Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[The Bare Buttocked Pundit]

All this talk about asses is making me ..... feel welcome.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ergo; you admitted that it is DISCRIMINATION.

Ergo: You're a fucktard who doesn't have the capacity to understand basic English sentences in context.

 

[Timshel]

Besides the simple fact that you are an asshole, what other reason do you have for constantly trying to misrepresent my position?

So then it is mostly environment and a little bit innate? It's all environment? What is your position?

 

[Timshel]

What do you mean, WHAT? Am I supposed to repeat the post or post a quote for you to read what I posted again? Are you THAT stupid these days, Stringy? I haven't ever advocated discrimination against people who are homosexual, in all my entire life, that has never been a tenant I personally believed in, and that was what I was accused of. It was based on a gross misunderstanding of a quote, taken entirely out of context, as you idiots normally do with my quotes. Nothing I said indicated what I was accused of.

You are supposed to explain your absurd position. Name one other "sexual deviancy" that we make illegal based on sexual deviancy, and not a lack of consent?

No, I am sorry, we don't. Whether you wish to acknowledge biological facts or not, human homosexual behavior does deviate from the norm, and is uncommon in the species. Therefore, it is clinically termed as "deviating" behavior, or "deviant" behavior. There are also many other "deviant" sexual behaviors, and none of them are codified into law as being legitimately acceptable behaviors, including homosexuality. Society has eased many of the social constraints on homosexuals in recent years, getting rid of sodomy laws, etc. We have come to accept the homosexual deviant as part of our society, and while we may not condone their personal choices, we don't deny them the same freedoms and liberties enjoyed by the rest of society.

And you can give no examples of your idiotic claim.

Well I am sorry Stringy, but no one has the unfettered freedom of choice, it isn't found anywhere in the Constitution. We can't simply DO whatever we please, no matter how much your stupid little brain thinks that possible. I didn't mention rape, because rape is not a sexual crime, it is based on a need to dominate and control another person, not sexual deviancy. It's a completely different thing altogether. A good example would be indecent exposure laws... Why can't someone go to the Wal-mart and sit in the parking lot, watching the hot 14-year-olds parading in and out, and masturbate themselves? It's not hurting anyone, it's a victimless crime, no one is having any right violated by that... why is that illegal? You want a marriage analogy.... What IF I were engaged to my hot virgin girlfriend, and the night before our wedding, she fell and broke her cute little neck? Why should you and your silly morality prohibit me from marrying her dead corpse and making sweet passionate love to her all night? She consented... we were all set to do it... we even had the marriage license! Why can't I fuck the brains out of my dead girlfriend? Why am I denied my Constitutional rights???

You have mentioned rape and you continue to do so by arguing that the "sexual deviance" of homosexuals is akin to sex without consent.

Indecent exposure laws are not based on sexual deviance. Like I said, read the Lawrence decision. Sex in public is illegal for homo or hetero. Forcing others to winess your sexual acts against their will is a small step from rape and the state has a legitimate interest in protecting others from both. But, you can do whatever you like so long as all participants consent.

This has nothing to do with whether homosexual unions constitute marriage, or have the right to redefine the word to fit their purpose. The State issues marriage licenses to any male and female of legal age, who aren't closely related, homosexuals, to my knowledge, are not being banned from this.

And blacks were not denied the right to marry someone of their own race under anti-miscegenation laws, yet they were overturned.

No, it proves you don't understand the context of anything we're arguing about here. Marriage, is the union of a man and woman. Homosexual partnerships are a form of Domestic Partnership, not Marriage. Sex is not the basis for any law, as far as I know, and it certainly isn't a basis for marriage. Homosexuality is not being banned in any state, and no one I know of has ever advocated it. Sexually deviant behaviors are not legitimized into law because the Constitution does not grant the equal rights of all deviants. Some deviant behaviors are accepted by society, while others are rejected. Society bases such decisions on a variety of things, including religious faith and beliefs taught through their religions.

Sex is not the basis for any law? Did you not just argue above that the state may and does discriminate against other "sexual deviants?"

