Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As far as gay marriage goes, for me, I couldn't care less about it. It affects me in no way whatsoever, and I have yet to hear a valid argument that goes against it. If two gay people want to be married, I don't see how that should be a problem for anyone else. That's how I feel about that particular issue.
My issue is that the federal government has no right to force a State to allow it if the State doesn't want it. What the feds CAN do is force states to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States under full faith and credit, same as driver's licenses, and one of these days I hope, CCW's.
If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?
If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?
I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.
Thanks for your input.
Nobody actually agrees on everything with any other individual, no less a bunch of people all completely agreeing on a whole bunch of issues and practices. The problem is that people allow their psychological need for acceptance and security to guide their actions, instead of applying introspection to clean that stuff up. There's no honesty or wisdom in a group mentality; only self-serving emotional appeasement.
It seems to me that the most staunch party supporters agree with just about everything their respective parties espouse. So, that is why I'm asking the question. To try and get people to honestly evaluate their own positions and why they feel the way the feel, or if their positions are based on anything but partisanship.
Im a registered Republican but most issues I side with the Libertarians.
What I hate with about the Republicans is their foriegn policy of regime change and world police.
If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?
If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?
I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.
Thanks for your input.
Nobody actually agrees on everything with any other individual, no less a bunch of people all completely agreeing on a whole bunch of issues and practices. The problem is that people allow their psychological need for acceptance and security to guide their actions, instead of applying introspection to clean that stuff up. There's no honesty or wisdom in a group mentality; only self-serving emotional appeasement.
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
Im a registered Republican but most issues I side with the Libertarians.
What I hate with about the Republicans is their foriegn policy of regime change and world police.
Me too. I am sick and tired of being the "daddy" to the rest of the world. Let someone else play daddy for a change! They complain and bitch and moan about us, but when it comes to interfering in other countries' problems, they seem to DEMAND that we get involved. It's frustrating and annoying.
As far as gay marriage goes, for me, I couldn't care less about it. It affects me in no way whatsoever, and I have yet to hear a valid argument that goes against it. If two gay people want to be married, I don't see how that should be a problem for anyone else. That's how I feel about that particular issue.
My issue is that the federal government has no right to force a State to allow it if the State doesn't want it. What the feds CAN do is force states to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States under full faith and credit, same as driver's licenses, and one of these days I hope, CCW's.
Well, I am more for individual rights I guess. I don't think the state or the feds have a right to tell the people what they can do as long as it is not classified as a "crime" and they are not harming anyone else by doing whatever it is that they are doing. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule, when it comes to children, the mentally disabled, people who can't consent for whatever reasons, etc.
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
In theory those "perks" were granted because the married couple was what provided future citizens that, in turn provided future citizens. Without them you have no Police, no Firefighters, no Doctors to help you in old age.
That being said, the institution is not what it once was. Those "perks" should now only go to the individuals that create the future citizens to help defray the cost of raising them. The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.
As for polygamists, without the sanction of Marriage as a Government sanctioned contract, the word "polygamy" is simply a stupid concept. People practice it, in one form our another millions of times a day but call it an "open relationship".
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
In theory those "perks" were granted because the married couple was what provided future citizens that, in turn provided future citizens. Without them you have no Police, no Firefighters, no Doctors to help you in old age.
That being said, the institution is not what it once was. Those "perks" should now only go to the individuals that create the future citizens to help defray the cost of raising them. The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.
As for polygamists, without the sanction of Marriage as a Government sanctioned contract, the word "polygamy" is simply a stupid concept. People practice it, in one form our another millions of times a day but call it an "open relationship".
I have to wonder why anyone would want to torture themselves like that? If I had 6 husbands, I would be forever cleaning and doing laundry and cooking, I imagine. 
If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?
If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?
I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.
Thanks for your input.
Nobody actually agrees on everything with any other individual, no less a bunch of people all completely agreeing on a whole bunch of issues and practices. The problem is that people allow their psychological need for acceptance and security to guide their actions, instead of applying introspection to clean that stuff up. There's no honesty or wisdom in a group mentality; only self-serving emotional appeasement.
Could have fooled me!
