Why Do Liberal/Progressives Seek To Impose Their Views On Others?

[Kondor3]

No, but we (the non-Gay 97% of the country) are fast reaching the point where we will be obliged to recognize at-law the perversion called Gay Marriage; a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to stand, in the long run.

Why should you have the right to impose your views on others and prevent them from marrying?

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

You are talking about two different things. One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government. You can get married without going near a church. If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine. What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence within society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized, at-law.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Exactly..."degeneracy", "perversity", "aberration"...they are your views and you wish to impose them others.

Just because something has been a law for a long time doesn't make that law right...race laws are a perfect example.

Homicide and thievery and child-abuse laws have been around for a long time as well... with good reason.

Liberals have been shoving the Degenerate Viewpoint down America's throat long enough.

 

[idb]

Why should you have the right to impose your views on others and prevent them from marrying?

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

You are talking about two different things. One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government. You can get married without going near a church. If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine. What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence within society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized, at-law.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Exactly..."degeneracy", "perversity", "aberration"...they are your views and you wish to impose them others.

Just because something has been a law for a long time doesn't make that law right...race laws are a perfect example.

Homicide and thievery and child-abuse laws have been around for a long time as well... with good reason.

Liberals have been shoving the Degenerate Viewpoint down America's throat long enough.

Wow...way to completely miss making any valid point at all!

 

[Plasmaball]

Deep down they are fascist and feel their views are the only views that is acceptable.

so if they can't sweet talk you into bowing to them.... they'll just berate you and beat you down.

the most intolerant people I have come across.

this coming from the toilet paper stuck on the bottom of your shoe poster here at usmb.

 

[elektra]

Why do Kings and Tyrants dictate?

 

[idb]

Why do Kings and Tyrants dictate?

Because they don't know how to type?

 

[elektra]

Why do Kings and Tyrants dictate?

Because they don't know how to type?

Took me a bit to get it,

 

[Kondor3]

I dunno.

Why have Gays been barred from marriage within the Judeo-Christian environment for the past 3,000 years?

You are talking about two different things. One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government. You can get married without going near a church. If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine. What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence within society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized, at-law.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Exactly..."degeneracy", "perversity", "aberration"...they are your views and you wish to impose them others.

Just because something has been a law for a long time doesn't make that law right...race laws are a perfect example.

Homicide and thievery and child-abuse laws have been around for a long time as well... with good reason.

Liberals have been shoving the Degenerate Viewpoint down America's throat long enough.

Wow...way to completely miss making any valid point at all!

Da nada.

Sexual perversity, to an extent deemed objectionable by decent society, is not a Right; rather, it is a shameful and unclean collection of practices and lifestyles.

Everything we cover in that vein is merely a matter of degree - whether it crosses the threshold that society deems objectionable.

At present, courtesy of recent Judicial Activism, the 'normalizing' or 'legitimizing' of sexual perversity is well underway; imposing a minority viewpoint upon society.

Society will find a way of reversing this imposing of the Minority Viewpoint.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You had no right to impose your viewpoint upon a society deeply bound to a 3,000 -year-old tradition concerning such matters.

The reaction to come is merely a matter of reversing that imposition.

It's also a matter of taking out the trash.

 

[Kondor3]

Why do Kings and Tyrants dictate?

Because they don't know how to type?

OK... huge differences regarding Gay Rights notwithstanding...

That was a good one...

-----------

Throws 'adversarial' switch back to the 'On' position...

 

[elektra]

OK... huge differences regarding Gay Rights notwithstanding...

That was a good one...

-----------

Throws 'adversarial' switch back to the 'On' position...

Yes, why would Democrats impose their homosexual perversion on everyone starting with children as young as 5 years old.

Democrats have become the sickness of America.

 

[idb]

You are talking about two different things. One is marriage as a religious coupling, the other is the legal definition of marriage which gives you recognition under the government. You can get married without going near a church. If you don't want to recognise someone as married under God - or whichever supreme being you cheer for - then fine. What right do you have to impose your views on others and restrict them from having legal recognition though?

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence within society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized, at-law.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Exactly..."degeneracy", "perversity", "aberration"...they are your views and you wish to impose them others.

Just because something has been a law for a long time doesn't make that law right...race laws are a perfect example.

Homicide and thievery and child-abuse laws have been around for a long time as well... with good reason.

Liberals have been shoving the Degenerate Viewpoint down America's throat long enough.

