PDA

View Full Version : The cause of Bush's victory, or the death o' the Dems.


MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 11:51 AM
Having watched the election all freakin' night, I have come to the same conclusion that the pundits did: This election was decided by the gay marriage issue.

The war in Iraq WAS separate from terrorism, in voters' minds, and most people felt that the economy sucks...but the "morals issues" (read: Homos in Wedding Dresses) carried the day for Bush.

This was not a "stolen election"...quite the contrary. It was a mandate by the largest turnout in decades. Bush beat Kerry like the family mule, and barely broke a sweat.

This, to me, signals the beginning of the end for my party. Fact is, the Dems have been going downhill since 1963...Clinton wasn't a "new beginning", but rather a last gasp. America has taken a puritanical turn, and the Dems' message of universal tolerance has no audience outside of California, Illinois, and the NE coast.

Face it: They are finished as a major party. Done. History. Get out of town by sundown, Bubba...We never liked you anyway. I can't say I'm happy about this, but we Mad Prophets know a hopeless case when we see one.

To give the party credit, however, they stuck to their message to the very end. Who the hell needs TWO republican parties?

The obvious question, of course, is what will step up as the opposition party?

Any thoughts?

KCWolfman
11-03-2004, 11:55 AM
What time frame are we talking?

Conservative Liberty Missouri had the largest percentage of votes for Libertarians of all time, but none won. In 6-12 years, they may be real contenders

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 11:56 AM
What time frame are we talking?

Conservative Liberty Missouri had the largest percentage of votes for Libertarians of all time, but none won. In 6-12 years, they may be real contenders

Time frame I'm thinking is 4-8 years. The Dems are done dealing. They will run in two more elections, and then roll over and die.

Donger
11-03-2004, 11:57 AM
It was a mandate by the largest turnout in decades.

It wasn't a mandate. Ask Denise.

KCWolfman
11-03-2004, 11:57 AM
Time frame I'm thinking is 4-8 years. The Dems are done dealing. They will run in two more elections, and then roll over and die.
No, a movement to pull them back to center will occur, probably within the Black vote. Remember this is the base that likes the liberal viewpoints while professing a strong affinity to Christianity in their daily lifes. They aren't dead yet.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 11:58 AM
I agree the party has issues...

Maybe this opens the door to the Libertarians...I have to say, if it were between the two parties, I would find myself in the akward position of being an undecided voter.

Cochise
11-03-2004, 12:00 PM
This reminds me of the last Back to the Future movie, where they hijacked the train, and they knew that once they passed the windmill it would be too late to stop the train before it crashed off the cliff.

I think that regular, real world people who are traditionally democrat voters are starting to realize that the Deaniacs and worse have hijacked the train, the windmill is a mile back, and they're up a track without a hoverboard.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:00 PM
It wasn't a mandate. Ask Denise.

It was a great THUMPING mandate.

It wasn't a landslide, but it wasn't close, either. And if the Dems can't beat GW, they are....what's the word I am looking for...oh, yeah: LOSERS.

And that is the one thing the American public will never forgive.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:02 PM
No, a movement to pull them back to center will occur, probably within the Black vote. Remember this is the base that likes the liberal viewpoints while professing a strong affinity to Christianity in their daily lifes. They aren't dead yet.

Naw. The Dems, to their credit, have stuck to their issues...I don't see this changing.

By the way, they didn't go left...the center moved. They cannot move with it without becoming a carbon copy of the GOP, and people just won't vote for that.

They're history...at least the Whigs can keep them company.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:02 PM
I agree the party has issues...

Maybe this opens the door to the Libertarians...I have to say, if it were between the two parties, I would find myself in the akward position of being an undecided voter.


If being dead is an "issue", yeah.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:03 PM
If being dead is an "issue", yeah.

Well...ok...I was trying to be nice.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:04 PM
This reminds me of the last Back to the Future movie, where they hijacked the train, and they knew that once they passed the windmill it would be too late to stop the train before it crashed off the cliff.

I think that regular, real world people who are traditionally democrat voters are starting to realize that the Deaniacs and worse have hijacked the train, the windmill is a mile back, and they're up a track without a hoverboard.


Naw, it wasn't the Deaniacs. This was a contest of values...America doesn't want tolerance right now...nor will they in the foreseeable future.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:04 PM
Well...ok...I was trying to be nice.

I've never been a fan of speaking nicely about the dead, just because they're dead.

I still badmouth Nixon and Reagan, after all.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:05 PM
Naw, it wasn't the Deaniacs. This was a contest of values...America doesn't want tolerance right now...nor will they in the foreseeable future.

Tolerance? How about not having stuff they disagree with shoved down their f'ing throats?

memyselfI
11-03-2004, 12:09 PM
Naw, it wasn't the Deaniacs. This was a contest of values...America doesn't want tolerance right now...nor will they in the foreseeable future.

Andrew Sullivan has been all over how the gay issue was used to defeat Kerry...

www.andrewsullivan.com

.

mlyonsd
11-03-2004, 12:13 PM
Andrew Sullivan has been all over how the gay issue was used to defeat Kerry...

www.andrewsullivan.com

.

Note to self: In '08 don't bend over to the gay community (sorry for the pun), and let them know the American public is not ready to give them everything they want.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:13 PM
Tolerance? How about not having stuff they disagree with shoved down their f'ing throats?

Tolerance. The American people have shown that they no longer wish to live and let live...they have demonstrated that they believe their personal values should dictate how other citizens live their lives.

When the dems died last night, amendment IX died with them. Congratulations...rights granted by the constitution are now exclusive, not inclusive.

Brock
11-03-2004, 12:14 PM
I think we should let the newly-configured Supreme Court handle this one.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:14 PM
Note to self: In '08 don't bend over to the gay community (sorry for the pun), and let them know the American public is not ready to give them everything they want.

Yes, equality in law isn't for everybody.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:15 PM
I think we should let the newly-configured Supreme Court handle this one.


Don't worry, it will.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:16 PM
Tolerance. The American people have shown that they no longer wish to live and let live...they have demonstrated that they believe their personal values should dictate how other citizens live their lives.

When the dems died last night, amendment IX died with them. Congratulations...rights granted by the constitution are now exclusive, not inclusive.

It's really no suprise we see it totally opposite from one another...

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:17 PM
Yes, equality in law isn't for everybody.

Yeah, the left believes in 'group' rights instead of individual rights...

NewChief
11-03-2004, 12:19 PM
Tolerance. The American people have shown that they no longer wish to live and let live...they have demonstrated that they believe their personal values should dictate how other citizens live their lives.

When the dems died last night, amendment IX died with them. Congratulations...rights granted by the constitution are now exclusive, not inclusive.

What about mah right to be able to walk down the street without seeing two of them queer fellas makin' kissy faces at each other?

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:20 PM
It's really no suprise we see it totally opposite from one another...


True.

On a side note, though...America has a political pendulum effect. The pendulum is still swinging right, and will for the next 8 years or so.

Then the backlash begins...The Dems, however, will not survive to see it. I wonder who will step to the plate, and if they will make the Dems look like Pat Buchanon?

Brock
11-03-2004, 12:21 PM
What about mah right to be able to walk down the street without seeing two of them queer fellas makin' kissy faces at each other?

Your condescension served us well. Thank you.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:21 PM
Yeah, the left believes in 'group' rights instead of individual rights...

We believe in BOTH.

Unfortunately, we are the minority right now.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:22 PM
What about mah right to be able to walk down the street without seeing two of them queer fellas makin' kissy faces at each other?


Relax. That is garaunteed by your right to inflict your religion on other people's personal lives.

Now, let's talk about your right to marginalize non-Christians, now that the Homos are properly subjugated.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:23 PM
Your condescension served us well. Thank you.


Give us a break. Our scorn is all we have left.

But we have it in abundance.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:23 PM
We believe in BOTH.

Unfortunately, we are the minority right now.

Yeah, and unfortunately, 'group' rights were not written into the constitution and the forcing of said rights via judicial fiat caused the miniority status.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:24 PM
Yeah, and unfortunately, 'group' rights were not written into the constitution and the forcing of said rights via judicial fiat caused the miniority status.

Read amendment XIV.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:28 PM
Read amendment XIV.

Yep...read it. Have you?

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:31 PM
Yep...read it. Have you?

Yep. Read clause 1 again.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:35 PM
Yep. Read clause 1 again.

no need...it's equal protection. Marriage is not a 'right', nor is college admission based upon race.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:38 PM
no need...it's equal protection. Marriage is not a 'right', nor is college admission based upon race.

1. Have you read amendment IX? Rights are (were) inclusive, not exclusive. Barring an amendment at the state or federal level, you supposedly have the right to marry.

