"I Care about Civil Rights... but not that much"

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ma...nt,0,9617.story

 

You can't have it both ways governor. Either you support the notion of gay marriage and a lack of discrimination for gay people or you don't. If this is an issue of "civil rights" like he says in his press release, you don't put it before a vote. And you don't wait for the courts to tell you that the people are wrong. You just do what's right.

 

The state legislature did what's right. You just want to be a Senator.

[Kid Gleason]

Eeesh, somebody needs to get him a good script before he decides to go onto the White House.

 

I guess I just REALLY don't get why people oppose it. I just really don't get it. My life will NOT change if a same sex marriage happens. My life will be effected in no way shape or form, and I probably will be oblivious to 99.99999% of the gay marriages that happen. This just baffles me soooo damn much. Why? Why is it an issue for non-gay people? Two people get to be happy, what is the big f***ing deal???

Edited September 8, 2005 by Kid Gleason

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That post is both offensive & flamatory to those of us who do not share your opinion.

 

Economically, socially, & culturally Americans do not share the same views on marriage. All polls & surveys strongly indicate they prefer to think of marriage in the ideal sense: An ever-lasting promise between man & a woman to love & provide for each other with the hope of bringing new life into this world.

 

Marriage entitlements arose out of a time when the typical family was as follows:

1) The husband was the bread-winner in a single income HH

2) The wife was the stay home Mom (marriage was synonymous with children)

 

Today that's no longer the case but entitlements such as these are very hard to change when they have become engrained in the culture. Ideally the government should move these entitlements away from that traditional paradigm to a new paradigm. This would not only affect taxes but likewise regulations on insurance & so forth. The new paradigm should simply recognize dependants & care-givers. If someone chooses to provide for another they should be given the same breaks as the traditional family would have. You can co-sign a loan for a friend but you can't claim them as a dependant when it comes to health insurance. That's simply wrong.

 

Over time with that economic change in place the government could then simply withdraw from the idea of recognizing marriage altogether. That would leave marriage to the social & cultural circles of American life. That's the ideal solution as it pertains to the free-exercise clause in the US Cons.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Kid Gleason]

I fixed it so it wouldn't hurt the feelings of the people who don't believe everybody should be happy.

[kapkomet]

That post is both offensive & flamatory to those of us who do not share your opinion. 

 

 

LMAO. Wow.

 

Just... Wow.

 

Now we're going to play this cat and mouse game. Should be fun.

Edited September 8, 2005 by kapkomet

[JUGGERNAUT]

I fixed it so it wouldn't hurt the feelings of the people who don't believe everybody should be happy. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If marriage was that great a key to happiness then the majority of them would not end in divorce.

[Kid Gleason]

Wow, you miss the point completely. Nobody gets married with the plans of getting divorced. People get married because they are in love and it is a way of sharing that love and to almost everybody that gets married, it is a monumental day and something that makes people VERY happy. I myself hold my marriage VERY sacred and it is the cause for much happiness in my life. I would never even think for one second to stand in the way of letting somebody else share in that enjoyment. You get one chance for living in this world and to stop somebody else from such a simple pleasure is ridiculous.

 

I've seen your arguments before on this site and I know that nothing I say here can change your views. I just find it sad that one human being could stand in the way of another human being on a topic that really effects you in no way shape or form. If a gay couple got married across town from you, I am sure there would be hundreds of people at that ceremony having a great time for that day, and two of them possibly for the rest of their lives. Would you know about it? No. Would it effect you? No. So why stand in their way. Think of somebody else, not yourself. It's simple. It's called compassion.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In accordance with the new guidelines I ask that you refrain from personal references in your posts. Statements such as "you miss the point completely" will undoubtedly be followed up with "No, you have" & vice versa & flamatory remarks will escalate.

 

It is best to mold your posts in a general context having no personal reference to any single poster. For example:

 

There is nothing preventing two same-sex people from getting married in some cultural circle in America that chooses to celebrate that union with them.

 

This issue is about forcing a paradigm on other social & cultural circles who choose not to celebrate that union with them & the entitlements that are afforded to that union.

 

Likewise because of the entitlements it definitely does have an economic impact on tax payers & the insured who choose not to recognize the union.

