Indiana Considers Ban on Lesbian Pregancies!!!

A bill is the first stage of a law.

Thank you for that civics lesson. Here's a biology lesson in return: A catepiller is the first stage of a butterfly, but it can't fly.

If the woman had her way, this would be the law in Indiana.

And if you had your way, who knows what sort of fell consequences would befall Righties, but you don't see me bemoaning the continued presence of kelticwizard on God's Good Earth.

As it turned out, it never made to the law stage, where it could do harm.

I think that was my point.

Fact is, the bill is consistent with laws which existed up until less than two years ago, and which conservatives fully supported. And which conservatives hollered against when the laws were struck down.

Meaning what? This seems to be the central thrust of your argument, but I'm afraid I don't get it. I could be mistaken, but the Texas sodomy laws recently struck down by the SC were on the books for quite some time, just as they were in virtually every other state. Again, I could be wrong but I bet there are still some sodomy laws on the books in states other than Texas. The rather considerable gay and lesbian community in Texas (Yes Virginia, there are Queers in the Lone Star State) will attest that the Texas laws were almost never enforced.

That they could be is significant and it is better that they be struck from the books than simply "rarely' enforced, but it is incorrect to suggest that these laws were regularly, or even occassionally used to oppress sodomites.
Some people who believe that sodomy is a sin did find the SC ruling objectionable. I don't agree with them, but (obviously) their having their own opinions on these subjects doesn't chill me to the bone as it does you. Some conservatives objected to the ruling on the basis of States rights. If one doesn't believe that there is an explicit or even implicit right of privacy protected by the Constitution, then it is difficult to support a ruling which is based on such a right.

So she is hardly an isolated kook. There are many on the Right who share her beliefs.

And there are many on the Left who share the beliefs of left-wing kooks.

Why are you so afraid of the Right? I suspect my disagreement with left-wing dogma is every bit as intense as your disagreement with right-wing dogma, but I hardly fear the Left in this country. They may evoke in me anger, frustration, and even amusement, but never fear. And please don't try and tell me that the Left is incapable of all sorts of nasty deeds you find to be common fare for the Right, for if you do I will be forced to evoke the names of Lenin, Stalin, Mao-tse-dung, Pol Pot, and Mugawbi.

I know this may be unfair, but I always return to the belief that Liberals (which are not necessarily synonomous with hard core Leftists) are a hoplessly romantic lot who feel the need to cast themselves as heroic defenders of mankind.

In my more cynical moments I tend to believe they are a sanctimonious lot who crave a feeling of superiority. I'm trying to quell such moments though.

A bill is the first stage of a law.

Thank you for that civics lesson. Here's a biology lesson in return: A catepiller is the first stage of a butterfly, but it can't fly.

As it turned out, it never made to the law stage, where it could do harm.

I think that was my point.

I could be mistaken, but the Texas sodomy laws recently struck down by the SC were on the books for quite some time, just as they were in virtually every other state. Again, I could be wrong but I bet there are still some sodomy laws on the books in states other than Texas.....the Texas laws were almost never enforced.

.... incorrect to suggest that these laws were regularly, or even occassionally used to oppress sodomites.

Some people who believe that sodomy is a sin did find the SC ruling objectionable

Some conservatives objected to the ruling on the basis of States rights.

So she is hardly an isolated kook. There are many on the Right who share her beliefs.

And there are many on the Left who share the beliefs of left-wing kooks.

And please don't try and tell me that the Left is incapable of all sorts of nasty deeds you find to be common fare for the Right, for if you do I will be forced to evoke the names of Lenin, Stalin, Mao-tse-dung, Pol Pot, and Mugawbi.

kelticwizard wrote:

A bill is the first stage of a law.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Thank you for that civics lesson. Here's a biology lesson in return: A catepiller is the first stage of a butterfly, but it can't fly.

[/color] Oh, so if there was a bill introduced in your state, or any state, which proposed doing something you strongly opposed, you wouldn't even deal with the issue until AFTER it became law? Because that is where your "argument", such as it is, leads.

A proposed bill that cannot survive the length of an A2K thread is not harmful If you wish to oppose such a bill, be my guest, however I fail to see how demonizing its sponsor in an internet forum effectively opposes it. Before you could even possibly whip up opposition to this bill, it was abandoned.

kelticwizard wrote:

As it turned out, it never made to the law stage, where it could do harm.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I think that was my point.

And MY point was made above. You don't sit back and watch the process progress from bill to law before you raise your voice in protest. This concept is not new. You are only pretending it is.

I suppose you're right KW. You posting comments on this bill was what killed it. Good for you!

I suppose you're right KW. You posting comments on this bill was what killed it. Good for you!

A proposed bill that cannot survive the length of an A2K thread is not harmful If you wish to oppose such a bill, be my guest, however I fail to see how demonizing its sponsor in an internet forum effectively opposes it. Before you could even possibly whip up opposition to this bill, it was abandoned...... I suppose you're right KW. You posting comments on this bill was what killed it. Good for you!

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

A proposed bill that cannot survive the length of an A2K thread is not harmful If you wish to oppose such a bill, be my guest, however I fail to see how demonizing its sponsor in an internet forum effectively opposes it. Before you could even possibly whip up opposition to this bill, it was abandoned...... I suppose you're right KW. You posting comments on this bill was what killed it. Good for you!

Finn, a few basic things about Able2Know seem to have escaped you.

This is a discussion forum. That is to say, it's entire purpose is for people to discuss things. As this forum has a Politics section, the entire purpose of this section is discuss political things.

This is what I am doing. Discussing a political issue. I have no need to justify my discussion of this political issue in the Politics section of this discussion board. I would be happy to justify my position for or against the issue, but I should not have any need to justify posting on this political issue here at all, either to you or to anyone else.

In the future, please direct your comments to the pro's and con's of any political issue discussed here, instead of questioning the validity of taking a position for or against it in this forum. This forum was started specifically to discuss such things. Thank you.