2. I am not a supporter of AA. That's no less of a tyranny of the majority than is the gay marriage issue.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:47 PM
Sorry, MPM, the gay marriage issue is a total non starter 80% of the American public does not want it forced on them. I'd like to believe that if I were in such a minority, I'd rethink my position on the issue.

I just dont follow the logic that an electorate refused to be dicated to by 3 judges from another state is somehow intolerant or a bad thing.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:48 PM
Sorry, MPM, the gay marriage issue is a total non starter 80% of the American public does not want it forced on them. I'd like to believe that if I were in such a minority, I'd rethink my position on the issue.



As I said...The tyranny of the majority.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:50 PM
As I said...The tyranny of the majority.

Well...isnt that what our representative democracy is about? I mean, surely you're not saying that 20% of the population should dictate the social mores of 80%? I dont get that, either.

Rukdafaidas
11-03-2004, 12:51 PM
Unfortunately, I don't see the fall of the democratic party. I believe they lost the election because people didn't want to switch presidents in the middle of a war on terror. I believe a question that weighed heavily on people's minds was, would there be a lapse in national security if we were to change presidents?
I see the Democratic party growing over the years. Primarily because the "minority" population continues to grow.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:53 PM
Well...isnt that what our representative democracy is about? I mean, surely you're not saying that 20% of the population should dictate the social mores of 80%? I dont get that, either.

In a "pure" democracy (ugh) that would be correct. However, under a constitutional republic, the minority are (supposedly) protected from the whim of the majority.

This includes having the majority's social mores crammed down the throats of the majority.

After all, how is the minority dictating to the majority by asking for legalized gay marriage? Do you think they will try to force you to marry a guy?

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 12:53 PM
Unfortunately, I don't see the fall of the democratic party. I believe they lost the election because people didn't want to switch presidents in the middle of a war on terror. I believe a question that weighed heavily on people's minds was, would there be a lapse in national security if we were to change presidents?
I see the Democratic party growing over the years. Primarily because the "minority" population continues to grow.

The exit polls disagree.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 12:59 PM
In a "pure" democracy (ugh) that would be correct. However, under a constitutional republic, the minority are (supposedly) protected from the whim of the majority.

This includes having the majority's social mores crammed down the throats of the majority.

After all, how is the minority dictating to the majority by asking for legalized gay marriage? Do you think they will try to force you to marry a guy?

Your hyperbole aside...

As I understand the process the founders created, they viewed 2/3'rds a good litmus to 'override' a minority...in this particular issue, it's 80-20 so again I say it's a non starter as are most 'liberal' issues.

The fact that the left must rely on judicial shenanigans to get their agenda 'legalized' causes reactions like we say yesterday. It's the only way law abiding citizens have a way to respond.

Rukdafaidas
11-03-2004, 01:00 PM
The exit polls disagree.
I wouldn't put any faith in anything the exit polls had to say.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:01 PM
I wouldn't put any faith in anything the exit polls had to say.

They were right about everything else.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:05 PM
Your hyperbole aside...

As I understand the process the founders created, they viewed 2/3'rds a good litmus to 'override' a minority...in this particular issue, it's 80-20 so again I say it's a non starter as are most 'liberal' issues.

The fact that the left must rely on judicial shenanigans to get their agenda 'legalized' causes reactions like we say yesterday. It's the only way law abiding citizens have a way to respond.

Both sides, for the most part, have been "law abiding" (with the notable exception of San Fran, but we KNEW that was gonna happen).

The fact remains...Americans have successfully denied the rights of a portion of their citizenry to engage in activity that harms no one. We have successfully forced citizens to live in such as fashion as not to offend the majority, when the "offense" is something strictly in the heads of the "offended".

If that isn't tyranny of the majority, nothing is.

Congratulations. We all lose.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:09 PM
The fact remains...Americans have successfully denied the rights of a portion of their citizenry to engage in activity that harms no one. We have successfully forced citizens to live in such as fashion as not to offend the majority, when the "offense" is something strictly in the heads of the "offended".

Again...marriage is not a 'right'. You can say it till your blue in the face, but it will never be fact. While it doesnt harm me, personally, it destorys the institution of marriage and, IMO, is the sole intent of the attempt to legalize gay marriage.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:11 PM
Again...marriage is not a 'right'. You can say it till your blue in the face, but it will never be fact. While it doesnt harm me, personally, it destorys the institution of marriage and, IMO, is the sole intent of the attempt to legalize gay marriage.


So, the government has the power to void your marriage, even if you and your wife want to remain married?

Scary stuff.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:13 PM
So, the government has the power to void your marriage, even if you and your wife want to remain married?

Scary stuff.

Scary? Hardly. I was married in a church not a govt building. -- sorry, that was probably scary to you as well.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:14 PM
Scary? Hardly. I was married in a church not a govt building. -- sorry, that was probably scary to you as well.

Your marriage LICENSE came from the County.

So, that license can be revoked by the government, for any reason, or no reason at all?

Is that what you are trying to say?

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:16 PM
While it doesnt harm me, personally, it destorys the institution of marriage and, IMO, is the sole intent of the attempt to legalize gay marriage.

The scary part is, we just let people who think that decide how to write our state constitutions. :shake:

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:17 PM
The scary part is, we just let people who think that decide how to write our state constitutions. :shake:

True.

GAY PEOPLE DON'T WANT EQUAL RIGHTS! THEY WANT TO DESTROY MARRIAGE, BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL! EVIL, I TELL YUO!

ROFL

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:18 PM
Your marriage LICENSE came from the County.

So, that license can be revoked by the government, for any reason, or no reason at all?

Is that what you are trying to say?

Nope, I didnt say anything about revocation of anything, you did. I said that revocation of a license of marriage, has zero effect on me because to me that's not what marriage is--and that is not a 'right'.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:20 PM
The scary part is, we just let people who think that decide how to write our state constitutions. :shake:

What? Explain.

So the fact that the ammendment process was followed and successful, but you dont like the result makes it not legitimate?

You do realize that there is a process to ammend the US Constitution as well, and it only takes 2/3rds majority.

We're talking about an issue here that's 80-20.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:22 PM
Nope, I didnt say anything about revocation of anything, you did. I said that revocation of a license of marriage, has zero effect on me because to me that's not what marriage is--and that is not a 'right'.


If marriage isn't a right, then you are also affected.

Sorry, but you asked for it.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:22 PM
True.

GAY PEOPLE DON'T WANT EQUAL RIGHTS! THEY WANT TO DESTROY MARRIAGE, BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL! EVIL, I TELL YUO!

ROFL

It's hard to have a discussion when you throw words in my mouth...I mean what the hell is that? I didnt say gay people were evil. I did say that the movement to destory the institution of marriage, was, however. There is a distinction.

I dont expect you to get that since it's obvious we think quite differently.

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:22 PM
What? Explain.

So the fact that the ammendment process was followed and successful, but you dont like the result makes it not legitimate?

You do realize that there is a process to ammend the US Constitution as well, and it only takes 2/3rds majority.

We're talking about an issue here that's 80-20.

You missed the point.

The scary part is not that we followed a legitimate process.

The scary part is that people think gays are out to destroy society, and this flawed thinking is common enough to sneak into our constitution.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:23 PM
If marriage isn't a right, then you are also affected.

Sorry, but you asked for it.

Dont be sorry for me...and no, Im not affected.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:27 PM
The scary part is that people think gays are out to destroy society, and this flawed thinking is common enough to sneak into our constitution.

What's more scary, the people of America using their right to vote to change the laws or 3 judges deciding for all of America?

Again, your hyperbole aside...

Am I doing that good of a job that both you and MPM have to resort to the hyperbole?

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:31 PM
Dont be sorry for me...and no, Im not affected.

Sure you are...you said so yourself.

"Marriage isn't a right".

If it's not a right, then you are affected. If it IS a right, then we do not have equal protection.

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:34 PM
What's more scary, the people of America using their right to vote to change the laws or 3 judges deciding for all of America?

Again, your hyperbole aside...

Am I doing that good of a job that both you and MPM have to resort to the hyperbole?


Did you not say that "the sole intent of the attempt to legalize gay marriage" was to "destory the institution of marriage?"

Hyperbole? Please.

I never supported the judges' decisions. I have spoken out against them. But that doesn't change my opinion that peoples' reasoning for voting against gay marriage is flawed, such as the one you stated.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:34 PM
Sure you are...you said so yourself.

"Marriage isn't a right".

If it's not a right, then you are affected. If it IS a right, then we do not have equal protection.

I dont need to chew my cabbage twice on this...

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 01:35 PM
No, a movement to pull them back to center will occur, probably within the Black vote. Remember this is the base that likes the liberal viewpoints while professing a strong affinity to Christianity in their daily lifes. They aren't dead yet.
But you have to finally give them more than just a back seat on the bus, if you Democrats know what I mean.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:36 PM
Did you not say that "the sole intent of the attempt to legalize gay marriage" was to "destory the institution of marriage?"