You are evading. If allowing gays to marry must lead to the destruction of the notion that marriage requires consent because, as you claim, we must treat all “sexual deviants” the same, then why didn't Lawrence lead to that in sex?

Now you are at the absurd position of arguing that due process demands that we outlaw homosexual sex or legalize stat rape, necrophilia, bestiality, rape and any and every other thing associated with sex. But the courts don’t use your fucking retarded principles and illogic. You are the ONLY one that does not understand the context. Those things are illegal because they are not consensual and, therefore, state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting them, but not homosexuality. The same will be the basis for overturning the bans on gay marriage.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are supposed to explain your absurd position. Name one other "sexual deviancy" that we make illegal based on sexual deviancy, and not a lack of consent?

I did name another, you fucking moron! Indecent Exposure, Public Nudity, Masturbating in Public... ALL against the fucking law! Having sex with animals, having sex with corpses, BOTH illegal acts of sexual deviant behavior. Now you can make some fucktard argument that 'sexual deviancy' is not the 'reason' these things are illegal, but I will argue there are a number of reasons ANYTHING is made illegal, and it often centers around our moralities, our religious teachings, and our traditional culture.

And you can give no examples of your idiotic claim.

Yes I did, several times, you are just apparently too stupid to read!

You have mentioned rape and you continue to do so by arguing that the "sexual deviance" of homosexuals is akin to sex without consent.

In this debate, I have not mentioned "rape" once! Show me the fucking post where I compared homosexuality to rape... ANY FUCKING WHERE ON THIS FORUM EVER? You goddamn sack of shit LIAR!

Indecent exposure laws are not based on sexual deviance. Like I said, read the Lawrence decision. Sex in public is illegal for homo or hetero. Forcing others to winess your sexual acts against their will is a small step from rape and the state has a legitimate interest in protecting others from both. But, you can do whatever you like so long as all participants consent.

"Consent" is a word we assign a particular meaning to, just like "Marriage!" If we can change and alter the meanings to fit our desires and wishes, then we can change "consent" to mean "eye contact!" IF some chick made eye contact with me, it can be viewed as "consent" for me to fuck her! See how that works, moron? That's the whole damn point here, we CAN'T just change what words mean because we want them to include our desires! That is EXACTLY what you are trying to do with Marriage! It is the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, not same-sex partnerships!

And blacks were not denied the right to marry someone of their own race under anti-miscegenation laws, yet they were overturned.

Fuck you prick! Stop comparing racial discrimination to denial of homosexuals attempts to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage! It's two entirely different arguments, and you've not established where homosexuals are being discriminated against on the basis of being homosexual.

Sex is not the basis for any law? Did you not just argue above that the state may and does discriminate against other "sexual deviants?"

Right... Sexual DEVIANTS ...I realize, to you, that means any and all sex, since you're a pervert, but for most of us normal people, we can discern the difference between "sex" and "deviant sexual behavior!"

You are evading. If allowing gays to marry must lead to the destruction of the notion that marriage requires consent because, as you claim, we must treat all “sexual deviants” the same, then why didn't Lawrence lead to that in sex?

Because Lawrence didn't redefine marriage and base it on sexuality!

Now you are at the absurd position of arguing that due process demands that we outlaw homosexual sex or legalize stat rape, necrophilia, bestiality, rape and any and every other thing associated with sex. But the courts don’t use your fucking retarded principles and illogic. You are the ONLY one that does not understand the context. Those things are illegal because they are not consensual and, therefore, state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting them, but not homosexuality. The same will be the basis for overturning the bans on gay marriage.

I've not argued anything except what the 14th Amendment says about Equal Protection. If you redefine "marriage" to accommodate a sexual lifestyle or behavior, you MUST grant the same "right" to any sexually deviant behavior that requests it, the Constitution guarantees that!

 

[Timshel]

I did name another, you fucking moron! Indecent Exposure, Public Nudity, Masturbating in Public... ALL against the fucking law! Having sex with animals, having sex with corpses, BOTH illegal acts of sexual deviant behavior. Now you can make some fucktard argument that 'sexual deviancy' is not the 'reason' these things are illegal, but I will argue there are a number of reasons ANYTHING is made illegal, and it often centers around our moralities, our religious teachings, and our traditional culture.

