I find it very disturbing

[Redfish]

As a conservative, I have an instinctual opposition to public accommodation laws, even though they serve a "public good".

The thing is, the ability of a business owner to run their business as they see fit is also a public good.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm going to get all spiritual-like for a bit.

God gave us free will for the reason that he did not want us to be angels. He wanted us to be able to choose how we demonstrate our love for him and for each other. Otherwise we would just be creatures of perfection and no choice. Where's the point in that? This was a tremendous gift God gave us.

But that meant God had to deal with the risk and the fact that many of us would not behave like angels.

Just so with freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly. But we cannot have it any other way unless we are forced to surrender all of our will to the State, and then we have utterly lost our freedom.

We need to come to terms with that and stop trying to force people to be perfect robotic angels.

The late great Bill Buckley popularized the term "immanentize the eschaton" for this attempt to make Earth into a liberal paradise.

It just can't be done, kids. As humans, we need free will.


Now, WHITES ONLY lunch counters did not exist in a vacuum. They had a raft of Jim Crow laws and the force of a hostile government toward blacks behind them. The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

A STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery would not have the grossly unconstitutional advantages of Jim Crow. But now we labor under the gross advantages given to those who have usurped our free will.

Let the STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries be. Don't let those bigoted assholes be responsible for further encroachments on our freedom. The People should be free to decide if a STRAIGHTS ONLY business deserves commerce, not the government.

The only real way to defeat bigotry is not by force, but by more freedom and more speech and more understanding.

What is the difference between WHITES ONLY and STRAIGHTS ONLY?

one is race, the other is a sexual abnormality.

Both are groups wishing to choose their own marriage partners without unwarranted government intervention

so are the multiple marriage advocates. What will you tell them?

I tell them it is none of my business if consenting adults wish to have multiple partners

So you are OK with calling a union of 5 women and 3 men a "marriage" and having it sanctioned by the state? Really?

Do they get to file one joint tax return for all 8 incomes?

 

[rightwinger]

OK. mpds

I started this thread hoping to get some rational discussion on why gar rights is such a big issue in this country when we have much more critical issues facing us.

I should have known that it would degrade to an insult contest like all gay threads.

Please close it. We are wasting time.

You raised the issue of multiple partners....just like you always do

Who is "insulting" you?

 

[Redfish]

OK. mpds

I started this thread hoping to get some rational discussion on why gar rights is such a big issue in this country when we have much more critical issues facing us.

I should have known that it would degrade to an insult contest like all gay threads.

Please close it. We are wasting time.

You raised the issue of multiple partners....just like you always do

Who is "insulting" you?

I am insulted by your ignorance. your intolerance. your bias. your lies.

Gay marriage laws will lead to court challenges by multiple marriage advocates-------------the ACLU is already preparing cases. It will happen and there will be no viable legal defense that can be brought if gay marriage is federally sanctioned.

Thats where our society is going, if thats what you want, fine. I do not.

 

[dblack]

The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

Quoted for relevancy.

 

[rightwinger]

OK. mpds

I started this thread hoping to get some rational discussion on why gar rights is such a big issue in this country when we have much more critical issues facing us.

I should have known that it would degrade to an insult contest like all gay threads.

Please close it. We are wasting time.

You raised the issue of multiple partners....just like you always do

Who is "insulting" you?

I am insulted by your ignorance. your intolerance. your bias. your lies.

Gay marriage laws will lead to court challenges by multiple marriage advocates-------------the ACLU is already preparing cases. It will happen and there will be no viable legal defense that can be brought if gay marriage is federally sanctioned.

Thats where our society is going, if thats what you want, fine. I do not.

Multiple marriage is a heterosexual practice so it will be heterosexuals desires for multiple partners driving it

Personally, it is none of my business. Why do you care and how does it affect you in any way?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As a conservative, I have an instinctual opposition to public accommodation laws, even though they serve a "public good".

The thing is, the ability of a business owner to run their business as they see fit is also a public good.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm going to get all spiritual-like for a bit.

God gave us free will for the reason that he did not want us to be angels. He wanted us to be able to choose how we demonstrate our love for him and for each other. Otherwise we would just be creatures of perfection and no choice. Where's the point in that? This was a tremendous gift God gave us.

But that meant God had to deal with the risk and the fact that many of us would not behave like angels.

Just so with freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly. But we cannot have it any other way unless we are forced to surrender all of our will to the State, and then we have utterly lost our freedom.

We need to come to terms with that and stop trying to force people to be perfect robotic angels.