Hyperbole? Please.

I never supported the judges' decisions. I have spoken out against them. But that doesn't change my opinion that peoples' reasoning for voting against gay marriage is flawed, such as the one you stated.

Yep, that's my opinion...flawed or not, but it's not hypebole, it's what I believe. Big difference.

Chiefnj
11-03-2004, 01:37 PM
But you have to finally give them more than just a back seat on the bus, if you Democrats know what I mean.

Al Sharpton as Secretary of State?

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:38 PM
Yep, that's my opinion...flawed or not, but it's not hypebole, it's what I believe. Big difference.

You think gays have a conspiracy to destroy marriage? ROFL

What for?

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:38 PM
Yep, that's my opinion...flawed or not, but it's not hypebole, it's what I believe. Big difference.


Hyperbole? Maybe not. Naive, ignorant and just plain wrong? Yes.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:39 PM
I dont need to chew my cabbage twice on this...

Once would be nice.

Is marriage a right? Yes, or no?

If it is, then we do not have equal protection.

If it isn't, you are affected.

Chief Henry
11-03-2004, 01:39 PM
I'm wondering how long Terry McAwful will have his post with the DNC.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:39 PM
You think gays have a conspiracy to destroy marriage? ROFL

What for?

No, I dont. Someone has a conspiracy, but it's not the gays.

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 01:39 PM
Naw, it wasn't the Deaniacs. This was a contest of values...America doesn't want tolerance right now...nor will they in the foreseeable future.
This is utter nonsese. We don't round you up and kill you like Al Qaeda would. Oh yeah, we tolerate you, but you don't tolerate us.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:40 PM
Once would be nice.

Is marriage a right? Yes, or no?

If it is, then we do not have equal protection.

If it isn't, you are affected.

I'd say re-reading my prior response will be helpful. asked and answered.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:40 PM
No, I dont. Someone has a conspiracy, but it's not the gays.

Who does, then, and why?

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:40 PM
Hyperbole? Maybe not. Naive, ignorant and just plain wrong? Yes.

Im not, but Im sorry you think so.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:41 PM
I'd say re-reading my prior response will be helpful. asked and answered.

Um, nope. It wasn't answered. First you said marriage wasn't a right, and then you said you weren't affected.

Perhaps you can explain the dichotomy, here?

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:42 PM
Im not, but Im sorry you think so.

I didn't say you were. Just that particular opinion.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:42 PM
Who does, then, and why?

Im sure you're smart enough to figure it out.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:43 PM
This is utter nonsese. We don't round you up and kill you like Al Qaeda would. Oh yeah, we tolerate you, but you don't tolerate us.


Naw, you just detain people without writ of habeas corpus.

But that wasn't the point of the argument. You may not kill people in car-load lots, but you DO wish to restrict the (harmless) behavior of citizens, based solely on your personal beliefs.

That's not tolerance.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:43 PM
Um, nope. It wasn't answered. First you said marriage wasn't a right, and then you said you weren't affected.

Perhaps you can explain the dichotomy, here?

Marriage existed before the United States...how is this possible? hmmm...lemme think.

Cmon, this is basic stuff.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:44 PM
Im sure you're smart enough to figure it out.

Enlighten me. Who are these horrible people that conspire to destroy the institution of marriage?

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 01:46 PM
Tolerance? How about not having stuff they disagree with shoved down their f'ing throats?
First, the Dems lurched to the left after 02 by electing Nancy Pelosi to lead the house minority. Look at San Francisco's vote. They don't have a realistic viewpoint of the country.

Then they nominate the most liberal Senator to run for president in a conservative country.

Hint: whatever party it morphs, or new one that takes over, MUST BE MORE conservative.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:46 PM
Marriage existed before the United States...how is this possible? hmmm...lemme think.

Cmon, this is basic stuff.


So what? So did gays.

Plenty of things existed before America. This doesn't answer the question.

Is it a right, or not?

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:47 PM
Enlighten me. Who are these horrible people that conspire to destroy the institution of marriage?

I would like this one answered myself. And why destroy it? Why would anyone be vindictive of such a blessed institution?

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 01:47 PM
Andrew Sullivan has been all over how the gay issue was used to defeat Kerry...

www.andrewsullivan.com

.
Yeah, you all picked a good time to start parading all those gay weddings in our face and telling us to just like it back in March. Remember that? YOu all picked a real good fuggin time to flout the rule of law.

Now go cry in your soup.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:48 PM
Enlighten me. Who are these horrible people that conspire to destroy the institution of marriage?

I really would like to believe you were actually interested in what I had to say, but I dont get that impression.

I'll stick with the politics of the issue, instead.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:49 PM
I really would like to believe you were actually interested in what I had to say, but I dont get that impression.

I'll stick with the politics of the issue, instead.

I am interested. Who are the conspirators?

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:49 PM
First, the Dems lurched to the left after 02 by electing Nancy Pelosi to lead the house minority. Look at San Francisco's vote. They don't have a realistic viewpoint of the country.

Then they nominate the most liberal Senator to run for president in a conservative country.

Hint: whatever party it morphs, or new one that takes over, MUST BE MORE conservative.

This I agree with.

Gay marriage should have been left on the back burner until this country was ready to make an educated decision on the issue.

Read any debate about it and it is clear that we obviously are not.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:49 PM
I would like this one answered myself. And why destroy it? Why would anyone be vindictive of such a blessed institution?

Newt Gingrich? ROFL

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:50 PM
So what? So did gays.

Plenty of things existed before America. This doesn't answer the question.

Is it a right, or not?

Well, if gays and marriage existed prior to the advent of the United States how is it that gay marriage hadnt been an established institution before now?

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 01:51 PM
What about mah right to be able to walk down the street without seeing two of them queer fellas makin' kissy faces at each other?
Honestly, I don't care for hetero's being exhibitionists in public either. A peck on the cheek or whatever modest affection wouldn't bother me if it were gay or straight. But getting each other hot in public by prolonged suck face kisses is a bit over the line if you ask me.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:51 PM
Gay marriage should have been left on the back burner until this country was ready to make an educated decision on the issue.

Read any debate about it and it is clear that we obviously are not.

Actually, I think the country is quite capable of making an educated decision on the issue and they demonstrated as such.

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:51 PM
Yeah, you all picked a good time to start parading all those gay weddings in our face and telling us to just like it back in March. Remember that? YOu all picked a real good fuggin time to flout the rule of law.

Now go cry in your soup.

"YOU" is referring to a stupid select few. There are others who want to live a happy life out of the limelight and are getting dicked over from both ends.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:51 PM
Newt Gingrich? ROFL

Funnier is the irony that you named him...

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 01:52 PM
Relax. That is garaunteed by your right to inflict your religion on other people's personal lives.

Now, let's talk about your right to marginalize non-Christians, now that the Homos are properly subjugated.
Sorry you feel that way. Sincerely.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:53 PM
Well, if gays and marriage existed prior to the advent of the United States how is it that gay marriage hadnt been an established institution before now?

Dunno.

Free enterprise wasn't an established institution before we decided to be free. You could own a business, but the government ould sell monopoly rights. Free enterprise isn't mentioned in the constitution.


Does that make it wrong, or any less of a right?

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:53 PM
Sorry you feel that way. Sincerely.

I gotta call 'em how I see 'em.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:53 PM
"YOU" is referring to a stupid select few. There are others who want to live a happy life out of the limelight and are getting dicked over from both ends.

terrible pun....LOL.

InChiefsHell
11-03-2004, 01:53 PM
This I agree with.

Gay marriage should have been left on the back burner until this country was ready to make an educated decision on the issue.

Read any debate about it and it is clear that we obviously are not.

I'm guessing by "we" you mean those of us who are opposed to it. I gues we ain't ejamacated enuff, huh?

BTW, how do y'all feel about prayer in school? If the Tyranny of the Majority were so prevalent, then you would all have been praying in school like the freakin' Taliban. Libs want people to take God completely out of the equation, even though it "doesn't hurt anyone else"...

hypocricsy, thy name is liberalism...

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:53 PM
Actually, I think the country is quite capable of making an educated decision on the issue and they demonstrated as such.

I couldn't disagree more. Through my many conversations it is clear that most people who have voted against gay marriage do not understand where gays are coming from.

The president himself admitted that he does not know if being gay is a choice or not.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 01:55 PM
Funnier is the irony that you named him...

Considering his personal life, yeah.

KCN
11-03-2004, 01:56 PM
I'm guessing by "we" you mean those of us who are opposed to it. I gues we ain't ejamacated enuff, huh?