AFTER, my "What???" comment.

None of those are illegal on the basis of them being "sexually deviant." And basing laws on YOUR morality, religious teachings or traditional culture has been rejected time and again as not being a valid state interest.

Again, read the Lawrence ruling. It overturned Bower where the court reasoned that sodomy laws were okay because they were long standing and in accord with traditions.

Yes I did, several times, you are just apparently too stupid to read!

You did not. Your every example is of actions that are not consensual.

In this debate, I have not mentioned "rape" once! Show me the fucking post where I compared homosexuality to rape... ANY FUCKING WHERE ON THIS FORUM EVER? You goddamn sack of shit LIAR!

Sex without consent is rape. That is why sex with a minor is statutory rape. ALL you have mentioned are various forms of sexual conduct without consent.

"Consent" is a word we assign a particular meaning to, just like "Marriage!" If we can change and alter the meanings to fit our desires and wishes, then we can change "consent" to mean "eye contact!" IF some chick made eye contact with me, it can be viewed as "consent" for me to fuck her! See how that works, moron? That's the whole damn point here, we CAN'T just change what words mean because we want them to include our desires! That is EXACTLY what you are trying to do with Marriage! It is the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, not same-sex partnerships!

WE HAVE "REDEFINED" MARRIAGE SEVERAL TIMES. That is, we have not really redefinied it, but we have changed conditions under which one may marry and that is all that is being argued for here.

No one is arguing that we "redefine" consent or deny its part in equal freedom for all. Well, you are. You are the one denying the importance of consent or free choice in regards to marriage. You are attacking that concept.

Fuck you prick! Stop comparing racial discrimination to denial of homosexuals attempts to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage! It's two entirely different arguments, and you've not established where homosexuals are being discriminated against on the basis of being homosexual.

You are evading. The argument used in Virginia was the same as yours and you know it.

How is "defining" marriage as a union between two people of the same race in order to exclude mixed race couples anymore discriminatory than defining it as a man and a woman to exclude same sex marriages?

Why isn't it okay to bar the "sexual deviancy" of mixed race sex/marriages? That is, you defined "sexual deviancy" as sex that is not the norm. Interracial marriages are hardly the norm. Under that definition it can be said to be deviant behavior.

Let's guess, how you will respond. You will claim the above is racist and drop the context of your definition of deviancy to mean immoral. Why, because you are a dishonest piece of shit that can't give any legitimate reason why abnormal is wrong in one instance but not in the other.

Right... Sexual DEVIANTS ...I realize, to you, that means any and all sex, since you're a pervert, but for most of us normal people, we can discern the difference between "sex" and "deviant sexual behavior!"

So, then sex is the basis for some laws?

Because Lawrence didn't redefine marriage and base it on sexuality

I've not argued anything except what the 14th Amendment says about Equal Protection. If you redefine "marriage" to accommodate a sexual lifestyle or behavior, you MUST grant the same "right" to any sexually deviant behavior that requests it, the Constitution guarantees that!!

Again, you drop context. I did not ask why Lawrence did not lead to all forms of marriages, whether consent is present or not. I asked why did it not lead to overturning laws against sex without consent, or as you call rape, "sexual deviancy."

The court ruled that due process and equal protection of the laws invalidated laws against the "sexually deviant" behavior of same gender sex. Why hasn't the same right been extended to all "sexual deviants" to engage in sex, as you claim must happen if we recognize gay marriage.

Your answers are nothing but bullshit evasions where you continuosly change the maening of words like abnormal or deviance, in order to pretend that all abnormal sex is prohibitable, except when the abnormal sex, e.g.,interracial, is okay with you (more likely, you are just afraid to oppose it).

