AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're pissing in the wind georgeob. Many countries have unisex toilets. Also, there's a huge difference between pissing and marriage. It's comparing apples and kumquats.

Oh, now I see the logic of it. Governments can make such distinctions sometimes but not at other times. Perfectly clear !

It is perfectly clear, Georgeob.

Obviously, the government may make distinctions among classes of persons so long as the distinction at issue serves a legitimate, important, or compelling government interest. But, forcing a disfavored group of people to ride at the back of the bus while granting the privilege of riding at the front of the bus to a favored group of people doesn't serve any legitimate, important, or compelling government interest whatsoever. On the contrary, forcing a segment of the population to live among us under a cloud of second-class citizenship causes civil unrest. It doesn't create societal stability or order.

You obviously missed the point when it comes to the formation of stable family units within our society:

Quote:

. . . Forming stable and long-lasting relationship bonds is key to progressing in our society and denying people the right to do this based on their sexuality helps none of us; it hurts all of us.

Cycloptichorn

The CIVIL institution of marriage is the means by which our government promotes stability in our society through a system that regulates familial rights and responsibilities. Denying that societal stability to homosexual couples and relegating them to "lower class" citizenship creates civil unrest. If segregation of races had not caused civil unrest, our society would not have discussed the matter nor would we have taken any measures to remedy the inequality. If this civil unrest in our society was not occurring due to the struggle of homosexuals to achieve equality, we would not be discussing the subject of "same sex marriage" right now. The issue is NOT going to disappear simply because you don't "feel" like a problem exists because government makes distinctions all the time.

Society continues to evolve. The U.S. Supreme Court noted the following:

Quote:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Source: Lawrence v. Texas

Women fought for decades to get rid of discriminatory laws that served only to oppress them. Black people fought for decades to get rid of discriminatory laws that served only to oppress them. At this point in time--in this generation--it is the homosexual people who are coming forward to fight against discriminatory laws that serve only to oppress them.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra wrote:

Quote:

"...discriminatory laws that serve only to oppress them." against one group of people for their "difference" should not be tolerated by any other group. They do not harm others from their lifestyles as some would have us believe, but that also means they are influenced more by others than they are able to make their own decisions which is ludicrous!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't know what the Hell kind of horseshit Fox is trying to peddle now, saying "we" corrected anything. Left to her kind, mixed race marriages would still be outlawed. Loving versus the Commonwealth of Virgina was decided by the Supreme Court, ending anti-miscegenation laws. It was precisely because "we" didn't do anything about anti-miscegenation laws that such a law was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

I suspect that someday, same sex marriage will be resolved in the same manner--although certainly not with the right-wing lunatic court we have now.

Absolutely. Foxfyre and her ilk would allege that same-race marriages produce the optimal family unit for raising children. They would argue (and did argue in the past) that the children of mixed-race marriages would be forced to suffer the slings and arrows of a disapproving society. In other words, they used their own unjustifiable and hateful discrimination against mixed-race couples and the mixed race children these couples produced as an excuse to continue their hateful discrimination.

Thus, her present day objection that opposite-sex marriages produce the optimal family unit for raising children is simply the recycling of an old argument that was REJECTED as an excuse for unlawful discrimination.

0 Replies

You do know, don't you, that absolutely all of that is going to shoot right over her head. In another thread, she produced what she claimed is evidence that families with the mother and father present produce "measurable" advantages. The thread was concerned with the present as compared to the 1950s. We had already presented evidence that teen-age pregnancy reached it's peak in the late 1950s, and that crime and poverty had been reduced since the 1950s, with poverty being nearly cut in half. All of this was against the notable statistic that both the absolute number and the proportion of children born out of wedlock had risen.

It was totally opaque to her. She didn't realize that the sources she had provided were relying upon the same data. She once even said that if what we said were true, she would expect to see a reduction in poverty since the 1950s. Hello ? ! ? ! ?