BTW, how do y'all feel about prayer in school? If the Tyranny of the Majority were so prevalent, then you would all have been praying in school like the freakin' Taliban. Libs want people to take God completely out of the equation, even though it "doesn't hurt anyone else"...

hypocricsy, thy name is liberalism...

Your assumptions and generalizations made this an irrelevant post from the first sentence.

Try to concern yourself with where I am coming from, then get back to me.

InChiefsHell
11-03-2004, 01:56 PM
I couldn't disagree more. Through my many conversations it is clear that most people who have voted against gay marriage do not understand where gays are coming from.

The president himself admitted that he does not know if being gay is a choice or not.
Do you? and if so, How?

InChiefsHell
11-03-2004, 01:58 PM
Your assumptions and generalizations made this an irrelevant post from the first sentence.

Try to concern yourself with where I am coming from, then get back to me.
*sigh* What I was getting at is that you seem to think that those who do not have your point of the view on the subject are simply uneducated, otherwise they would not be at odds with your side...

...that's kinda insulting, hense my reply. If that is not what you meant, then my bad...

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 01:58 PM
Considering his personal life, yeah.

Well, that's really not what I referring to, but I can see that too I guess.

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 01:58 PM
"YOU" is referring to a stupid select few. There are others who want to live a happy life out of the limelight and are getting .dicked over from both ends
You hate it when that happens. :p

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 02:00 PM
I couldn't disagree more. Through my many conversations it is clear that most people who have voted against gay marriage do not understand where gays are coming from.

The president himself admitted that he does not know if being gay is a choice or not.

Well, I and others Ive talked to are quite clear on where the gays are coming from.

KCN
11-03-2004, 02:00 PM
Do you? and if so, How?

I've already stated before here that I'm gay.

Therefore, I would know if I chose that or not.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 02:00 PM
Well, that's really not what I referring to, but I can see that too I guess.

I was talking about the time he demonstrated the "sanctity of marriage" by serving his wife divorce papers when she was hospitalized with cancer.

...and cheating on her left and right.

Yeah, marriage is a sacred institution, all right.

ROFL

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 02:01 PM
Well, I and others Ive talked to are quite clear on where the gays are coming from.


Elaborate?

KCN
11-03-2004, 02:02 PM
*sigh* What I was getting at is that you seem to think that those who do not have your point of the view on the subject are simply uneducated, otherwise they would not be at odds with your side...

...that's kinda insulting, hense my reply. If that is not what you meant, then my bad...

Uneducated with regards to this issue. Regarding the actual cause of homosexuality, we all are.

I am not one of those who think all conservatives are backwoods hicks if you were afraid that's what I was implying.

InChiefsHell
11-03-2004, 02:02 PM
I've already stated before here that I'm gay.

Therefore, I would know if I chose that or not.

I guess I missed that.

My question then would be, is it always a natural thing, or is it a choice in some situations...

...meh. It doesn't really matter I guess. I thought the President gave a good answer. Let's face it, if you are not gay, you have no clue how people have gotten that way. At least he was honest...

KCN
11-03-2004, 02:02 PM
Well, I and others Ive talked to are quite clear on where the gays are coming from.

I'm interested to hear this.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 02:02 PM
I was talking about the time he demonstrated the "sanctity of marriage" by serving his wife divorce papers when she was hospitalized with cancer.

...and cheating on her left and right.

Yeah, marriage is a sacred institution, all right.

ROFL

Yes, I know the history...nobody is perfect, I heard that even Rush recently got divorced as well--that's a shame, really.

Marriage is sacred for some of us, well, I can only speak for myself anyway.

InChiefsHell
11-03-2004, 02:04 PM
I was talking about the time he demonstrated the "sanctity of marriage" by serving his wife divorce papers when she was hospitalized with cancer.

...and cheating on her left and right.

Yeah, marriage is a sacred institution, all right.

ROFL

Dude, please. That makes him a dick, but it doesn't take away from the sanctity of marriage.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 02:04 PM
Marriage is sacred for some of us, well, I can only speak for myself anyway.


No, you are speaking for the gays, too.

Against their will.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 02:04 PM
Dude, please. That makes him a dick, but it doesn't take away from the sanctity of marriage.

Seen the national divorce figures, recently?

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 02:05 PM
I'm interested to hear this.

It's not rocket science, they want society to approve of the union of two same gendered people. Is there more to it than that?

InChiefsHell
11-03-2004, 02:06 PM
Seen the national divorce figures, recently?
Yup, they are atrocious. Apparently a ton of people don't believe in the sanctity of marriage...but there are plenty who do and are willing to fight for it in order to preserve it. Tilting at windmills maybe, but a noble cause just the same...

KCN
11-03-2004, 02:07 PM
I guess I missed that.

My question then would be, is it always a natural thing, or is it a choice in some situations...

...meh. It doesn't really matter I guess. I thought the President gave a good answer. Let's face it, if you are not gay, you have no clue how people have gotten that way. At least he was honest...

Speaking from personal experience I have never known of anyone who made that choice.

If I thought people chose to be that way the same way they choose to get a tatoo, then I'd be against gay marriage too.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 02:08 PM
No, you are speaking for the gays, too.

Against their will.

Well, I dont live in a state that had that issue on it's ballot, but I will vote for a constitutional ammendment to protect marriage.

Feel free to use whatever derogatory terms you need to understand that.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 02:08 PM
Yup, they are atrocious. Apparently a ton of people don't believe in the sanctity of marriage...but there are plenty who do and are willing to fight for it in order to preserve it. Tilting at windmills maybe, but a noble cause just the same...

Um, does that mean that you would prefer to make marriages PERMANENT, and thus preserve their sanctity?

Just to be sure I'm reading you right. No offense intended if I read too much into that.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 02:09 PM
Well, I dont live in a state that had that issue on it's ballot, but I will vote for a constitutional ammendment to protect marriage.

Feel free to use whatever derogatory terms you need to understand that.


To protect marriage...would you include a ban on divorce in that amendment?

NewChief
11-03-2004, 02:09 PM
Speaking from personal experience I have never known of anyone who made that choice.

If I thought people chose to be that way the same way the choose to get a tatoo, then I'd be against gay marriage too.

No doubt. Most of the gay people I've known since childhood have been obviously gay their entire lives. Of course, it took them until college or later to actually come out. Back in elementary school we just thought they were obsessed with their looks and gossiping (hate to be stereotypical), but as it get older it was clear they had a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, unless they were choosing to be homosexual in kindergarten.

KCN
11-03-2004, 02:10 PM
It's not rocket science, they want society to approve of the union of two same gendered people. Is there more to it than that?

Apparently...since so many are divided among such a simple concept.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 02:12 PM
Apparently...since so many are divided among such a simple concept.

Well, it's like 80-20...

Serious question to the enlightened ones among us, is gay marriage legal in other countries? I honestly dont know.

InChiefsHell
11-03-2004, 02:14 PM
Um, does that mean that you would prefer to make marriages PERMANENT, and thus preserve their sanctity?

Just to be sure I'm reading you right. No offense intended if I read too much into that.

Well, I'm one of them evil Catholics. I believe that marriage is forever, which is why it is not to be entered into or exited from lightly. Marriage should never be something that people do on a whim, and divorce shoulc never be something that can be called "no fault". I could go on, but I get a little pissed on this subject...

...I will say that the government should not have anything to do with marriage, since it was intstuted by God anyway. People should be signing a contract with each other for legal purposes. Even gays. I have no problem with that.

...but marriage is man + woman. Anything else leads to a slippery slope. Next, it's man+daughter, or man+woman+woman, or man+animal. (I'm not saying that bestiality or child molestation is comperable to homosexuality, so don't go there please.)

KCN
11-03-2004, 02:15 PM
Well, it's like 80-20...

Serious question to the enlightened ones among us, is gay marriage legal in other countries? I honestly dont know.

IIRC Canada and the Netherlands have approved civil unions. Some other countries may have as well, I'm not sure.

And honestely that's all most of us want. Something deemed "sacred" belongs in the church anyway, not US gov't.

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 02:16 PM
...but marriage is man + woman. Anything else leads to a slippery slope. Next, it's man+daughter, or man+woman+woman, or man+animal. (I'm not saying that bestiality or child molestation is comperable to homosexuality, so don't go there please.)


Rick Santorum?

That YOU?

We could, of course apply the "slippery slope" argument to the Padillo case, if this is now a valid argument...if you'll forgive the huge seque.

InChiefsHell
11-03-2004, 02:16 PM
Speaking from personal experience I have never known of anyone who made that choice.

If I thought people chose to be that way the same way they choose to get a tatoo, then I'd be against gay marriage too.
A personal experience of my own. I have an aunt by marriage who is gay. Love her to death, btw. Anyway, one day we were talking and the subject came up. She told me that it was not out of the question that she could find a man that she could love, she just hadn't. Is that a choice? Is bi-sexuality natural or a choice? Seriously, I'm curious...