Wow...way to completely miss making any valid point at all!

Da nada.

Sexual perversity, to an extent deemed objectionable by decent society, is not a Right; rather, it is a shameful and unclean collection of practices and lifestyles.

Everything we cover in that vein is merely a matter of degree - whether it crosses the threshold that society deems objectionable.

At present, courtesy of recent Judicial Activism, the 'normalizing' or 'legitimizing' of sexual perversity is well underway; imposing a minority viewpoint upon society.

Society will find a way of reversing this imposing of the Minority Viewpoint.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You had no right to impose your viewpoint upon a society deeply bound to a 3,000 -year-old tradition concerning such matters.

The reaction to come is merely a matter of reversing that imposition.

It's also a matter of taking out the trash.

No, unlike 'homicide and thievery and child-abuse' it affects no one else.
No one is hurt, inconvenienced or left poorer.
You can't compare laws regarding homo-sexuals to those preventing harm to others.

Every reason you cite above to continue limiting the rights of homsexuals displays your personal values ('objectionable by a decent society', 'a shameful and unclean collection of practices and lifestyles' etc) and you are wanting to impose those values on others by limiting their rights.
There is no equivalence to murder, rape, theft etc.

 

[Billo_Really]

No such thing.

Of coarse there is.

You're just too un-American to admit it.

 

[idb]

OK... huge differences regarding Gay Rights notwithstanding...

That was a good one...

-----------

Throws 'adversarial' switch back to the 'On' position...

Yes, why would Democrats impose their homosexual perversion on everyone starting with children as young as 5 years old.

Democrats have become the sickness of America.

Sorry, what is imposed on the children?

 

[Kondor3]

The same right by which such aberration was banned originally, and for so long, even within our 230-year-old secular framework.

It is not in the best interests of The Republic nor its People, to legitimize homosexual degeneracy and effeminacy and perversity, with respect to either its specific practices, nor its open presence within society.

When enough people believe that a state of affairs is dangerous or detrimental to The Nation, they move to ensure that the danger or detriment is eliminated or reduced or neutralized, at-law.

It is the right of self-preservation and the right to foster and sustain a society free from perversity.

The US Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Exactly..."degeneracy", "perversity", "aberration"...they are your views and you wish to impose them others.

Just because something has been a law for a long time doesn't make that law right...race laws are a perfect example.

Homicide and thievery and child-abuse laws have been around for a long time as well... with good reason.

Liberals have been shoving the Degenerate Viewpoint down America's throat long enough.

Wow...way to completely miss making any valid point at all!

Da nada.

Sexual perversity, to an extent deemed objectionable by decent society, is not a Right; rather, it is a shameful and unclean collection of practices and lifestyles.

Everything we cover in that vein is merely a matter of degree - whether it crosses the threshold that society deems objectionable.

At present, courtesy of recent Judicial Activism, the 'normalizing' or 'legitimizing' of sexual perversity is well underway; imposing a minority viewpoint upon society.

Society will find a way of reversing this imposing of the Minority Viewpoint.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You had no right to impose your viewpoint upon a society deeply bound to a 3,000 -year-old tradition concerning such matters.

The reaction to come is merely a matter of reversing that imposition.

It's also a matter of taking out the trash.

No, unlike 'homicide and thievery and child-abuse' it affects no one else.
No one is hurt, inconvenienced or left poorer.
You can't compare laws regarding homo-sexuals to those preventing harm to others.

Every reason you cite above to continue limiting the rights of homsexuals displays your personal values ('objectionable by a decent society', 'a shameful and unclean collection of practices and lifestyles' etc) and you are wanting to impose those values on others by limiting their rights.
There is no equivalence to murder, rape, theft etc.

We need look no further than whether a majority of parents would (a) trust their children in the care of homosexuals or (b) want their children to grow up to become homosexuals, to determine the visceral gut-level revulsion that the vast majority of human beings feel towards homosexuals, once freed of the need for Political Correctness.

People are revolted by criminals, lepers, disease, dung-heaps, sexual perverts, and similar unpleasantness.

Banning marriage between sexual perverts of the same gender has made sense for thousands of years, including virtually all of our own country's history, and it will make sense again sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Again, that is not imposing a viewpoint - that is reversing a minority viewpoint previously imposed by force - a reaction to an aggression against decent society.

Rather like the body's immune system, rallying to combat a virulent disease.

You confuse 'imposition' with 'reversing an existing imposition'.