The late great Bill Buckley popularized the term "immanentize the eschaton" for this attempt to make Earth into a liberal paradise.

It just can't be done, kids. As humans, we need free will.


Now, WHITES ONLY lunch counters did not exist in a vacuum. They had a raft of Jim Crow laws and the force of a hostile government toward blacks behind them. The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

A STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery would not have the grossly unconstitutional advantages of Jim Crow. But now we labor under the gross advantages given to those who have usurped our free will.

Let the STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries be. Don't let those bigoted assholes be responsible for further encroachments on our freedom. The People should be free to decide if a STRAIGHTS ONLY business deserves commerce, not the government.

The only real way to defeat bigotry is not by force, but by more freedom and more speech and more understanding.

continuing to equate race with sexual orientation is a loser for you and your cause. Got anything else?

Really? We don't seem to be the side losing...

What you keep ignoring is the fact that race and sexual orientation are not being compared, bigots are. (which is why it pisses the bigots off)

the bigotry and bias are yours. You hate and demonize everyone who does bow to the PC gods of the gay agenda. you call us hateful, bigoted, ignorant. You are intolerant of any viewpoint but yours.

YOU are the bigot here.

Yes, we are intolerant of your intolerance.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

OK. mpds

I started this thread hoping to get some rational discussion on why gar rights is such a big issue in this country when we have much more critical issues facing us.

I should have known that it would degrade to an insult contest like all gay threads.

Please close it. We are wasting time.

You raised the issue of multiple partners....just like you always do

Who is "insulting" you?

False analogy fallacy.

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Silhouette]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

It's true of course...and the reason the conservatives swept the 2014 election (California a blue state voted down gay marriage twice, it's still illegal there and all other states that voted to preserve the meaning of the word "marriage")

There are powerful, if often unspoken, feelings about gay marriage. People have been speaking at the polls.

There will of course be no national referendum on gay marriage. But Windsor 2013 Found that defining marriage is up to the states. And so unless the Court overturns itself in less than 2 years, that is where the question will be decided.

This brand spanking new social experiment stands to affect the lives of children more than any other of the players involved. With such a huge potential for impact, since marriage is the formative environment for their very minds, this cannot be federally mandated by 9 people to the potential demise of 100s of millions of future children. This needs a weigh in from the masses in the separate states. They at least should be able to say whether or not children should be used as lab rats.

A federal mandate at this point, with all the shadow stays forcing attrition in states that have made gay marriage illegal rightly and on their own, would look too much like tyranny. Add in that Kagan and Ginsburg won't recuse themselves as they required themselves to do in a 2009 decision, (they both presided over gay marriage recently/the fed looming over the dismantling of the word "marriage") and you will have outright tyranny if those two sit on the case.

 

[dblack]

As a conservative, I have an instinctual opposition to public accommodation laws, even though they serve a "public good".

The thing is, the ability of a business owner to run their business as they see fit is also a public good.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm going to get all spiritual-like for a bit.

God gave us free will for the reason that he did not want us to be angels. He wanted us to be able to choose how we demonstrate our love for him and for each other. Otherwise we would just be creatures of perfection and no choice. Where's the point in that? This was a tremendous gift God gave us.

But that meant God had to deal with the risk and the fact that many of us would not behave like angels.

Just so with freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly. But we cannot have it any other way unless we are forced to surrender all of our will to the State, and then we have utterly lost our freedom.

We need to come to terms with that and stop trying to force people to be perfect robotic angels.

The late great Bill Buckley popularized the term "immanentize the eschaton" for this attempt to make Earth into a liberal paradise.

It just can't be done, kids. As humans, we need free will.


Now, WHITES ONLY lunch counters did not exist in a vacuum. They had a raft of Jim Crow laws and the force of a hostile government toward blacks behind them. The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

A STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery would not have the grossly unconstitutional advantages of Jim Crow. But now we labor under the gross advantages given to those who have usurped our free will.

Let the STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries be. Don't let those bigoted assholes be responsible for further encroachments on our freedom. The People should be free to decide if a STRAIGHTS ONLY business deserves commerce, not the government.

The only real way to defeat bigotry is not by force, but by more freedom and more speech and more understanding.

continuing to equate race with sexual orientation is a loser for you and your cause. Got anything else?

Really? We don't seem to be the side losing...

What you keep ignoring is the fact that race and sexual orientation are not being compared, bigots are. (which is why it pisses the bigots off)

the bigotry and bias are yours. You hate and demonize everyone who does bow to the PC gods of the gay agenda. you call us hateful, bigoted, ignorant. You are intolerant of any viewpoint but yours.