[FlaSoxxJim]

In accordance with the new guidelines I ask that you refrain from personal references in your posts.  Statements such as "you miss the point completely" will undoubtedly be followed up with "No, you have" & vice versa & flamatory remarks will escalate. 

It doesn't escalate if the participants don't let it. There is nothing derogatory or attacking in someone saying, 'you're missing my point,' regardless of whether their arguments are well-founded or not.

 

If I'm missing somebody's point, they let me know and they clarify. In the end I may in no way agree with them, but I understand the argument they are trying to make.

 

And btw, I completely see the point you are trying to make. But in thinking about the 'new rules', I think it boils down to:

 

1) Always respect the messenger

2) Agree or not with the message, even making efforts to expose it's flaws, but don't belittle it as ignorance if you disagree with it.

3) Don't talk about Fight Club.

[Kid Gleason]

Well, seeing as how I am done and have said all I have to say, I am not worried about the reprecussion's from what I wrote, and I will not change them unless asked to do so by the admins and mods. But I am willing to take my wrist slap if need be.

[kapkomet]

In accordance with the new guidelines I ask that you refrain from personal references in your posts.  Statements such as "you miss the point completely" will undoubtedly be followed up with "No, you have" & vice versa & flamatory remarks will escalate. 

 

It is best to mold your posts in a general context having no personal reference to any single poster.  For example:

 

There is nothing preventing two same-sex people from getting married in some cultural circle in America that chooses to celebrate that union with them.

 

This issue is about forcing a paradigm on other social & cultural circles who choose not to celebrate that union with them & the entitlements that are afforded to that union.

 

Likewise because of the entitlements it definitely does have an economic impact on tax payers & the insured who choose not to recognize the union.

 

This is rich. Now you're telling everyone how to post. You know YOU escalate the remarks if you CHOOSE to escalate them. "You miss the point" is stating that you're missing the point that the poster was trying to communicate, not saying you're "ignorant". So now, you're trying to out-smart the "rules".

 

Oh what a joy you are.

[kapkomet]

And I see Flaxx beat me to the punch.

 

So, why is it you post here again, Juggs? It's a fair question.

[JUGGERNAUT]

And I see Flaxx beat me to the punch.

 

So, why is it you post here again, Juggs?  It's a fair question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because I firmly believe the forum needs at least one visible conservative minded voice. It's pretty clear what that means in America today. Now truth be it told my personal opinion is not always as conservative minded as my posts. In fact I'm considered liberal on many ideas. But considering the ovewhelming number of lib-speak posts in this forum it's of greater value to the forum if I articulate the con-speak view.

 

As for the guidelines an influential mod has outlined his position such that it's a very fine line as to what constitutes flaming in a post. Generally speaking "missing the point" can be construed as "ignorant of what I'm saying".

[southsider2k5]

Because I firmly believe the forum needs at least one visible conservative minded voice. 

 

Me, Kap, Mreye, ControlledChaos, EvilMonkey, NUKECLEVELAND, southsideirish, sox4lifeinpa... We have plenty of outspoken conservative christians on this board.

[Kid Gleason]

Nuke voices his opinions??? When???

[FlaSoxxJim]

Me, Kap, Mreye, ControlledChaos, EvilMonkey, NUKECLEVELAND, southsideirish, sox4lifeinpa...  We have plenty of outspoken conservative christians on this board.

Did YAS defect from the Dark Side and come over to us?!?

[Steff]

Nuke voices his opinions??? When??? 

 

 

LMAO. POTM material there.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Me, Kap, Mreye, ControlledChaos, EvilMonkey, NUKECLEVELAND, southsideirish, sox4lifeinpa...  We have plenty of outspoken conservative christians on this board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would be very interested to see any evidence of said persons engaging in debate arguing a generally accepted conservative viewpoint.

[kapkomet]

Because I firmly believe the forum needs at least one visible conservative minded voice.  It's pretty clear what that means in America today.  Now truth be it told my personal opinion is not always as conservative minded as my posts.  In fact I'm considered liberal on many ideas.  But considering the ovewhelming number of lib-speak posts in this forum it's of greater value to the forum if I articulate the con-speak view.

 

As for the guidelines an influential mod has outlined his position such that it's a very fine line as to what constitutes flaming in a post.  Generally speaking "missing the point" can be construed as "ignorant of what I'm saying".

