akirby Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Most Republicans I know don't have a problem with common-law gay partnerships (as a matter of contract law). Where we depart is that the government shouldn't endorse such partnerships, by equating them with male-female partnerships. So you don't want the Government to get involved in determining which property rights can or can't be protected, but you do want the government to enforce an arbitrary bias based on the religious beliefs of some groups? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So you don't want the Government to get involved in determining which property rights can or can't be protected, but you do want the government to enforce an arbitrary bias based on the religious beliefs of some groups? I would think he meant he wanted the same. Government NOT involved in determining "which property rights can or can't be protected" AND which religious beliefs are protected by the so-called "separation of church and state". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So you don't want the Government to get involved in determining which property rights can or can't be protected, but you do want the government to enforce an arbitrary bias based on the religious beliefs of some groups? No. If you want gay marriage and hetero marriage to be equal, then take away all Federal government endorsements (tax breaks, etc) of hetero-marriage, and let the states cover it under contract law only. That preserves your view and mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) I would think he meant he wanted the same. Government NOT involved in determining "which property rights can or can't be protected" AND which religious beliefs are protected by the so-called "separation of church and state". I believe the Government can be "pro" everything by being "pro" nothing; except for life, liberty and property. I've never claimed a tax deduction on donations made to my church (all made in untraceable cash or a gold coin), so you know I'm being consistent. Edited June 19, 2014 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 No. If you want gay marriage and hetero marriage to be equal, then take away all Federal government endorsements (tax breaks, etc) of hetero-marriage, and let the states cover it under contract law only. That preserves your view and mine. Any government rules or laws around different sex marriage such as inheritance, medical decision making, benefits and taxes are just as pertinent to same sex couples as different sex couples so there is no reason to treat them differently. Let them get married, treat them the same and move on. But the Christians just can't do that. They feel the need to force everyone else to abide by their religious beliefs and have no respect for other religions or those who have no religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Any government rules or laws around different sex marriage such as inheritance, medical decision making, ...... Are easily handled under contract law (or civil unions) for any kind of marriage you can name. Any government rules or laws around different sex marriage such as .......benefits and taxes are just as pertinent to same sex couples as different sex couples so there is no reason to treat them differently.\ Let them get married, treat them the same and move on. Again, get rid of benefits and tax (differences) for different sex married couples. I've said that. But if you aren't willing to do that, then you must also support plural marriage, because you can't say there aren't differences in marriages, and then say there are. But the Christians just can't do that. They feel the need to force everyone else to abide by their religious beliefs and have no respect for other religions or those who have no religion. As much as you've got on LH about name-calling, you don't see how you're disparaging (all) Christians as intolerant? I can live with every gay marriage (even if you want to call it that) on the planet, so long as you don't force me to violate my personal religious beliefs in my life or my business. Edited June 19, 2014 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Are easily handled under contract law (or civil unions) for any kind of marriage you can name. Again, get rid of benefits and tax (differences) for different sex married couples. I've said that. But if you aren't willing to do that, then you must also support plural marriage, because you can't say there aren't differences in marriages, and then say there are. As much as you've got on LH about name-calling, you don't see how you're disparaging (all) Christians as intolerant? I can live with every gay marriage (even if you want to live with that) on the planet, so long as you don't force me to violate my personal religious beliefs in my life or my business. You can still define marriage as a union between 2 consenting adults. You don't have to open it up to more than 2. That's a red herring. And that's not name calling it's simply stating a fact that really isn't disputable. I should have said "some" Christians and not made it sound like all of them, but look at the facts: Passing laws that make gay marriage unlawful Passing or supporting laws that make it illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday Asking for public Christian prayers in schools and sporting events Those are all Christians forcing me to follow their religious beliefs. You don't see Mormons trying to make it illegal to sell soft drinks with caffeine. They just choose not to drink it. I want Christians to do the same thing. If you don't support gay marriage then don't marry a person of the same sex. What others do is their own business. If you don't want to buy alcohol on Sunday then don't buy it. Whether I buy it or not is my business and doesn't affect anyone else. If you want to pray you can do that on your own anytime you want 24 hours a day. It's not necessary to have someone else do it out loud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 so long as you don't force me to violate my personal religious beliefs in my life or my business. This is my issue with this argument - seeing or interacting with or selling goods or services to a gay couple does not in any way shape or form force you to violate your religious beliefs. You can only do that through your actions. Those are just convenient excuses to discriminate against folks that you don't like or don't approve of. And if you want to make that argument then you would also have to include murderers, liars, thieves, adulterers, etc. because those sins are just as bad. Do you refuse to serve divorced people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Rats - I just broke my own rule about staying on topic. I'll let RangerM reply and then we'll knock it off. