How the Hypocrite Leftwing Argues

[Great Ape]

Are you ignoring my question?

No, I was reading something else...do you mind?....Traditional marriage between one man and one woman and family has been a cultural conerstone of our nation since the time that we were colonies....to redifine marriage to include gay marriage, polygamy, incestual marriages, etc...will fracture the strength of our identity and create a cultural distortion...

Really? Do you have proof?

[A Theist]

Why are people even taking their time responding to A Theist, who is nothing more than an obviously delusional excuse of a human being? I think it'd be more productive to tap on a desk and expect money to fall in your lap than to actually acquire even the possibility that anything he/she says will ever make any sense.

...oh, I see....yours is just another example of the pompous arrogance from the far left....anybody who isn't a propagandized and programed leftist fringe puppet has to be delusional....only you're the one who's deluded by the far left fringe...

[Darth]

It seems to me that having government define what marriage is or isn't is a spectacularly bad idea (and raises all sorts of freedom of religion and equal treatment under the law concerns).

Why not advocate for getting government's claws out of the whole thing, and let individuals, and individual churches and religions, decide for themselves? If you want a marriage in a "one man one woman" only church, go for it. And when other's who don't fit that tell you that they are married, feel free to roll your eyes, say "yeah married", try to explain how it's not real marriage, how it's not in accordance with your religion, how god doesn't recognise it, or talk to them however you wish*. And that would be yours, and your religion's, view of it (in your view, fact), and your right to say so. And you can sleep well at night, knowing nobody's liberty is infringed upon, and that they are deluded or whatever as must you already do, because lets not kid ourselves that people aren't already having ceremonies, the issue is the government recognition and unequal treatment under the law (discrimination). That the government says something is or isn't appropriate according to God should be absolutely irrelevant, would you trust politicians to get that right? Surely it's what God says that matters?

You can have limited government, or you can have less limited government, as enforcing and promoting these 'traditional values' is yet more laws written that needn't have been written, and the more you want to promote and enforce these values, the more it is going to cost (and of course they will waste a spectacular amount of it, even if you don't view the entire effort as a waste). But you shouldn't do that! "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." (Jefferson). It works both ways. Your money shouldn't be spent on recognising marriages you believe are false, but nor should theirs! (and some people will already not be recognising yours and your faith's as legitimate, as you are not of their faith) The only way to achieve this would be for government to get out of all religious affairs. For those for whom marriage is a religious affair, what part of your religion could be more important? Why should government be anywhere near it? Do you really want a governmental seal of approval for your incredibly special, religious ceremony where you commit yourself to the woman you love?

*Now of course I have my own views on how gay people should be treated and such, I recognise their love as legitimate and beautiful and their right to marry, and I recognise their marriages and unions as legitimate. The fact that our governments treat people unequally, that they are involved in religious events involving consenting adults, scares me, and makes me sick. I don't see governments getting out of religion any time soon, the next best option is to treat all religions equally (and people with no religion of course) so long as it involves consenting adults, to do otherwise is fundamentally wrong.

[festive1]

Traditional marriage between one man and one woman and family has been a cultural conerstone of our nation since the time that we were colonies....to redifine marriage to include gay marriage, polygamy, incestual marriages, etc...will fracture the strength of our identity and create a cultural distortion...

Can we all say, "Slippery Slope!" Who exactly is arguing for polygamy to become legal? Besides some fringe cult-like Mormon breakaway groups. Who is arguing that incestuous marriages should be legal? Though you might be surprised at the number of states that allow first cousins to marry. I am not aware of any group arguing for siblings (full-blooded siblings) to be allowed to marry.

[Something completely different]

Traditional marriage between one man and one woman and family has been a cultural conerstone of our nation since the time that we were colonies....to redifine marriage to include gay marriage, polygamy, incestual marriages, etc...will fracture the strength of our identity and create a cultural distortion...

[sarcasm]

The supression of the Polish people aswell as the institutionalised discrimination towards ethnic Pols aswell as the attempted destruction of Polish culture has been part of our nations culture since we embarked on this path by dismanteling the Polish nation and occupying it`s terretory in 1795, we stopped doing this in 1945.
That is cultural distortion and I say as a people, our nation should reunite and invade Poland!!!!!

[/end of sarcasm]

Now what would be wrong with that??????

What was right yesterday is almoust defenatly not right today.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Yes - we do call you homophobe because there's no fucking reason to "support traditional marriage", which is just a positive spin on you actually denouncing any other form of marriage which might actually be more fun than what you're currently suffering.
"support traditional marriage",[/b][/i]...No. Just because we support traditional marriage and oppose gay marriage doesn't mean we're homophobes or that we hate gays.....We don't support polygamy or incestual marriages either...we support the definition of traditional marriage between one man and one woman....would you also redefine marriage to include polygamy and incestual marriages as well?....

In the 21th century most people in western societies will realize that sexuality is like the color of the skin, it's the way people are born. Opposing gay marriage is the same-sex twist on racism: homophobia. Sorry lad, get used to it..your ideas will be transferred from linedance parties to the museum.
I also don't think it is very traditional for a jewish man and a pygmy woman to marry by the way, SO GOD FORBID!

How about arranged marriages like muslim countries often do...would you include that in your redefinition of marriage too?