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 02:32 PM
...Something deemed "sacred" belongs in the church anyway, not US gov't.

Hey, look...something we agree on :thumb:

Civil Unions might be an option...society might be approving of the option if the laws are not written by judges.

KCN
11-03-2004, 02:39 PM
A personal experience of my own. I have an aunt by marriage who is gay. Love her to death, btw. Anyway, one day we were talking and the subject came up. She told me that it was not out of the question that she could find a man that she could love, she just hadn't. Is that a choice? Is bi-sexuality natural or a choice? Seriously, I'm curious...

I do not know the answer since I can't speak for your aunt, only myself.

I do know that there are many out there who have no attraction at all for the opposite sex. Just as I have met a few like your aunt who claim to have attraction to both sexes.

How bisexuality works I don't know, but I highly doubt anyone chooses to be with someone to whom there is no natural attraction.

OldTownChief
11-03-2004, 03:01 PM
There is nothing wrong with lesbians....Lesbians Rule I tell you.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 03:14 PM
Yes, equality in law isn't for everybody.
So long as civil unions are recognized, which I recognize and mourn the fact that they are not in many state referendums, there is no issue of equality in law.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 03:33 PM
You may not kill people in car-load lots, but you DO wish to restrict the (harmless) behavior of citizens, based solely on your personal beliefs.

That's not tolerance.
Marriage is not a behavior, it's a designation.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 03:36 PM
The president himself admitted that he does not know if being gay is a choice or not.
And you do?

MadProphetMargin
11-03-2004, 03:37 PM
And you do?

He's gay. I think he just might.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 03:42 PM
...I will say that the government should not have anything to do with marriage, since it was intstuted by God anyway. People should be signing a contract with each other for legal purposes. Even gays. I have no problem with that.
9th page, and we finally get to the crux of the matter. Marriage is a religious institution that the government has unfortunately intertwined itself into.
Half the people in the debate are viewing gay marriage as the right to define a gay relationship in the same manner as straight relationships in the secular world. The other half view it as akin to the government mandating women be made priests, or communion wine be govt approved Tang.
Civil Unions and the same concomitant rights to visitation, probate, etc.

KCN
11-03-2004, 03:42 PM
And you do?

Speaking for myself, yes, I do know.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 03:44 PM
He's gay. I think he just might.
WTF kind of rationale is that. Am I angry because I choose to be, or because my blood sugar is low? I may have a hunch, but I don't know.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 03:47 PM
Speaking for myself, yes, I do know.
Excellent point, one I hoped to elicit. Speaking for yourself.
Speaking for myself, I know that I have no choice in my heterosexuality. Everything in my life is founded on the beauty of and love for the female form. The sole effect of a 'hot' guy on me is an admiration for the tail I presume he grabs on the basis of those looks.
But that is me, any extrapolation is stereotyping on a woefully inadequate data set.

Was homosexuality inborn or a choice for Anne Heche?

Rausch
11-03-2004, 03:53 PM
Was homosexuality inborn or a choice for Anne Heche?

Bad example. I think she'd fug anything that couldn't outrun her...

But I also see no connection at all between Gay marriage and Bush winning. None.

I think it's a result of the Dems taking the negative on every issue and trying to say how horrible any and everything is right now. "Vote for me because that guy can't do $#it right" isn't a blueprint for victory...

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 03:58 PM
Bad example. I think she'd fug anything that couldn't outrun her...
Why is she a bad example? She's as much a person as KCN or I.
That's my point. There are people who are ingrained in either direction. There are people who are leaning in either direction. There are people who just love interaction and physical contact. There are people who are experimental. There are people who are rebellious, or restrained, by nature, completely aside from sex identification.
So when it comes to redefining for everyone an essentially religious designation, when the aim is actually the sequelae of said designation, I don't put a lot of stock in anecdotal evidence that someone or other "doesn't have a choice."

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 03:59 PM
I think it's a result of the Dems taking the negative on every issue and trying to say how horrible any and everything is right now. "Vote for me because that guy can't do $#it right" isn't a blueprint for victory...
To your credit, you nailed my rationale.

KCN
11-03-2004, 04:00 PM
WTF kind of rationale is that. Am I angry because I choose to be, or because my blood sugar is low? I may have a hunch, but I don't know.


Excellent point, one I hoped to elicit. Speaking for yourself.
Speaking for myself, I know that I have no choice in my heterosexuality. Everything in my life is founded on the beauty of and love for the female form. The sole effect of a 'hot' guy on me is an admiration for the tail I presume he grabs on the basis of those looks.
But that is me, any extrapolation is stereotyping on a woefully inadequate data set.

Was homosexuality inborn or a choice for Anne Heche?

These two posts don't match. If you are comparing sexuality to a temporary emotion that can be chosen, then you don't know that you have no choice in your heterosexuality, as you claim in your second post.

I think you know which post makes sense and which one was the straw man.

Regarding the second half of that post, you outline a very good point as to why these amendments should not be passed, particularly the ones that ban civil unions. I think most reasonable people agree that civil unions are a good compromise.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 04:07 PM
These two posts don't match. If you are comparing sexuality to a temporary emotion that can be chosen, then you don't know that you have no choice in your heterosexuality, as you claim in your second post.
Good point. I was talking of my certainty of my own experience, a subject I have vastly more information on than the subconciouses of the rest of humanity. I don't know if I overplayed my certainty in the innate nature of my heterosexuality or downplayed my more fundamental point that the degree of choice varies from person to person.

Regarding the second half of that post, you outline a very good point as to why these amendments should not be passed, particularly the ones that ban civil unions. I think most reasonable people agree that civil unions are a good compromise.
Thank you. I too think that most people who voted for those amendments had no idea their breadth.

Fairplay
11-03-2004, 04:12 PM
[QUOTE=Rausch] But I also see no connection at all between Gay marriage and Bush winning. None.









I think the gay marraige issue in several different states make a lot of people vote against the Dems as a whole.
Why? Because people said enough's enough of this liberal crap.
People have morals. And as shown with yesterday's vote, there's a large majority of the people don't agree with it.

Rausch
11-03-2004, 04:13 PM
To your credit, you nailed my rationale.

Was that agreement, or a comment that I stole a post you'd already penned? :hmmm:

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 04:17 PM
Was that agreement, or a comment that I stole a post you'd already penned? :hmmm:
That was recognition that your take on the electorate was borne out in my case at least.

KCN
11-03-2004, 04:19 PM
I don't know if I overplayed my certainty in the innate nature of my heterosexuality or downplayed my more fundamental point that the degree of choice varies from person to person..

Careful with how you use the word "choice". Since you and I have both established that we had no choice in our sexuality...we have no basis to assume that those who live more varied sexual lives are choosing their sexual preference either. For all we know (and my hunch is), they are attracted to both sexes against their will, and their only choice is how to act on it.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 04:24 PM
Careful with how you use the word "choice". Since you and I have both established that we had no choice in our sexuality...we have no basis to assume that those who live more varied sexual lives are choosing their sexual preference either. For all we know (and my hunch is), they are attracted to both sexes against their will, and their only choice is how to act on it.
That could be true for some, too. But you are blind if you deny the existence of a segment of people who chose their sexual partners on a purely rational level.
1. My point on choice is that there is a spectrum, not a rule.
2. My point in the broader sense is that the existence or lack of choice is irrelevant.

Women clearly don't have the 'choice' to exhibit the equipment to qualify as a Catholic priest. Doesn't mean the government should mandate that, because they don't have that choice, the Catholic church must ordain them anyway.

Rausch
11-03-2004, 04:24 PM
That was recognition that your take on the electorate was borne out in my case at least.

Understood. I hate being that guy that states the exact same thing as someone else 10 posts earlier...

Rausch
11-03-2004, 04:26 PM
That could be true for some, too. But you are blind if you deny the existence of a segment of people who chose their sexual partners on a purely rational level.
1. My point on choice is that there is a spectrum, not a rule.
2. My point in the broader sense is that the existence or lack of choice is irrelevant.

Agreed.

Genetics or enviornment. Usually a combination of both...

KCN
11-03-2004, 04:42 PM
That could be true for some, too. But you are blind if you deny the existence of a segment of people who chose their sexual partners on a purely rational level.

We all choose our partners, based on who gets us excited and who doesn't.

So you are suggesting there is a segment of the population who chooses to be with partners to whom there is no physical attraction? Or those who have no inherent preference and are forced to choose?

1. My point on choice is that there is a spectrum, not a rule.
2. My point in the broader sense is that the existence or lack of choice is irrelevant.

I am unclear as to who you define being on the ends of the "spectrum". Those who stick to their sexual preference and those who don't?