YOU are the bigot here.

Yes, we are intolerant of your intolerance.

Stamp out intolerance!

 

[Silhouette]

Stamp out intolerance!

Agreed, anyone who tries to clamp down the vocal chords of 10s of millions in each state who must be allowed to self-govern, debate and weigh in on this brand spanking new social experiment where children will be used as lab rats is intolerant!

We must clamp down on this intolerance or be subjegated to its tyranny.

 

[dblack]

Stamp out intolerance!

Agreed, anyone who tries to clamp down the vocal chords of 10s of millions in each state who must be allowed to self-govern, debate and weigh in on this brand spanking new social experiment where children will be used as lab rats is intolerant!

We must clamp down on this intolerance or be subjegated to its tyranny.

It's a fascinating contradiction. Which would you say is more dangerous - intolerant government or intolerant business?

 

[mdk]

Stamp out intolerance!

Agreed, anyone who tries to clamp down the vocal chords of 10s of millions in each state who must be allowed to self-govern, debate and weigh in on this brand spanking new social experiment where children will be used as lab rats is intolerant!

We must clamp down on this intolerance or be subjegated to its tyranny.

Agreed. We must put our foot down when it comes to gay marriage b/c lord knows that will magically stop them from being parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamists, wolves and brothers & sisters have been parents too mdk...what about their kids?..

Stamp out intolerance!

Agreed, anyone who tries to clamp down the vocal chords of 10s of millions in each state who must be allowed to self-govern, debate and weigh in on this brand spanking new social experiment where children will be used as lab rats is intolerant!

We must clamp down on this intolerance or be subjegated to its tyranny.

It's a fascinating contradiction. Which would you say is more dangerous - intolerant government or intolerant business?

I don't know, since they aren't about this topic, why don't you start another thread about those questions? Like the OP said, people are mainly concerned with this gay marriage BS because it's not every generation that the right to self-govern is forcibly wrested away from the states by a cult and their members in high places (Ginsburg/Kagan)..

It tends to grab people's attention more than the mundane topics of "which is more tyrannical, government or business?" Men are always tyrannical no matter how they taste power and they must ALWAYS be kept in check when they get to be overweening. With the LGBT vicious militant litigation machine we have the equivalent of the 3rd Reicht in the late 1930s...right on the cusp of grabbing an oligarchy....reaching right to the children to get it done too....just like the 3rd Reicht did..

 

[dblack]

Polygamists, wolves and brothers & sisters have been parents too mdk...what about their kids?..

Stamp out intolerance!

Agreed, anyone who tries to clamp down the vocal chords of 10s of millions in each state who must be allowed to self-govern, debate and weigh in on this brand spanking new social experiment where children will be used as lab rats is intolerant!

We must clamp down on this intolerance or be subjegated to its tyranny.

It's a fascinating contradiction. Which would you say is more dangerous - intolerant government or intolerant business?

I don't know, since they aren't about this topic, why don't you start another thread about those questions?

I did that. (Discrimination and Self-Expression US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - please join in if you're interested) - but I read the topic as something more general than you did I suppose - about why people are so divided over the gay rights issues. The federal approach to civil rights (protected classes and public accommodations laws) are very much a part of that, and drive many people who are otherwise completely on board with equal rights, to have serious reservations about such movements.

 

[Silhouette]

.. I read the topic as something more general than you did I suppose - about why people are so divided over the gay rights issues. The federal approach to civil rights (protected classes and public accommodations laws) are very much a part of that, and drive many people who are otherwise completely on board with equal rights, to have serious reservations about such movements.

It boils down to the premise my friend. This isn't a racial issue. It's one involving a loosely knit ill-defined ("LGBT...???"..whatever that is..?) group trying to equate itself to race in order to milk sympathy that their way of living must get a "right" granted to it. That's where the Court will have to start. Do lifestyles (any of them, remember equality) have a Constitutionally-protected right to dictate their value-system, repugnant to the majority, in a manner that forces the majority to enable and promote that lifestyle with no legal choice about the matter?

It's a simple yes or no.

Furthermore is the consideration that this lifestyle "as married" (dismantling the word "marriage") is a brand spanking new concept where children would be used as lab rats to see how they get along without a mom and dad.. We already have a lot of data about that anyway, don't we? So this is the cherry on top of the (failed) premise-sundae...so to speak..

So, should states be involved in debating and finally deciding this brand new experiment with kids or should it be left up to just 9 people in DC, 2 of which already have exhibited public bias on dismantling the word "marriage"?