I kwow free will is strange to you, just like to 'the terrorists' you brought in

---

Also your ideas are in deep conflict with;

“If there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” ― Jonah Goldberg

According to you it's not even up to the state to interfere with someone's partner choice, right?

Geez, I didn't know they are still broadcasting little house on the prairie.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's a quote I came across recently from John Milton:

"Whoso prefers either Matrimony or other Ordinance before the Good of Man and the plain Exigence of Charity, let him profess Papist, or Protestant, or what he will, he is no better than a Pharisee."

This might be of relevance to this discussion of Gay marriage.

Also, I watched about 30 seconds of the video in the OP before I had to switch it off; I mean, seriously how hard is it for right-wingers to understand? You religious people get the right to follow whatever religion you want. In return, all we ask for is that you harm nobody (which should go without saying) and that you don't ask the government for any special treatment. How hard is that to understand?

[DeistPaladin]

I found very early on in grade school that bullies are such crybabies. When you hit them back, they're the fastest to run crying to the teacher.

Such lessons from grade school now reflect perfectly into conservative behavior today. As pundits cry salty tears over the lost civility in our public discourse, let's remember the man who originally made verbal bomb throwing part of the mainstream GOP political tactics.



I remember his tenure as House Speaker well. I was still voting Republican then and am ashamed to admit my vote helped him take control of Congress. The first cracks in my Reaganian faith began to form in my discomfort with his style of politics, even as I then agreed with the policies. But my ten year road to re-registering as Democrat was still ahead of me at the same time that Republicans would continue to run further to the right.

Republican political tactics have degenerated since. Karl Rove's openly stated tactics in the last decade were the use of "wedge issues". This strategy accompanied shrill accusations that anyone who didn't support the then president Bush or criticized his war in Iraq was a "traitor" who "wanted the terrorists to win" or who's very act of criticism "gave comfort to the terrorists". No pretense at civility was ever even attempted during a presidential election where "vote Democrat and die at the hands of terrorists" was openly incorporated into the regular rhetoric and campaign ads.

Needless to say, such pious standards of deference to the Commander and Chief in a time of war were completely absent from Republican rhetoric when Clinton was in office. The GOP thought nothing of not only criticizing the president but impeaching him while our troops were in harm's way. In fact, Republicans claimed it was our patriotic duty and our troops would be insulted if we didn't uphold our closest values as Americans, to question our leaders, even as our soldiers took to the field to fight for such values.

The double-standard, shifted with Orwellian style speed as soon as a new party comes to power, fully permeates the GOP mindset in all political areas. For example, Republican election victories lead them to use words like "shut up" and "mandate". Democrat victories lead them to use words like "bipartisanship" and "compromise". Elections mean different things depending on whether or not they win or lose.

And now that the GOP has thoroughly poisoned our political discourse, they are quick to whine about mean liberals who call them on their racism and homophobia, all the while they still scream "SOCIALIST" at anyone to the left of Lieberman and continue to question their patriotism.

Sorry, GOP, but as others on this thread have noted, "free speech" includes my right to say mean things and use insults hurt your poor wittle fee-wings. And the people who opened the floodgates to divisive strategy and inflammatory rhetoric (to say nothing of the occasional calls for violence) do not get to whine now or demand that we have to be "respectful" whether or not your ideologies earn such respect.

that's because the most of you fringe nuts are.

Our "fringe" won the last 3 our of 4 elections. And it's going to get worse for you as the angry old white men and fanatically religious nutjobs both dwindle in number.

[TaraJo]

Are you ignoring my question?

No, I was reading something else...do you mind?....Traditional marriage between one man and one woman and family has been a cultural conerstone of our nation since the time that we were colonies....to redifine marriage to include gay marriage, polygamy, incestual marriages, etc...will fracture the strength of our identity and create a cultural distortion...

Close. You're close, but you left out some important facts to that.

Yes, when our nation was founded one of our cultural values was that marriage was between one man and one woman. More specifically, one white, Christian man and one white, Christian woman. Interracial marriage wasn't even legal in a lot of places until the 1950's (with religious conservatives fighting against it on the grounds of protecting traditional marriage).

I also find it ironic that the Christian here is arguing that gay marriage will lead to incestual marriage and/or polygamy. Hey, A Theist! Mind telling me how many wives David or Solomon had? And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the OT patriarchs married to his half sister? Seems to me, if you're really worried about polygamy or incest, we should be more worried about Biblical literalists than same sex marriage.

Why are people even taking their time responding to A Theist, who is nothing more than an obviously delusional excuse of a human being? I think it'd be more productive to tap on a desk and expect money to fall in your lap than to actually acquire even the possibility that anything he/she says will ever make any sense.

Don't be too hard on him. It's hard to learn facts when you have your head burried in the sand of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

[LastPoet]

I will beg for forgiveness from all decent US citizens out there in advance for what I'm about to say.

A Theist, you are a paradigmatic example of a spoiled american, you know, the kind that always had the economic advantages of living there. The kind that joined 2 world wars late so that you could reap the profits. The kind that, in the only wars they started got clobbered senseless, despite the technological advantages at the cost of young lifes.

No wonder the US is the clown of western civilization, you started so well, so promising, yet you had to make all the same mistakes Europe as done centuries before.

Time will teach you a lesson, not god or gods, but time. I hope you don't have any children, because they shouldn't pay for your idiocy.