I guess I see your point, but I think we've wandered into nit-picky territory. I would argue that 99% of the population is on the "no choice" side of the spectrum.

Just as you argue marriage shouldn't be opened up to those who choose to go against their sexual preference, it is not fair to deny it to those who do not. Thus, I think this whole thing was a circle that gets us back to the same conclusion: Civil unions for all and leave marriage to the church.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 04:50 PM
We all choose our partners, based on who gets us excited and who doesn't.

So you are suggesting there is a segment of the population who chooses to be with partners to whom there is no physical attraction? Or those who have no inherent preference and are forced to choose?
No, there is a segment of the population for whom sex is just touching and rubbing. And they are able to, on a rational [as opposed to subconsious or innate] level, get turned on by either sex.
Are you arguing that the vast panoply of sexual escapades are likewise not a matter of choice? If someone can develop an erotic connection to feet, piss, role playing, S&M, etc., why can't they likewise DEVELOP an attraction to someone their "innate" sexuality wouldn't dictate?

I am unclear as to who you define being on the ends of the "spectrum". Those who stick to their sexual preference and those who don't?
No, a spectrum of those who have no control whatsoever over their sexual attraction to those who can rationalize an attraction to anyone and everyone.

Rausch
11-03-2004, 04:53 PM
We all choose our partners, based on who gets us excited and who doesn't.

So you are suggesting there is a segment of the population who chooses to be with partners to whom there is no physical attraction?

Some people get hitched/mate based on personality and non-physical criteria.

Hell, even Clint is married... :)

Inspector
11-03-2004, 08:52 PM
You may not kill people in car-load lots, but you DO wish to restrict the (harmless) behavior of citizens, based solely on your personal beliefs.

That's not tolerance.

Man, for a minute I thought you were talking about the whole pot issue.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-03-2004, 11:43 PM
Face it: They are finished as a major party. Done. History. Get out of town by sundown, Bubba...We never liked you anyway. I can't say I'm happy about this, but we Mad Prophets know a hopeless case when we see one.

To give the party credit, however, they stuck to their message to the very end. Who the hell needs TWO republican parties?

The obvious question, of course, is what will step up as the opposition party?

Any thoughts?
Agreed.

However, I'm not sure corporate America will let the democrats slip away, out of their pockets, so easily. A bipartisan country is much easier to influence than a tri-partisan one.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 12:00 AM
Agreed.

However, I'm not sure corporate America will let the democrats slip away, out of their pockets, so easily. A bipartisan country is much easier to influence than a tri-partisan one.

Don't negative rep me for just giving you my opinion fvckhead. Pull your panties out of your crack and quit crying already bitch. Bitches like you are the reason the party needs to change. Nobody wants to be associated with wimpy yellow bellie turds like you.

InChiefsHell
11-04-2004, 06:44 AM
Agreed.

However, I'm not sure corporate America will let the democrats slip away, out of their pockets, so easily. A bipartisan country is much easier to influence than a tri-partisan one.

:rolleyes: Yes, the poor democrats, trapped by Evil Corporate America...The poor little pawns. They have no choice, evil corporate America forces them to take their money...

...tell me something, at what size does a corporation morph into being evil...2 employees? 10? 100? Just curious...

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 06:55 AM
Agreed.

However, I'm not sure corporate America will let the democrats slip away, out of their pockets, so easily. A bipartisan country is much easier to influence than a tri-partisan one.

Why would 'corporate america' give a crap about socialists? This country has rejected that agenda no matter how it's disguised.

Ultra Peanut
11-04-2004, 07:54 AM
Well...isnt that what our representative democracy is about? I mean, surely you're not saying that 20% of the population should dictate the social mores of 80%? I dont get that, either.Representative democracy is about giving the majority what they want while still protecting the rights and liberties of the minority.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 07:59 AM
Representative democracy is about giving the majority what they want while still protecting the rights and liberties of the minority.

Agreed, and as I stated multiple times...marriage is not a 'right'.

Ultra Peanut
11-04-2004, 08:00 AM
But that wasn't the point of the argument. You may not kill people in car-load lots, but you DO wish to restrict the (harmless) behavior of citizens, based solely on your personal beliefs.

That's not tolerance.Precisely why I can't vote Republican any more than I can vote Democratic. Who or what people want to do or ingest in their own homes and other private places makes no damn difference to me whatsoever, and it sickens me that people feel the need to butt in simply because they don't like it.

If everybody minded their own damn business and stopped being so nosy, the world would be a better place.

KCN
11-04-2004, 08:11 AM
Agreed, and as I stated multiple times...marriage is not a 'right'.

From the constitution:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Wouldn't you say that spending your life with the one you love qualifies as the "pursuit of happiness"...and that the gov't should recognize that equally for all people?

Ultra Peanut
11-04-2004, 08:14 AM
Wouldn't you say that spending your life with the one you love qualifies as the "pursuit of happiness"...and that the gov't should recognize that equally for all people?"But the Bible says it's a sin!"

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 08:16 AM
From the constitution:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Wouldn't you say that spending your life with the one you love qualifies as the "pursuit of happiness"...and that the gov't should recognize that equally for all people?

Spending time with the one you love <> Marriage. What you are asking for is a re-definition of an insitution that has been around since the beginning of time--some people, like myself, dont want that to occur.

KCN
11-04-2004, 08:23 AM
Spending time with the one you love <> Marriage. What you are asking for is a re-definition of an insitution that has been around since the beginning of time--some people, like myself, dont want that to occur.

If the institution you are referring to is the religious ceremony then you're wrong, I am not asking for a redefinition of that.

But I and many others will argue that the government has no place to tell churches what they can and can't do.

As for the government itself, all anyone is asking for is a federal and state recognition. IE civil unions. The term marriage shouldnt be an issue in government when it is a religious institution.

InChiefsHell
11-04-2004, 08:26 AM
Precisely why I can't vote Republican any more than I can vote Democratic. Who or what people want to do or ingest in their own homes and other private places makes no damn difference to me whatsoever, and it sickens me that people feel the need to butt in simply because they don't like it.

If everybody minded their own damn business and stopped being so nosy, the world would be a better place.

But, what about in the case where somebody OD's in their house and needs to be rushed to the hospital? This affects others and also costs money, especially if that person is poor. What about those who choose to ingest a drug that makes them violent, they are most certainly not just "harming themselves." Who people want to do...so you'd be OK if a 30 year old man had "consensual sex" with a 13 year old neice or something like that? After all, "nobody" is getting hurt...

Look, I believe in Liberty, but I believe in sanity as well. As Americans, we believe to a certain degree that we need to take care of each other. Libs and Cons disagree as to the means and the extent, but we have laws that keep people from hurting themselves and others because it is the right thing to do.

Ultra Peanut
11-04-2004, 08:30 AM
But, what about in the case where somebody OD's in their house and needs to be rushed to the hospital? This affects others and also costs money, especially if that person is poor.Lots of people do lots of things that suck up public money needlessly. Most of those things are not banned.

What about those who choose to ingest a drug that makes them violent, they are most certainly not just "harming themselves."Then punish them for the acts they commit against others. A guy who commits assault after drinking heavily isn't charged for getting drunk, is he?

Who people want to do...so you'd be OK if a 30 year old man had "consensual sex" with a 13 year old neice or something like that? After all, "nobody" is getting hurt...13 year olds are minors, and therefore cannot give legal consent.

Look, if you want a nanny, or want to be a nanny, that's fine. Open up a daycare. But I believe that each individual adult in this nation should be treated as such until proving otherwise.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 08:33 AM
If the institution you are referring to is the religious ceremony then you're wrong, I am not asking for a redefinition of that.

But I and many others will argue that the government has no place to tell churches what they can and can't do.

As for the government itself, all anyone is asking for is a federal and state recognition. IE civil unions. The term marriage shouldnt be an issue in government when it is a religious institution.

I think we agree on this point, but while you may not be asking for that, the movement is...as evidenced by the actions of the SF folks and the Mass judges.

I really dont know if support or oppose the idea of civil unions...I'll just leave it at that.

KCN
11-04-2004, 08:34 AM
But, what about in the case where somebody OD's in their house and needs to be rushed to the hospital? This affects others and also costs money, especially if that person is poor. What about those who choose to ingest a drug that makes them violent, they are most certainly not just "harming themselves." Who people want to do...so you'd be OK if a 30 year old man had "consensual sex" with a 13 year old neice or something like that? After all, "nobody" is getting hurt...

Look, I believe in Liberty, but I believe in sanity as well. As Americans, we believe to a certain degree that we need to take care of each other. Libs and Cons disagree as to the means and the extent, but we have laws that keep people from hurting themselves and others because it is the right thing to do.