States must absolutely be involved. The fate of children is the fate of society as a whole. This pivotal change in our fabric absolutely cannot be dictated by 9 codgers in DC..

 

[dblack]

.. I read the topic as something more general than you did I suppose - about why people are so divided over the gay rights issues. The federal approach to civil rights (protected classes and public accommodations laws) are very much a part of that, and drive many people who are otherwise completely on board with equal rights, to have serious reservations about such movements.

It boils down to the premise my friend. That's where the Court will have to start. Do lifestyles (any of them, remember equality) have a Constitutionally-protected right to dictate their lifestyle, repugnant to the majority, in a manner that forces the majority to enable and promote that lifestyle with no legal choice about the matter?

It's a simple yes or no.

Furthermore is the consideration that this lifestyle "as married" (dismantling the word "marriage") is a brand spanking new concept where children would be used as lab rats to see how they get along without a mom and dad.. We already have a lot of data about that anyway, don't we? So this is the cherry on top of the (failed) premise-sundae...so to speak..

Yeah. I suppose it seems like a copout, but I just think the entire should topic should be hands-off as far as government is concerned. People should be free to form whatever family structures they like. As long as no one is being harmed, it's really no one else's business. If they want to call it marriage, they can. If others want to call it an abomination, that's their right as well.

In my view, the purpose of government is to protect our freedom to create the kind of lives we want - through voluntary interaction. And to prevent those who would force their values on others from getting away with it. Unfortunately, all-too-often these days, the people who would force their values on others are using government as their principal vehicle.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah. I suppose it seems like a copout, but I just think the entire should topic should be hands-off as far as government is concerned. People should be free to form whatever family structures they like. As long as no one is being harmed, it's really no one else's business. If they want to call it marriage, they can. If others want to call it an abomination, that's their right as well.

In my view, the purpose of government is to protect our freedom to create the kind of lives we want - through voluntary interaction. And to prevent those who would force their values on others from getting away with it. Unfortunately, all-too-often these days, the people who would force their values on others are using government as their principal vehicle.

I just described to you how a vast majority of Americans (children, we all were them once) are being harmed in their formative years no less. Mentally, no less. And you pretend as if I did not just acutely define how great peril would come to them...? Try reading my last post five times slowly. And for the excruicating details of how that harm would come and is coming, read the OP of this thread also five times, slowly..Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mdk]

Polygamists, wolves and brothers & sisters have been parents too mdk...what about their kids?..

Stamp out intolerance!

Agreed, anyone who tries to clamp down the vocal chords of 10s of millions in each state who must be allowed to self-govern, debate and weigh in on this brand spanking new social experiment where children will be used as lab rats is intolerant!

We must clamp down on this intolerance or be subjegated to its tyranny.

It's a fascinating contradiction. Which would you say is more dangerous - intolerant government or intolerant business?

I don't know, since they aren't about this topic, why don't you start another thread about those questions? Like the OP said, people are mainly concerned with this gay marriage BS because it's not every generation that the right to self-govern is forcibly wrested away from the states by a cult and their members in high places (Ginsburg/Kagan)..

It tends to grab people's attention more than the mundane topics of "which is more tyrannical, government or business?" Men are always tyrannical no matter how they taste power and they must ALWAYS be kept in check when they get to be overweening. With the LGBT vicious militant litigation machine we have the equivalent of the 3rd Reicht in the late 1930s...right on the cusp of grabbing an oligarchy....reaching right to the children to get it done too....just like the 3rd Reicht did..

Wolves, incest, and polygamy have nothing to do with gay marriage. Every time you are asked about the children of gay parents you abandon the topic and offer nothing but a lame red herring.


Sweet Nazi tie-in though.

 

[mdk]

Yeah. I suppose it seems like a copout, but I just think the entire should topic should be hands-off as far as government is concerned. People should be free to form whatever family structures they like. As long as no one is being harmed, it's really no one else's business. If they want to call it marriage, they can. If others want to call it an abomination, that's their right as well.

In my view, the purpose of government is to protect our freedom to create the kind of lives we want - through voluntary interaction. And to prevent those who would force their values on others from getting away with it. Unfortunately, all-too-often these days, the people who would force their values on others are using government as their principal vehicle.

I just described to you how a vast majority of Americans (children, we all were them once) are being harmed in their formative years no less. Mentally, no less. And you pretend as if I did not just acutely define how great peril would come to them...? Try reading my last post five times slowly.

You have described and proven no such thing. This harm only exists in your own mind.

 

[dblack]

Try reading my last post five times slowly.

Once was enough. I don't really agree with any of the evidence you cited, or the conclusions you reach, concerning the supposed harm.