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) You can still define marriage as a union between 2 consenting adults. You don't have to open it up to more than 2. That's a red herring. There is no legal basis for suggesting that a marital contract can only exist between 2 persons, if you can't say which persons (brother-sister, father-daughter, etc) No other type of contract I can think of has such limitations; save for child adoption (which hasn't been challenged legally that I know of, yet) And that's not name calling it's simply stating a fact that really isn't disputable. I should have said "some" Christians and not made it sound like all of them, but look at the facts: Passing laws that make gay marriage unlawful Passing or supporting laws that make it illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday Asking for public Christian prayers in schools and sporting events If you read most State-Constitutional marriage amendments, it simply defines "marriage" as being restricted to male-female. This is largely in response to (or proactively prior to) judicial law saying that gay marriage is (State) Constitutional. This simply codifies what has already been the understanding of the law. No law that I know of has eliminated same-sex palimony agreements or civil unions. (I've said in the past that I can go along with a legal recognition, but not full equality, since males and females are different) Blue Laws have been ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS, iirc. I don't see the importance of not selling alcohol before 1:00, but it's a State/Local thing, so I go along with the 10th Amendment interpretation. While I'm sure there are many who would like to see Christian prayer in public schools, led by teachers in every classroom, I believe this has already been shot down. My own State of NC had a recent SCOTUS ruling covering Forsythe County's practice of opening council meetings with a prayer. If someone wants to open it with an Atheist prayer (whatever that would sound like), fine by me. If you don't support gay marriage then don't marry a person of the same sex. What others do is their own business. You say what others do is their business, yet you set the limit to 2? That's not consistent. This is my issue with this argument - seeing or interacting with or selling goods or services to a gay couple does not in any way shape or form force you to violate your religious beliefs. You can only do that through your actions. Forcing me to serve as the photographer at a gay wedding is forcing me to act. If I choose not to act (by declining to serve), then that should be my right. Conversely (and as you've mentioned in your post), YOU have the right to take your business elsewhere, and recommend others do the same. Rats - I just broke my own rule about staying on topic. I'll let RangerM reply and then we'll knock it off. Sorry. We can agree to disagree on this topic, since it's unlikely we'll see eye to eye on it. But, it doesn't help either of us if we believe the other's motivation is based on hatred or intolerance. Doing that is just the ad hominem way of de-legitimizing the other's point of view, without addressing the arguments directly. Edited June 19, 2014 by RangerM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 There are relatively few true "pro-choice" Democrats. Feel free to find me one who thinks that aborting an 8-month old fetus is acceptable. Most Republicans I know don't have a problem with common-law gay partnerships (as a matter of contract law). Where we depart is that the government shouldn't endorse such partnerships, by equating them with male-female partnerships. True pro-choice? LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How is a law that allows alcohol to be sold 6 days a week but not on Sunday anything but intolerance? That was the origin of the law to begin with and there is no logical reason for alcohol to be sold on all other days but not on Sunday. I won't rehash the rest of it - we've been there done that and got the t-shirt. We completely disagree on what constitutes a violation of your religious beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 True pro-choice? LOL. "Pro-choice" has a funny way of evolving its meaning to suit Democrats. When you change the meaning of words, there is no argument to be made, because there is no basis for it. How is a law that allows alcohol to be sold 6 days a week but not on Sunday anything but intolerance? That was the origin of the law to begin with and there is no logical reason for alcohol to be sold on all other days but not on Sunday. I guess people didn't want drunkenness on Sunday, just as they don't want public drunkenness today. I agree that it's foolish to ban alcohol sales on Sunday, but that's why we live in different places; so we can choose to live under such laws or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I guess people didn't want drunkenness on Sunday, just as they don't want public drunkenness today. And the only basis of not wanting drunkenness on Sunday is Christianity. Sooooo..............................about Behghazi................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So glad we don't have blue laws here. Sunday Funday, I say! :party: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 And the only basis of not wanting drunkenness on Sunday is Christianity. So what? And now back to our regularly scheduled topic....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So what? And now back to our regularly scheduled topic....... Unrelated to Benghazi, but..... That's why we have States. Try pushing some of California's ideas on Salt Lake City and vice versa. The Federal government's duty is national defense and interstate relatiinships. The states are intended to be the "macrocosm" of the people on a regional scale as it is on a city/township level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MI451 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 "Pro-choice" has a funny way of evolving its meaning to suit Democrats. When you change the meaning of words, there is no argument to be made, because there is no basis for it. Guess there's no argument to be made for small government as currently most conservatives don't want TRUE small government. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You've never heard me say it, as far as I can remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I know you guys won't like this but there was no stand down order given. http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-no-stand-down-order-benghazi-175147837--politics.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I only want the truth not only about what actually happened but about the aftermath. Why has it been so difficult to get to the facts? I don't know whether aid could have been rendered in time but I do know there was massive lying to the public afterwards and that was directed by the administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 I know you guys won't like this but there was no stand down order given. http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-no-stand-down-order-benghazi-175147837--politics.html That has exactly nothing to do with the false narrative floated about the reason for the attack. Why there was zero response still remains a mystery and does not change the lie/s floated by the administration for a week or two when they all clearly knew otherwise. Maybe a response would not have been possible ( the attack went on for hours so that's doubtful) but going on TV and claiming a different version of what happened when you know otherwise is still a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 http://gawker.com/gop-house-report-on-benghazi-concludes-there-is-no-beng-1615741728 GOP House Report on Benghazi Concludes There Is No Benghazi Scandal But, but, but . . . there's got to be a scandal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 That report doesn't address the coverup after the fact using the video excuse. And don't say it doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 That report doesn't address the coverup after the fact using the video excuse. And don't say it doesn't matter. "What difference does it make?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.