Please tell me how two members of the same sex having a safe and monogamous relationship is going to affect you, and while we're at it, why aren't you pushing to ban unprotected sex among straights...since that will pose a much greater risk to you than two people who only want one sexual partner for the rest of their lives.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 08:38 AM
To jump off the gay marriage, bit there is another 'group' headed in the opposite direction that I thought I would point out.

I read a Knight Ridder article about businesses now restricting employment to people who do not smoke for a litany of reasons -- health costs, lost work time, etc.

This is not just 'not smoking' at the office, this is not smoking at home or at any other time. Does business have a right to make this kind of discriminatory stance? There are some states that even allow employers to require proof of prospective employers.

KCN
11-04-2004, 08:38 AM
I think we agree on this point, but while you may not be asking for that, the movement is...as evidenced by the actions of the SF folks and the Mass judges.

I really dont know if support or oppose the idea of civil unions...I'll just leave it at that.

I have already expressed my disapproval of what went on in Mass. and San Fran.

But three states have already pushed to ban civil unions, two successfully, which should be an outrage to anyone who believes in equal rights for all Americans.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 08:42 AM
I have already expressed my disapproval of what went on in Mass. and San Fran.

But three states have already pushed to ban civil unions, two successfully, which should be an outrage to anyone who believes in equal rights for all Americans.

For the umpteenth time, I dont view it as a rights issue...what rights, exactly, do you believe you're not getting as a result of not getting a civil union? Healthcare? Life Insurance? what, exactly?

KCN
11-04-2004, 09:31 AM
For the umpteenth time, I dont view it as a rights issue...what rights, exactly, do you believe you're not getting as a result of not getting a civil union? Healthcare? Life Insurance? what, exactly?

-Same-sex couples do not have rights like family health coverage, child custody and medical and bereavement leave

-Same-sex couples cannot file joint tax returns and enjoy income and estate tax benefits

-Cannot assume pension or Social Security benefits in the event of the death of a same-sex partner

-No automatic ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse

-Cannot petition for their same-sex partner to immigrate

-Not entitled to leave of absence from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner

-Parenting responsibilities of children brought into gay families through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means can be questioned or challenged through legal means

-Do not have the ability to purchase continued health coverage for a same-sex partner after the loss of a job

Among many others. Again, all of the above should be included in the right to "pursuit of hapiness" when two people commit to a loving relationship.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 09:40 AM
-Same-sex couples do not have rights like family health coverage, child custody and medical and bereavement leave

This exposes the second thing that most people object to about gay marriage/civil unions which is re-defining the family unit. That is one thing I personally disagree with and would vote to stop. Sorry.

-Same-sex couples cannot file joint tax returns and enjoy income and estate tax benefits

Marriage used to be a penalty, I think it's been fixed. I think a will or trust could protect assets if marriage didnt exist. How would someone unmarried handle this?

-Cannot assume pension or Social Security benefits in the event of the death of a same-sex partner

Ok...maybe the system needs a person to identify a beneficiary.

-No automatic ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse

Living will wont work?

-Cannot petition for their same-sex partner to immigrate

Im not getting how this applies to gay marriage here...wouldnt the partner need to be a US citizen to first to marry here?

-Not entitled to leave of absence from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner

I'll give you this one...

-Parenting responsibilities of children brought into gay families through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means can be questioned or challenged through legal means

I will allways oppose this.

-Do not have the ability to purchase continued health coverage for a same-sex partner after the loss of a job

I'll give you this one...

Among many others. Again, all of the above should be included in the right to "pursuit of hapiness" when two people commit to a loving relationship.

You're right to 'pursue happiness' should not involve re-defining marriage or what a family is.

KCN
11-04-2004, 09:47 AM
You're right to 'pursue happiness' should not involve re-defining marriage or what a family is.

This is your most closed-minded statement of them all. In essence you are saying that the status quo overrides the constitution.

Such a statement is no different than what someone could have said in the push to keep interracial marriages illegal.

InChiefsHell
11-04-2004, 09:50 AM
Please tell me how two members of the same sex having a safe and monogamous relationship is going to affect you, and while we're at it, why aren't you pushing to ban unprotected sex among straights...since that will pose a much greater risk to you than two people who only want one sexual partner for the rest of their lives.
The tangent I went on was in response to the "people should be able to do anything they want to do" argument by Psicosis.

I've already said that civil unions, or contracts, or whatever you want to call them, are all the government should be involved in, and marriage is an institutions started by God, therefore cannot be defined by the State but only by God and the participants of the marriage.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 09:51 AM
This is your most closed-minded statement of them all. In essence you are saying that the status quo overrides the constitution.

Such a statement is no different than what someone could have said in the push to keep interracial marriages illegal.

Sorry...it's not closed minded--we philisophically disagree on what constitutes a family and a marriage. This has nothing to do with interracial marriage, I have no problem with that and never have. I dont appreciate your inferrence here.

The day that gay couples can procreate without medical intervention, I'll accept gay marriage. It's that simple.

KCN
11-04-2004, 09:52 AM
I've already said that civil unions, or contracts, or whatever you want to call them, are all the government should be involved in, and marriage is an institutions started by God, therefore cannot be defined by the State but only by God and the participants of the marriage.

I don't think any rational person will disagree....and really there is no need to keep this thread going any further. :shrug:

KCN
11-04-2004, 09:55 AM
Sorry...it's not closed minded--we philisophically disagree on what constitutes a family and a marriage. This has nothing to do with interracial marriage, I have no problem with that and never have. I dont appreciate your inferrence here.

The day that gay couples can procreate without medical intervention, I'll accept gay marriage. It's that simple.

What you are saying is that your personal beliefs should be written into law.

Sorry. If it doesn't suit you and doesn't affect you, then don't do it and let those alone who do. There really is nothing more that needs to be said, as you seem to be the only one here that has a problem with civil unions.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 10:01 AM
What you are saying is that your personal beliefs should be written into law.

Sorry. If it doesn't suit you and doesn't affect you, then don't do it and let those alone who do. There really is nothing more that needs to be said, as you seem to be the only one here that has a problem with civil unions.

Actually, it's more than me...it's 80% of the American people. And before last year, it didnt require anything written into law until judges in Mass and mayor of SF decided to invoke their own will onto the vast majority of the American people.

I am unafraid to voice the overwhelming majority position on an agenda to redefine marriage and the family unit. It's an assault on societal norms that have existed since the beginning of time.

But you are right, we're going to disagree on this no matter how much more we post.

KCN
11-04-2004, 10:05 AM
Actually, it's more than me...it's 80% of the American people. And before last year, it didnt require anything written into law until judges in Mass and mayor of SF decided to invoke their own will onto the vast majority of the American people.

I am unafraid to voice the overwhelming majority position on an agenda to redefine marriage and the family unit. It's an assault on societal norms that have existed since the beginning of time.

But you are right, we're going to disagree on this no matter how much more we post.


Again, you are saying that the majority's personal beliefs toward an issue that will affect none of them should dictate US law.

Sorry, that mentality would have prevented freedom of slaves, womens' suffrage, and black civil rights...and I refuse to accept it.

But alas, you and I are not going to reach an agreement so there's really no point in taking it further.

(Note: before you get offended, be aware that I am not equating you to a racist or sexist, nor am I calling you a homophobe.)

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 10:27 AM
Sorry, that mentality would have prevented freedom of slaves, womens' suffrage, and black civil rights...and I refuse to accept it.

But alas, you and I are not going to reach an agreement so there's really no point in taking it further.

(Note: before you get offended, be aware that I am not equating you to a racist or sexist, nor am I calling you a homophobe.)

Actually, it's quite the opposite...the American people were the leaders of the movement to end those things that you mention. Slavery and civil rights issues still exist elsewhere to this day.

KCN
11-04-2004, 10:31 AM
Actually, it's quite the opposite...the American people were the leaders of the movement to end those things that you mention. Slavery and civil rights issues still exist elsewhere to this day.

No, if lawmakers had said, "let's let the people of Arkansas decide if blacks are allowed in public schools," we would not be where we are today.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 10:43 AM
No, if lawmakers had said, "let's let the people of Arkansas decide if blacks are allowed in public schools," we would not be where we are today.

Actually, I believe we would be right where we are today or Black people would vote with their feet...it's the beauty of independent states.

KCN
11-04-2004, 11:12 AM
Actually, I believe we would be right where we are today or Black people would vote with their feet...it's the beauty of independent states.

I disagree, but oh well.

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 11:35 AM
Who or what people want to do or ingest in their own homes and other private places makes no damn difference to me whatsoever, and it sickens me that people feel the need to butt in simply because they don't like it.
1. Marriage is not a behavior
2. Insofar as it is not a behavior, it is not something you DO in your own home.

