, a known logical fallacy. You have no logical rationale explaining why, in this case, allowing same-sex marriages will lead to pedophilia becoming legalized. Set a precedent? How is legislature on same-sex marriage setting a precedent for pedophilia or polygamists?

When the US extended voting privileges to blacks and women, it did NOT lead to, say, dogs voting. This kind of thinking is not only stupid, it's dangerous. Every argument should be debated made on its merits, and its merits alone.


Try it, trust me it works.

10/19/2006 11:34:12 AM

10/20/2006 5:19:05 AM