What you really mean is immoral sex is prohibitable. But you can't support why homosexual sex is immoral and heterosexual sex is not. The courts and I, can support why stat rape and the others are prohibitable. The principle is simple, if it is not consensual it is prohibitable.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything! In fact, I'll repeat it again for your stupid ass... We can still discriminate based on sexual deviancy, there is no law prohibiting it yet. Do you know of a law? Got one for us, Skippy? Point me out the part of the Constitution that says; All Sexual Deviants are Created Equal and Endowed with Equal Rights! You can't find it because it's not in there, we don't have a law prohibiting the discrimination of sexual deviant behavior, and we certainly DO discriminate against sexual deviant behaviors all the time.



I didn't say anything to admit it was discrimination to deny homosexuals the right to hijack traditional marriage. You made an illogical leap, like you often do, because you are retarded and unable to comprehend context.



Yes, I tell them they are sick twisted freaks all the time, they laugh. What has my personal relationship with homosexuals got to do with a discussion of what society can and can't do regarding legalization of gay marriage? Here's something that might jump clean over your empty pinhead... My political views often differ from my personal views. This is a good example! I would love nothing more than to make all the gay people happy and give them what they want, and IF I WAS KING, perhaps I would grant them their wish! But I understand WE live in a free SOCIETY, where everyone gets a say in what we do, everyone has a voice and opinion, and everyone deserves to have their voice heard on this. An overwhelming majority does not agree with your idea of Gay Marriage, and have made that clear as a bell in initiative after initiative across America. Some oppose it from a legal standpoint, some oppose it from a moral standpoint, some oppose it from a religious standpoint. It's their right to oppose it as much as it's your right to support it, and traditionally, we settle it by casting a vote!

You want to try and manipulate my position into a 'homophobic anti-gay' viewpoint, because it disagrees with your view, which you see as 'pro-gay'. But I am not homophobic at all, I have no problem with homosexuals, I have friends who are gay, I have relatives who are gay, and because of my close association with a lot of gay friends and family, I have been mistakenly presumed to be gay myself before! This is NOT about whether I like gay people! This is about changing the definition of a word to fit your desires, and I reject that concept on that basis alone! Furthermore, it is about the consequences to the rule of law and how the 14th Amendment might apply to such a decision. You've not thought past the end of your queer little dick about that, you don't care, you are an emotive nitwit who just wants to bash people you don't know and call them horrible names because they disagree with your politics.

I presented an idea for comprehensive civil union contracts, and doing away with government sanction of marriage. That would give all these gay people you feel so sorry for, every goddamn right and benefit they ever wanted! At the same time, it gives religious people what they want, it gives those concerned about the legality precedent issues, and ethical and moral concerns, exactly what they want as well. But that isn't good enough for you! Nooo... You have to keep bashing Dixie and calling him a homophobic bigot, because THAT is what this issue is about for YOU!

And here you admit to willful discrimination, again.

Since you have such an open relationship with your gay frineds, it stands to reason that when two of them were getting married and the minister asked if anyone objected; you stood up and objected because the marriage was an abomination.

You really just need to accept the fact that society is going to accept same sex marriages and that the Supreme Court is going to bitch slap all you knuckledraggers for discriminating.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Ergo: You're a fucktard who doesn't have the capacity to understand basic English sentences in context.

You admitted it and now you can't spin your way out of it.

 

[Liberty]

Nope, I don't know where you got that! ....Oh wait. you're a fucking retarded idiot who can't read, comprehend, or digest anything in context... I forgot!

Dixie,

I liked your old avatar better.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am officially done with this conversation. If Stringy wants to be stupid and think that laws are only established on things unrelated to our morals, then there is no use in talking about this any more, that is all that needs to be said. We've been establishing laws based on our moral foundations for over 200 years in this country, and we will continue to make laws based on society's collective moral temperance, as long as we have a 1st Amendment right to do so. To refuse to acknowledge that we do this, is beyond ignorance, it is the height of arrogance and stubborn refusal to accept reality.

You want to keep screaming "consent" and "victim" but those are WORDS we have defined to mean what they mean, LIKE MARRIAGE! And YES, you DO want to redefine marriage and what it is, that is why you are meeting so much resistance to this, and why it will NEVER be implemented as law of the land. Far more people disagree with your viewpoint than agree with it, and that isn't going to change unless you BAN religion!