It is a public designation, like licensed driver, notary public, of something that has a religious foundation. Too bad it's interwined, but now that it is, it is natural that people who have a religious conception of marriage would be resistant to it's reinterpretation.

Public recognition of marriage and private consensual behavior are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT issues. Learn that, PLEASE.

Ultra Peanut
11-04-2004, 11:45 AM
Public recognition of marriage and private consensual behavior are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT issues. Learn that, PLEASE.Sorry, I got off on a tangent about how people, in general, are way too damn nosy. Don't be so condescending in the future, PLEASE.

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 11:50 AM
Sorry, I got off on a tangent about how people, in general, are way too damn nosy. Don't be so condescending in the future, PLEASE.
Sorry to seem that way, but these discussions have repeatedly, and REPEATEDLY, devolved into "why won't people just let me love who I want to love?" when that is not the issue at all.
I guess I'm just getting fatigued of discussing the issue, and let my fatigue color my posting.
I thought for a while I was helping the discussion, but at this point I'm just the old shop teacher on South Park yelling "Stop Screwin' Around!!!" with no one listening.

KCN
11-04-2004, 11:54 AM
I thought for a while I was helping the discussion, but at this point I'm just the old shop teacher on South Park yelling "Stop Screwin' Around!!!" with no one listening.

I thought what you had to say was quite constructive :shrug:

Ultra Peanut
11-04-2004, 11:59 AM
I thought for a while I was helping the discussion, but at this point I'm just the old shop teacher on South Park yelling "Stop Screwin' Around!!!" with no one listening.ROFL

Hel'n
11-04-2004, 12:12 PM
Having watched the election all freakin' night, I have come to the same conclusion that the pundits did: This election was decided by the gay marriage issue.

The war in Iraq WAS separate from terrorism, in voters' minds, and most people felt that the economy sucks...but the "morals issues" (read: Homos in Wedding Dresses) carried the day for Bush.

This was not a "stolen election"...quite the contrary. It was a mandate by the largest turnout in decades. Bush beat Kerry like the family mule, and barely broke a sweat.

This, to me, signals the beginning of the end for my party. Fact is, the Dems have been going downhill since 1963...Clinton wasn't a "new beginning", but rather a last gasp. America has taken a puritanical turn, and the Dems' message of universal tolerance has no audience outside of California, Illinois, and the NE coast.

Face it: They are finished as a major party. Done. History. Get out of town by sundown, Bubba...We never liked you anyway. I can't say I'm happy about this, but we Mad Prophets know a hopeless case when we see one.

To give the party credit, however, they stuck to their message to the very end. Who the hell needs TWO republican parties?

The obvious question, of course, is what will step up as the opposition party?

Any thoughts?


I agree with the anti-homo issue being what carried the day. 450,000 more people came out and voted for W in Ohio than last election. A pundit called it the death of a thousand cuts.

I'm sad about it because I think the economy, terrorism, and civil liberties are far more important issues. But playing to one's fears is always a vote-getter. But the damage has been done.

People now know it's okay to bash gays and other oddities (including myself) and they can get away with it. Hell, they can get votes for it.

I'm just waiting for the day we're required to wear emblems or trucked to relocation centers so that the country can maintain it's purity...

In order to win, Bush and company resorted to picking on an already ostracized group. I worry what else will happen now that it is open season again on us "deviants."

ps - I've been running a fever since Sunday night or I wouldda been here all election eve. Been in bed most of the time since Tuesday morning, outside of going to vote and going to class. Take care.

Brock
11-04-2004, 12:21 PM
I'm just waiting for the day we're required to wear emblems or trucked to relocation centers so that the country can maintain it's purity...

In order to win, Bush and company resorted to picking on an already ostracized group. I worry what else will happen now that it is open season again on us "deviants.".

Your bitterness is a real hoot. Yeah, I'm sure it was all about the homos, it couldn't be because your party has no message that anyone with a functioning brain wants to hear. On the other hand, if it gets Will and Grace taken off TV, I'm all for it.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 12:23 PM
I'm just waiting for the day we're required to wear emblems or trucked to relocation centers so that the country can maintain it's purity...



Godwin's Law...the debate is officially over and I win.

Thanks, Hel'n

mlyonsd
11-04-2004, 12:24 PM
I agree with the anti-homo issue being what carried the day. 450,000 more people came out and voted for W in Ohio than last election. A pundit called it the death of a thousand cuts.

I'm sad about it because I think the economy, terrorism, and civil liberties are far more important issues. But playing to one's fears is always a vote-getter. But the damage has been done.

People now know it's okay to bash gays and other oddities (including myself) and they can get away with it. Hell, they can get votes for it.

I'm just waiting for the day we're required to wear emblems or trucked to relocation centers so that the country can maintain it's purity...

In order to win, Bush and company resorted to picking on an already ostracized group. I worry what else will happen now that it is open season again on us "deviants."

ps - I've been running a fever since Sunday night or I wouldda been here all election eve. Been in bed most of the time since Tuesday morning, outside of going to vote and going to class. Take care.

We need an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand icon.

KCN
11-04-2004, 12:36 PM
I'm just waiting for the day we're required to wear emblems or trucked to relocation centers so that the country can maintain it's purity...

In order to win, Bush and company resorted to picking on an already ostracized group. I worry what else will happen now that it is open season again on us "deviants."

Hel'n, this thread has been by and large free from cheap hyperbole for the past few pages...and with this it's all coming back.

Titus is right, Godwin's law means you lose.

But he still gets to deal with me :) .

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 12:58 PM
I agree with the anti-homo issue being what carried the day. 450,000 more people came out and voted for W in Ohio than last election. A pundit called it the death of a thousand cuts.

I'm sad about it because I think the economy, terrorism, and civil liberties are far more important issues. But playing to one's fears is always a vote-getter. But the damage has been done.

People now know it's okay to bash gays and other oddities (including myself) and they can get away with it. Hell, they can get votes for it.

I'm just waiting for the day we're required to wear emblems or trucked to relocation centers so that the country can maintain it's purity...

In order to win, Bush and company resorted to picking on an already ostracized group. I worry what else will happen now that it is open season again on us "deviants."

ps - I've been running a fever since Sunday night or I wouldda been here all election eve. Been in bed most of the time since Tuesday morning, outside of going to vote and going to class. Take care.

Actually, it was Kerry's campaign that kept bringing up the fact that Mary Cheney is gay.

Bush spent very little time talking about same-sex marriage. If he had, his margin of victory might have been much larger.

NewChief
11-04-2004, 01:02 PM
Godwin's Law...the debate is officially over and I win.

Thanks, Hel'n

Actually, by invoking it by name, you lost as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's Law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's Law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 01:09 PM
Actually, by invoking it by name, you lost as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I really dont care about that...

NewChief
11-04-2004, 01:14 PM
I really dont care about that...

Come on, now. You know you care what wikipedia has to say!

That site is actually pretty interesting. You would probably like it because it goes into all usenet corollaries to the law that have cropped up. There should definitely be a Planet corollary that goes into the lexicon.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 01:15 PM
Come on, now. You know you care what wikipedia has to say!

That site is actually pretty interesting. You would probably like it because it goes into all usenet corollaries to the law that have cropped up. There should definitely be a Planet corollary that goes into the lexicon.

LOL...I agree it is pretty interesting and some of the corollaries are pretty good. They hold up pretty well, from what I read.

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 01:50 PM
The issue of gay marriage aside, what did this election do to the bedrock Dem principle that getting out the vote is the way to victory? That seems to be the elephant in the room. It wasn't just a defeat, it was a defeat ON THEIR TERMS.
It'd be like having an NFL game involving the Broncos where the officials said "don't worry about chop blocking at all, and grease your unis all you want" and the Broncos lose anyways.

patteeu
11-04-2004, 02:50 PM
Sure you are...you said so yourself.

"Marriage isn't a right".

If it's not a right, then you are affected. If it IS a right, then we do not have equal protection.

Marriage in the sense that two people can make mutual promises to come together as partners in life IS a right. It is a first amendment right known as the freedom of association.

But in the sense that marriage is a bundle of government granted tangible benefits, it is not a right. It is a policy.

Gay people can already exercise their right to marry in the first sense, and they can even find some churches to honor them with a ceremonial blessing.

Society has not yet decided to adopt a policy of granting civil marriages to gay couples. In my view, this will eventually happen and it is a good thing. But it hasn't happened yet and the only way it should happen is if enough people become convinced that it is good for society to do so via the democratic process.

MadProphetMargin
11-04-2004, 04:55 PM
The issue of gay marriage aside, what did this election do to the bedrock Dem principle that getting out the vote is the way to victory? That seems to be the elephant in the room. It wasn't just a defeat, it was a defeat ON THEIR TERMS.


That's a fact. The Dems got PWNED.