Get your conservative and liberal ideas approved or shot down here

[TheGreatGatsby]

By legalizing monogamous heterosexual marriage ONLY, the government is already picking and choosing what's moral or immoral.

No. They are acknowledging the reality that a stable home environment derives from a mother and father naturally having a child. They are acknowledging that's the bedrock of society.

See, this is my point. You try to make it about so-called equality but inherently gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are generally not even the same function. Why the hell then would I want government to pretend that it is?

The morality or immorality of sexual relations outside the confines of legal marriage cannot be meaningfully broken down along heterosexual or homosexual lines.

What is more 'immoral' about two unmarried women or two unmarried men having sex,

compared to an unmarried man having sex with an unmarried woman?

For the umpteenth time, I'm not promoting the morality or immorality of gay marriage. My point is I don't want the govt. involved in promoting it either. Individuals should be allowed to have their own beliefs on the matter.

 

[freedombecki]

Repeal the 17th amendment.

Return the appointement of senators to the states. This would remove them as players in Washington vieing for re-election based on populist issues and would focus them on maintaining states powers.

Of course, some states might not like the idea.

I would not support that because Senators were guaranteed to each state regardless of population size.

Since states who signed on only because they were promised equal representation in a Senate that passes final bills, if you remove the Senate equality granted to these states as a promise, you have literally destroyed the one thing that brought at least 40 states into the Union.

Plus, the only way you can get that to happen is to get it passed through the senate.

I can seriously tell you ~ it ain't gonna happen!!!

 

[Peach]

By legalizing monogamous heterosexual marriage ONLY, the government is already picking and choosing what's moral or immoral.

No. They are acknowledging the reality that a stable home environment derives from a mother and father naturally having a child. They are acknowledging that's the bedrock of society.

See, this is my point. You try to make it about so-called equality but inherently gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are generally not even the same function. Why the hell then would I want government to pretend that it is?

The morality or immorality of sexual relations outside the confines of legal marriage cannot be meaningfully broken down along heterosexual or homosexual lines.

What is more 'immoral' about two unmarried women or two unmarried men having sex,

compared to an unmarried man having sex with an unmarried woman?

For the umpteenth time, I'm not promoting the morality or immorality of gay marriage. My point is I don't want the govt. involved in promoting it either. Individuals should be allowed to have their own beliefs on the matter.

Of course, but as it is illegal in most states for same gender couples to marry, government IS choosing.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Repeal the 17th amendment.

Return the appointement of senators to the states. This would remove them as players in Washington vieing for re-election based on populist issues and would focus them on maintaining states powers.

Of course, some states might not like the idea.

I would not support that because Senators were guaranteed to each state regardless of population size.

Since states who signed on only because they were promised equal representation in a Senate that passes final bills, if you remove the Senate equality granted to these states as a promise, you have literally destroyed the one thing that brought at least 40 states into the Union.

Plus, the only way you can get that to happen is to get it passed through the senate.

I can seriously tell you ~ it ain't gonna happen!!!

The 17th amendment and the article that guarantees two Senators are separate issues. Repealing the 17th amendment only affects the manner in which Senators are chosen; not how many there are.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Of course, but as it is illegal in most states for same gender couples to marry, government IS choosing.

The govt. has decided that there is no compelling need for gay marriage. And there is no compelling need for it.

 

[Peach]

Of course, but as it is illegal in most states for same gender couples to marry, government IS choosing.

The govt. has decided that there is no compelling need for gay marriage. And there is no compelling need for it.

Thus, the government is deciding for citizens. A Constitutional question.

 

[Listening]

Repeal the 17th amendment.

Return the appointement of senators to the states. This would remove them as players in Washington vieing for re-election based on populist issues and would focus them on maintaining states powers.

Of course, some states might not like the idea.

I would not support that because Senators were guaranteed to each state regardless of population size.

Since states who signed on only because they were promised equal representation in a Senate that passes final bills, if you remove the Senate equality granted to these states as a promise, you have literally destroyed the one thing that brought at least 40 states into the Union.

Plus, the only way you can get that to happen is to get it passed through the senate.

I can seriously tell you ~ it ain't gonna happen!!!

I would ask that you please try to understand the underlying reasoning for my statement.

This is a matter of shifting control from D.C. to the states.

TGG seems to think who selects them does not matter, failing to realize there was a reason the PEOPLE chose the house and the STATES chose the senate. Now that PEOPLE chose the senate, the senate is nothing more than another House of Reps.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Of course, but as it is illegal in most states for same gender couples to marry, government IS choosing.

The govt. has decided that there is no compelling need for gay marriage. And there is no compelling need for it.

Thus, the government is deciding for citizens. A Constitutional question.

And thus why my original argument I led with a Constitutional statement:

Proponents of gay marriage claim that it is an inherent Constitutional right. I completely disagree. Such an issue was not even on the Founding Fathers radar. Nor was it on Lincoln's radar when he signed the 14th Amendment.

NYCaribeener of course decided to argue against my infinite wisdom and state that you were not making a Constitutional argument. I knew it'd come down to it though.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Repeal the 17th amendment.

Return the appointement of senators to the states. This would remove them as players in Washington vieing for re-election based on populist issues and would focus them on maintaining states powers.

Of course, some states might not like the idea.

I would not support that because Senators were guaranteed to each state regardless of population size.

Since states who signed on only because they were promised equal representation in a Senate that passes final bills, if you remove the Senate equality granted to these states as a promise, you have literally destroyed the one thing that brought at least 40 states into the Union.

Plus, the only way you can get that to happen is to get it passed through the senate.

I can seriously tell you ~ it ain't gonna happen!!!

I would ask that you please try to understand the underlying reasoning for my statement.

This is a matter of shifting control from D.C. to the states.

TGG seems to think who selects them does not matter, failing to realize there was a reason the PEOPLE chose the house and the STATES chose the senate. Now that PEOPLE chose the senate, the senate is nothing more than another House of Reps.

You should check the OP and my previous reversal. It does matter who selects them and your way does enable a form of crony govt. However, I did decide that it would return power to the states, which is what the founders wanted.