It's ridiculous, this thread was supposed to be a reasonable discussion between Libertarians and Social Conservatives, to try and bridge the differences between the two, or at least to better understand each other. But a couple of Pro-Gay-Marriage morons have HIJACKED the thread (as if there weren't enough on the topic already) to continue the bashfest against people who disagree strongly with their view. So congratulations Libertarians, you've allowed your philosophy to be defined by these couple of idiots who want to grant equal rights to all sexual deviants in society. That's the difference between Libertarians and Social Conservatives!

 

[Liberty]

I am officially done with this conversation. If Stringy wants to be stupid and think that laws are only established on things unrelated to our morals, then there is no use in talking about this any more, that is all that needs to be said. We've been establishing laws based on our moral foundations for over 200 years in this country, and we will continue to make laws based on society's collective moral temperance, as long as we have a 1st Amendment right to do so. To refuse to acknowledge that we do this, is beyond ignorance, it is the height of arrogance and stubborn refusal to accept reality.

You want to keep screaming "consent" and "victim" but those are WORDS we have defined to mean what they mean, LIKE MARRIAGE! And YES, you DO want to redefine marriage and what it is, that is why you are meeting so much resistance to this, and why it will NEVER be implemented as law of the land. Far more people disagree with your viewpoint than agree with it, and that isn't going to change unless you BAN religion!

It's ridiculous, this thread was supposed to be a reasonable discussion between Libertarians and Social Conservatives, to try and bridge the differences between the two, or at least to better understand each other. But a couple of Pro-Gay-Marriage morons have HIJACKED the thread (as if there weren't enough on the topic already) to continue the bashfest against people who disagree strongly with their view. So congratulations Libertarians, you've allowed your philosophy to be defined by these couple of idiots who want to grant equal rights to all sexual deviants in society. That's the difference between Libertarians and Social Conservatives!

Good! It's about time.

Just remember that Social Conservitives want a big theocratic form of gov't, and Libertarians are trying to get rid of the big government that Progressive Social Conservitives have stolen upon us.

 

[Bai Lan]

Good! It's about time.

Just remember that Social Conservitives want a big theocratic form of gov't, and Libertarians are trying to get rid of the big government that Progressive Social Conservitives have stolen upon us.

But the real fissure is between those who think business policy should be crafted to benefit working americans, and those that think they should be displaced on purpose with foreign labor, and purposeful neglect of immigration policy and border policy.

This begs the question. What is the goal of national economic policy?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Good! It's about time.

Just remember that Social Conservitives want a big theocratic form of gov't, and Libertarians are trying to get rid of the big government that Progressive Social Conservitives have stolen upon us.

Do you intend to change your moniker to Dixie 2??

 

[Canceled.LTroll.17]

Good! It's about time.

Just remember that Social Conservitives want a big theocratic form of gov't, and Libertarians are trying to get rid of the big government that Progressive Social Conservitives have stolen upon us.

I have long felt that it is readers and viewers of conservative media who could benefit from a more balanced discussion of what is at stake in our policy and the actions of our government.

 

[apple0154]

But the real fissure is between those who think business policy should be crafted to benefit working americans, and those that think they should be displaced on purpose with foreign labor, and purposeful neglect of immigration policy and border policy.

This begs the question. What is the goal of national economic policy?

That's where social policies come into play. If a corporation or business tycoon feels it's better to outsource a particular job, fine, as long as the American citizen has an adequate standard of living. If we can buy $100 shoes for $25, great! Get rid of the employees and the business that makes $100 shoes, however, considering we all need shoes we can all contribute to the financial needs of said employees.

We all save $75 on a pair of shoes. Part of those savings should go towards retraining the employees for another profession. Considering the population is aging we'll need everything from hospital beds to syringes.

Keeping Americans employed for the sake of employment is nothing more than a make-work project. It's counter-productive and demeaning. It's on par with a sheltered workshop for the mentally challenged.

It's time to adjust to the 21st century. As technology increases jobs are going to be lost and I say, "Good riddance!"