I can respect that. However, I rarely see you bend on ANY issue, and "destroying" our arguments no matter right or wrong, according to your/our views.

 

Then, you run around crying foul about things and how they're ran - especially when the heat gets turned up a little on you (self-imposed heat, IMO.)

 

I guess a little more open-mindedness and an occasional dose of humble pie might be suggested, however, I don't think you feel that's necessary. Therein lies the problem, or at least some of it.

[bmags]

Eeesh, somebody needs to get him a good script before he decides to go onto the White House. 

 

I guess I just REALLY don't get why people oppose it. I just really don't get it. My life will NOT change if a same sex marriage happens. My life will be effected in no way shape or form, and I probably will be oblivious to 99.99999% of the gay marriages that happen. This just baffles me soooo damn much. Why? Why is it an issue for non-gay people? Two people get to be happy, what is the big f***ing deal???

 

its debatable whether they get to be happy through marriage.

[southsider2k5]

Did YAS defect from the Dark Side and come over to us?!? 

 

I knew if I listed names I would forget people... I can't believe I forgot Balta on my list

[southsider2k5]

I would be very interested to see any evidence of said persons engaging in debate arguing a generally accepted conservative viewpoint.

 

If you don't believe me, ask them, or ask any of the people they have debated against. Heck ask any vets who have posted in this thread, most of our opinions on all things controversial are pretty well known.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The phrase "you run around crying foul" can be construed as a personal attack & might be testing the guidlines as put forth by a mod. But in response I do no such thing. As long as I'm left alone to reply I say nothing. It is action imposed upon me by a mod that forces me to call for fairness.

 

Believe it or not I have written some lib-speak posts myself. You can search on common themes to lib-speak under my name to find them. I'm probably the most open-minded person on the forum. I'm probably one of the few capable of seeing merit on both sides of an argument.

 

For example:

Though culturally I will never recognize same-sex unions as marriage I do agree that the existing paradigm of entitlements is seriously flawed & should be changed.

 

Now a true conservative would disagree as they likely will not separate the two ideas.

Likewise a true liberal is primarily concerned with the cultural aspect & likely won't separate the two either.

 

So I represent something of a middle-ground that is open to both points of view.

 

Though it's not related it does serve as a good example.

 

A Darwinist likely has a closed mind to the possibility that human evolution arose from more than just spontaneous mutation & natural selection.

 

A Creationist likely has a closed mind to the possibility that spontaneous mutation & natural selection are major contributors to human evolution.

 

An IDist represents someone who is one step removed from Darwinism. Someone who agrees with the science derived from the theory of evolution but not the philosophy. You do not have to agree with the philosophy in order to accept the science.

 

Why has IDism surfaced recently as opposed to previous years? Because of breakthru findings in QT & the philisophical implications arising from them. It has reached a level of consciousness today where it is beginning to surface in mainstream media worldwide. The Matrix is a good example of that.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I prefer to see the specific evidence rather then amass a general feel on the subject.

Edited September 8, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Kid Gleason]

The phrase "you run around crying foul" can be construed as a personal attack & might be testing the guidlines as put forth by a mod. 

 

See, by continually saying this, and pointing these things out constantly in this thread is coming across to me as mocking the admins and rule-makers and could be seen as more offensive than anything else in this whole thread (aside from my original comment that has since been removed).

[kapkomet]

The phrase "you run around crying foul" can be construed as a personal attack & might be testing the guidlines as put forth by a mod.  But in response I do no such thing.  As long as I'm left alone to reply I say nothing.  It is action imposed upon me by a mod that forces me to call for fairness. 

 

 

"You run around crying foul" = ATTACK? GMAFB. You're purposely baiting me. That in and of itself *should* warrant a suspension. I'm going to say this again, and let it get through this time. QUIT PLAYING GAMES.

 

This discussion is over. You obviously don't get it, or you do and worse yet you're purposely pushing every button to push the boundaries. GET OVER YOURSELF.

 

It's pretty clear to everyone except for you what is meant by "personal attack" and you're using it to fit ONLY your agenda. Enough, already.

 

It amazes me how your participation in these threads always end up this way. I wonder why?

Edited September 8, 2005 by kapkomet