You can hit her over the head with facts, you can shout the truth in her face. It makes no impression.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes but don't overlook all the gloats on this thread on how the Republican party is shrinking. So that would suggest for the trend to be gravitating toward pro-life couldn't be attributed to an inrease in Republicans could it? Anyway being pro-life does not necessarily translate to being anti-abortion in all circumstances any more than pro-choice automatically translates to being pro-abortion in all circumstances.

Personally, I think this just illustrates that as a country we do tend to be more conservative (MAC) than recent elections might appear. I don't know, but I am speculating that the extreme liberalism being pushed into their faces by the Obama administration might cause some folks to step back and redefine their ideology too.

You will note that there are several pro-life Democrats in Congress right now, and as more and more drift away from the Republican party, there will be more and more...

You guys don't even know what 'extreme liberalism' is. Seriously.

Cycloptichorn

The horribly ironic dilemma of the "pro life" people is their mission to take away the rights of individuals to choose for themselves whether to create or not create life and place that power in the hands of the government. In order to do that, they must get Roe v. Wade overturned. In doing so, they fail to understand that we live in a world that is OVER-POPULATED. Far too many people are being born and our world does not have enough resources to allow them all to survive. Here's what Justice Scalia said:

"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."

http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_8810.php

The government of China is dealing with the problem of over-population through laws that limit couples to one child and require forced abortions and sterilizations. If individual rights are extinguished and our government acquires power over procreation, then the pendulum could swing from criminalizing abortions to requiring abortions in order to serve the state's interest in potential life that, if allowed to come into existence, will consume scarce resources. If the pro-life people who are demanding that we place the power over procreation in the hands of the government actually considered the consequences of their efforts, then they would comprehend their own stupidity in placing their own rights to create life at substantial risk.

Take into consideration the case of pro-lifer Sarah Palin. She already had four healthy children. Would a country concerned with overpopulation, plagued with scarce resources, and vested with supreme power over its citizens' reproduction have allowed Sarah and her husband to bring a fifth child that was afflicted with birth defects into existence?

2 Replies

This puts an end to the debate. Setanta, the genius on these threads, who no doubt is so liberal that he would be in favor of laws promoting beastiality( just look at the happy face of his mutt) and Debra L A W( the most brilliant female lawyer, who gave up a half million dollar career with a top ten law firm so she could write on these threads are, or think they are, the last word on sexual freedom. They have no idea what real sexual freedom is all about.

I missed Setanta and Debra Law's defense of Beastiality, Polygamy and NAMBLA. Why are they still in the stone ages with regard to sexual freedom?

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

The horribly ironic dilemma of the "pro life" people ...fail to understand that we live in a world that is OVER-POPULATED. Far too many people are being born and our world does not have enough resources to allow them all to survive.

not long ago, in the 1960's, there was a lot of concern, and justified, about this. the population explosion. and the resulting ideas called "zero population growth".

it seems to me that there's a connection between the ignoring of these concepts and the belief that the world is going to end any day now, so who cares? use it all up, we ain't gonna need it much longer.

i don't believe in "sure things". i guess i'm just conservative that way.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra, Pro-lifers want to save every fetus, but they don't care that over 50% of the world population are already starving - and many without fresh water to drink.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Debra, Pro-lifers want to save every fetus, but they don't care that over 50% of the world population are already starving - and many without fresh water to drink.

Even in our own country, there is substantial uproar over the case of Nadia Suleyman--the unemployed single mom of six children (several of whom have disabilities)--bringing 8 more babies into existence when she can't support the ones she already had. Her procreative choices have already drained millions of dollars out of public coffers and will continue to be a drain on tax dollars. If Roe v. Wade is overturned and the government is AGAIN vested with the power over procreation, then the government may force people like Nadia (and Sarah Palin, for that matter) to undergo abortion/sterilization in order to conserve scarce resources. All we need to do is look at case law that blessed State intervention into individual procreation before Roe v. Wade:

Quote:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes....Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

BUCK v. BELL, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Debra, Pro-lifers want to save every fetus, but they don't care that over 50% of the world population are already starving - and many without fresh water to drink.

and very few of them get adopted by the people that insist they be born.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Debra, Pro-lifers want to save every fetus, but they don't care that over 50% of the world population are already starving - and many without fresh water to drink.

and very few of them get adopted by the people that insist they be born.