What is the point of automation and technology and invention if not to do away with labor? It's time to think about society, as a whole, and not just oneself.

Let us shift from glorifying the wealthy individual to the individual who benefits society. Let us admire the latter and teach our youth that is what life is all about. Then we'll be on the right road.

 

[Bai Lan]

That's where social policies come into play. If a corporation or business tycoon feels it's better to outsource a particular job, fine, as long as the American citizen has an adequate standard of living. If we can buy $100 shoes for $25, great! Get rid of the employees and the business that makes $100 shoes, however, considering we all need shoes we can all contribute to the financial needs of said employees.

We all save $75 on a pair of shoes. Part of those savings should go towards retraining the employees for another profession. Considering the population is aging we'll need everything from hospital beds to syringes.

Keeping Americans employed for the sake of employment is nothing more than a make-work project. It's counter-productive and demeaning. It's on par with a sheltered workshop for the mentally challenged.

It's time to adjust to the 21st century. As technology increases jobs are going to be lost and I say, "Good riddance!"

What is the point of automation and technology and invention if not to do away with labor? It's time to think about society, as a whole, and not just oneself.

Let us shift from glorifying the wealthy individual to the individual who benefits society. Let us admire the latter and teach our youth that is what life is all about. Then we'll be on the right road.

They're sending "better careers" overseas too. They're leaving all american out in the cold.

Telling americans to just wait on the dole until 40 in a simulated reality where everybody is a genius is just an irresponsible delusion. Enforcing borders and immigration quotas, and keeping them low to keep americans employed is not "make work". It's just giving citizens priority. We should keep the capacity to do all levels of work. to keep our society balanced and self reliant. overspecialization has it's downsides.

 

[Damocles]

Individual rights is a form of morality damo.

But not a form of religion.

 

[Bai Lan]

But not a form of religion.

But yes a form of dogma.

 

[Damocles]

But yes a form of dogma.

Dogma is not subjective. It is a specific list of dos and don'ts. Like don't let gays marry, and don't suffer a witch to live.

I'm wondering why there aren't more witches killed.

The reality is "government should be created to protect the rights of individuals", makes it very subjective. For instance what way does a seat belt law "protect the rights of individuals?" The question itself makes it subjective, not objective. Dogma is always objective.

How does allowing Christians to pretend their dogma is somehow okay to force onto others protect the right of any individual? The role of government should be to protect the right of the individual, not to force them to follow the dogma of a group.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dogma is not subjective. It is a specific list of dos and don'ts. Like don't let gays marry, and don't suffer a witch to live.

I'm wondering why there aren't more witches killed.

The reality is "government should be created to protect the rights of individuals", makes it very subjective. For instance what way does a seat belt law "protect the rights of individuals?" The question itself makes it subjective, not objective. Dogma is always objective.

How does allowing Christians to pretend their dogma is somehow okay to force onto others protect the right of any individual? The role of government should be to protect the right of the individual, not to force them to follow the dogma of a group.

Hey Dumo, wasn't it you who argued in another thread, the Unitarian Church and others are perfectly okay with marrying homosexuals? Didn't you make a huge deal about the fact that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality specifically? But here, you want to pretend this is religious "dogma" to object to Gay Marriage.... doesn't comport with rational logic, does it? How can it be fine and dandy with Unitarians and Jesus, yet in conflict of the Christian dogma? How can it be that Christian dogma both prohibits Gay Marriage, and endorses Gay Marriage, or doesn't address Homosexuality as a sin?

See, what you have done, is misused terminology. The Christian DOGMA has nothing to do with opposition to gay marriage. It might INFLUENCE some Christians views, but herein lies the rub.... There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting us from establishing laws based on our religious influences. Not a damn thing! We can't establish a religion... We can't establish dogma, like if Congress wanted to outlaw consumption of pork... but we most certainly CAN AND DO make laws based on our religious influences, values, morals, and viewpoints. We have the guaranteed right to do so, and for you to pretend that is somehow 'denied' to us in return for a mandated judicial ruling, is not much different than what Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Mao, and others have done. Enjoy the company you keep, moron!