Can't be helped, I guess.

In any event, thanks for the time.

 

[elektra]

Sorry, what is imposed on the children?

Are you deaf, I clearly stated, what.

 

[idb]

Sorry, what is imposed on the children?

Are you deaf, I clearly stated, what.

What...that they are being forced into homosexuality?

 

[Billo_Really]

How clueless are you?
ACA mandates insurance companies MUST sell you services you will never need. Mental health counseling, contraceptives, obstetric care for men , etc. The object is to drive up the cost so younger healthier people subsidize older sicker people. The insurance companies were among the most enthusiastic supporters of Obamacare, since it guaranteed them scads of customers.
The rich pay over 100% of the income taxes in this country. The bottom 47% pay no income tax. Who is getting the free ride here?

What kind of a dumbass statement is that to make? I'm not rich and I pay taxes. So much for your "100%" comment. The tax rate on capital gains and dividends is 10% less than what I pay. And that is bullshit!

 

[elektra]

What...that they are being forced into homosexuality?

Huh, duh, ????

I guess you are dumb, not deaf.

 

[idb]

Exactly..."degeneracy", "perversity", "aberration"...they are your views and you wish to impose them others.

Just because something has been a law for a long time doesn't make that law right...race laws are a perfect example.

Homicide and thievery and child-abuse laws have been around for a long time as well... with good reason.

Liberals have been shoving the Degenerate Viewpoint down America's throat long enough.

Wow...way to completely miss making any valid point at all!

Da nada.

Sexual perversity, to an extent deemed objectionable by decent society, is not a Right; rather, it is a shameful and unclean collection of practices and lifestyles.

Everything we cover in that vein is merely a matter of degree - whether it crosses the threshold that society deems objectionable.

At present, courtesy of recent Judicial Activism, the 'normalizing' or 'legitimizing' of sexual perversity is well underway; imposing a minority viewpoint upon society.

Society will find a way of reversing this imposing of the Minority Viewpoint.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You had no right to impose your viewpoint upon a society deeply bound to a 3,000 -year-old tradition concerning such matters.

The reaction to come is merely a matter of reversing that imposition.

It's also a matter of taking out the trash.

No, unlike 'homicide and thievery and child-abuse' it affects no one else.
No one is hurt, inconvenienced or left poorer.
You can't compare laws regarding homo-sexuals to those preventing harm to others.

Every reason you cite above to continue limiting the rights of homsexuals displays your personal values ('objectionable by a decent society', 'a shameful and unclean collection of practices and lifestyles' etc) and you are wanting to impose those values on others by limiting their rights.
There is no equivalence to murder, rape, theft etc.

We need look no further than whether a majority of parents would (a) trust their children in the care of homosexuals or (b) want their children to grow up to become homosexuals, to determine the visceral gut-level revulsion that the vast majority of human beings feel towards homosexuals, once freed of the need for Political Correctness.

People are revolted by criminals, lepers, disease, dung-heaps, sexual perverts, and similar unpleasantness.

Banning marriage between sexual perverts of the same gender has made sense for thousands of years, including virtually all of our own country's history, and it will make sense again sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Again, that is not imposing a viewpoint - that is reversing a minority viewpoint previously imposed by force - a reaction to an aggression against decent society.

Rather like the body's immune system, rallying to combat a virulent disease.

You confuse 'imposition' with 'reversing an existing imposition'.

Can't be helped, I guess.

In any event, thanks for the time.

No confusion here.
I'm saying that the imposition is already in place when legal rights are witheld from a group.
That imposition is in place for no reason other than a dislike of that group.
There have been similar laws over the years for Gypsies, Jews, women, Chinese...
Allowing same-sex marriage is removing an imposition.
There is no logical reason for a ban on marriage...there is no harm.

 

[idb]

What...that they are being forced into homosexuality?

Huh, duh, ????

I guess you are dumb, not deaf.

Well...don't leave me dangling...have I interpreted your statement

Yes, why would Democrats impose their homosexual perversion on everyone starting with children as young as 5 years old.

correctly or not?

 

[elektra]

No confusion here.
I'm saying that the imposition is already in place when legal rights are witheld from a group.
That imposition is in place for no reason other than a dislike of that group.
There have been similar laws over the years for Gypsies, Jews, women, Chinese...
Allowing same-sex marriage is removing an imposition.
There is no logical reason for a ban on marriage...there is no harm.

Your brain can not respond with logic, hence you idiotic pontificating.