Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

@ehBeth,

Quote:

times change, and change again

Yes, times change, what we want changes and what is the right thing to do changes. What does not change is that the way we organize our civilization and the things that we attempt to accomplish should be determined by free choice.....that is the choice of the collective (minorities along with majorities). What we do should not be a blind drive, it should not always be what is the easiest road, it should not always be the road that the most people indistinctly are drawn too.

What is missing from our dialog is the evaluation of what is best, and also the acknowledgement that the way we live is born out of choice, and also the understanding that living blindly by dogma always leads to human tragedy.

Those who question the wisdom of continued devotion to the dogma of the church of the individual are the heretics of this age, however we are sometime correct in our concerns, in our questioning.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

What does not change is that the way we organize our civilization ....

Hmm... Now I think you're just trolling, 'cause this is a pretty obviously untrue.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawk wrote :

Quote:

What does not change is that the way we organize our civilization and the things that we attempt to accomplish should be determined by free choice.....that is the choice of the collective (minorities along with majorities).

isn't that what elections are often all about ?
the people decide who is going to be their representative - and if they don't like her/him , they'll vote for someone else next time .
every person has one vote - don't see that it can be fairer than that .
hbg

1 Reply

California might have a ballot initiative in the near future where the state does not issue 'marriage' licenses. Only state issued certificate will be provided acknowledging a civil union.

Those who want to get married can do so through a church or other organization.

This, I like. What business is it of the government who is allowed to married who? I consider myself conservative, but I don't get those who say the government should dictate who is allowed to married.

Want to marry your cousin, twins, or someone of the same sex? Why should the government have a say? Although I guess they get you when you file taxes, claiming dependents/lack of and such.

Government needs to out of our lives, marriages, women's bodies, gun safes, and our pockets...

1 Reply

@hamburger,

Quote:

isn't that what elections are often all about ?
the people decide who is going to be their representative - and if they don't like her/him , they'll vote for someone else next time .
every person has one vote - don't see that it can be fairer than that

that would be great, if we had a public educated enough and tolerant enough to conduct a full debate on the subject before deciding what to do. As we have seen here, anyone who disagrees with the gay rights agenda (individual freedom) is labeled a bigot and dismissed.

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

Government needs to out of our lives, marriages, women's bodies, gun safes, and our pockets...

the problem with your position is that individuals who have not been educated by the collective (state) and whom are then set out into life being told that they are free to feed their desires usually don't amount to much. They don't know what is good for them, and they don't care what is good for others. Your dream sounds good, but trying to put it into practice it is the cause of individual harm as well as harm to civilization. We need to deal with reality, to be able to see outside of the ideology of the super individual (read narcissist).

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
isn't that what elections are often all about ?
the people decide who is going to be their representative - and if they don't like her/him , they'll vote for someone else next time .
every person has one vote - don't see that it can be fairer than that

that would be great, if we had a public educated enough and tolerant enough to conduct a full debate on the subject before deciding what to do. As we have seen here, anyone who disagrees with the gay rights agenda (individual freedom) is labeled a bigot and dismissed.

Perhaps that's because your view, "freedom for me, but not for thee," is contrary to our core principle of equal protection under the law. The only reason why you're jumping on the bandwagon to deny marital rights to gays is because you don't approve of them. Bigotry is not a good enough reason to deny them equal rights under the law.

0 Replies

@parados,

This is why you are a perfect fool in any discussion.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Fine and good.

You still have not explained how same-sex marriages will negatively impact existing heterosexual marriages.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You still have not explained how same-sex marriages will negatively impact existing heterosexual marriages.

Actually, I have a couple of times. So long as you continue to ignore those posts I will assume that the explanation went over your head.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Well, I guess so.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

the problem with your position is that individuals who have not been educated by the collective (state) and whom are then set out into life being told that they are free to feed their desires usually don't amount to much. They don't know what is good for them, and they don't care what is good for others. Your dream sounds good, but trying to put it into practice it is the cause of individual harm as well as harm to civilization. We need to deal with reality, to be able to see outside of the ideology of the super individual (read narcissist).

I disagree, sorry.

One of our problems in society is the way government has wormed its way into our lives. I don't care if it is a leftist issue or a right social issue; one group asking the government to intervene against another group usually ends in loss of freedom for everyone.

There will always be exceptions, of course. And the left seems to invoke government-mandated suppressing of rights much more than the right.

But to say one way is OK while the other is not is disingenuous...

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
You still have not explained how same-sex marriages will negatively impact existing heterosexual marriages.

Actually, I have a couple of times. So long as you continue to ignore those posts I will assume that the explanation went over your head.

Incoherent, pedantic ramblings about the "meaning" of the word "marriage" don't count. Give a single, concrete example of a way a heterosexual marriage would be affected.

0 Replies

Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know