Yeah but, people of faith are stocking the food pantries as we speak....and their voluntary charitable contributions to their churches will feed the world's starving children....if only they didn't have to pay taxes that feed and house Nadia's children....golly darnit!

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Even in our own country, there is substantial uproar over the case of Nadia Suleyman--the unemployed single mom of six children (several of whom have disabilities)--bringing 8 more babies into existence when she can't support the ones she already had.

aw, she's a piker. the duggers, now there's the paragon of unnecessary child birth.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

From Food Research and Action Center (FRAC):

Quote:

May 5, 2009 - New FRAC Brief Provides Anti-Hunger Strategies to Keep Children Fed During Summer
Strategies in Tough Economic Times: Increasing Access to Summer Meals (pdf), a new brief by the Food Research and Action Center, outlines several proactive strategies that state agencies, schools, anti-hunger and child advocates, nonprofits and other stakeholders can implement immediately to make sure children have access to healthy meals this summer.
May 4, 2009 - February 2009 SNAP/Food Stamp Participation Data
New SNAP/Food Stamp Record: 32.5 Million Participate in February 2009, Recovery Act Further Boosts SNAP/Food Stamp Purchasing Power and Economic Stimulus Impact for Families and Communities.

It is estimated that over 13 million children in the US go hungry every day.

SAVE the fetus!

2 Replies

You remember that site the media told you about that lets you grade members of Congress? So far, every single F belongs to a Democrat and every grade above a C+ belongs to a Republican.

I wonder why that is, especially since the dems are supposed to be the paragons of virtue and are supposed to be doing exactly what the people want them to be doing...

http://www.gradegov.com/rankings.php

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

And now they can't get this off the front page. . . .

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb090518_cmyk20090515073518.jpg

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

SAVE the fetus!

Yes, even ci was a fetus at one time. Lucky for him his parents saved it.

Interesting, Gallup says nation now pro-life. How did we get the most anti-life president ever?

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/wp-content/assets/19/1392/article_photo1.jpg?rand=94839330

1 Reply

@okie,

I have always been pro choice.

I just hope the choice is for life, not death.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

13 Million children in the US go hungry every day.

Is Cicerone Imposter so abysmally stupid that he is unable to read?

Note:

38.2 million people"including 13.9 million children"live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten households in the United States (11.9 percent). This is an increase of 1.9 million, from 36.3, million in 2003.

3.9 percent of U.S. households experience hunger. Some people in these households frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. 10.7 million people, including 545 thousand children, live in these homes.

8.0 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger. Members of these households have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 27.5 million people, including 10.6 million children, live in these homes.

****************

13 Million children do NOT go hungry every day.

545 thousand children exerience hunger. I don't know why since food stamps are so easy to get in the USA. I don't know why since there are hundreds of churches, charities, etc. that routinely give out tons of food to those who apply.

Is Cicerone Imposter so ignorant that he does not know that any child who attends public school receives a nourishing breakfast and lunch?

Cicerone Imposter is not only stupid, he is clearly excrementatious!

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

First, the legal genius Debra LAW( I understand she went to Albany Law School which is definitely a TTT) quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes but does not mention his name--Why not?

Then, Debra L A W apparently does not know of the reasons given by women for having abortions(compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute--A PRO-ABORTION SOURCE).

0 Replies

Debra L A W apparently read Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" and has never read anything else re Population.Debra L A W clearly doesn't know what she is talking about and neither did Ehrlich.

Ehrlich saidin 1968--"India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1971". He and Debra L A W are wrong. India became more than self-sufficient exporting surplus grain in the early 1980's to the Soviet Union.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know