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
In theory those "perks" were granted because the married couple was what provided future citizens that, in turn provided future citizens. Without them you have no Police, no Firefighters, no Doctors to help you in old age.
That being said, the institution is not what it once was. Those "perks" should now only go to the individuals that create the future citizens to help defray the cost of raising them. The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.
As for polygamists, without the sanction of Marriage as a Government sanctioned contract, the word "polygamy" is simply a stupid concept. People practice it, in one form our another millions of times a day but call it an "open relationship".
Could you imagine if you had like 6 wives?
As far as gay marriage goes, for me, I couldn't care less about it. It affects me in no way whatsoever, and I have yet to hear a valid argument that goes against it. If two gay people want to be married, I don't see how that should be a problem for anyone else. That's how I feel about that particular issue.
My issue is that the federal government has no right to force a State to allow it if the State doesn't want it. What the feds CAN do is force states to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States under full faith and credit, same as driver's licenses, and one of these days I hope, CCW's.
Well, I am more for individual rights I guess. I don't think the state or the feds have a right to tell the people what they can do as long as it is not classified as a "crime" and they are not harming anyone else by doing whatever it is that they are doing. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule, when it comes to children, the mentally disabled, people who can't consent for whatever reasons, etc.
The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.
And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
In theory those "perks" were granted because the married couple was what provided future citizens that, in turn provided future citizens. Without them you have no Police, no Firefighters, no Doctors to help you in old age.
That being said, the institution is not what it once was. Those "perks" should now only go to the individuals that create the future citizens to help defray the cost of raising them. The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.
As for polygamists, without the sanction of Marriage as a Government sanctioned contract, the word "polygamy" is simply a stupid concept. People practice it, in one form our another millions of times a day but call it an "open relationship".
Wait....wut? Without marriage you nave no police or doctors to help you?
I still don't get it.
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
In theory those "perks" were granted because the married couple was what provided future citizens that, in turn provided future citizens. Without them you have no Police, no Firefighters, no Doctors to help you in old age.
That being said, the institution is not what it once was. Those "perks" should now only go to the individuals that create the future citizens to help defray the cost of raising them. The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.
As for polygamists, without the sanction of Marriage as a Government sanctioned contract, the word "polygamy" is simply a stupid concept. People practice it, in one form our another millions of times a day but call it an "open relationship".
Wait....wut? Without marriage you nave no police or doctors to help you?
I still don't get it.
They were all once children. And that is the theory as to why the Government granted these perks. They, the children were being "financed" for future purpose, and with a growing nation, with growing needs, the Government used the "perks" as an incentive to increase population.
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
In theory those "perks" were granted because the married couple was what provided future citizens that, in turn provided future citizens. Without them you have no Police, no Firefighters, no Doctors to help you in old age.
That being said, the institution is not what it once was. Those "perks" should now only go to the individuals that create the future citizens to help defray the cost of raising them. The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.
As for polygamists, without the sanction of Marriage as a Government sanctioned contract, the word "polygamy" is simply a stupid concept. People practice it, in one form our another millions of times a day but call it an "open relationship".
Could you imagine if you had like 6 wives?
As far as gay marriage goes, for me, I couldn't care less about it. It affects me in no way whatsoever, and I have yet to hear a valid argument that goes against it. If two gay people want to be married, I don't see how that should be a problem for anyone else. That's how I feel about that particular issue.
My issue is that the federal government has no right to force a State to allow it if the State doesn't want it. What the feds CAN do is force states to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States under full faith and credit, same as driver's licenses, and one of these days I hope, CCW's.
Well, I am more for individual rights I guess. I don't think the state or the feds have a right to tell the people what they can do as long as it is not classified as a "crime" and they are not harming anyone else by doing whatever it is that they are doing. Of course, there are some exceptions to that rule, when it comes to children, the mentally disabled, people who can't consent for whatever reasons, etc.
The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.
And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?
Well, I don't think they should have such powers to control people and who other people marry or who can have an abortion and who can't. I do not think they are trustworthy or competent enough to make such decisions for anyone else. Governments are, after all, made up of just human beings who are as fallible as any other human beings.
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
In theory those "perks" were granted because the married couple was what provided future citizens that, in turn provided future citizens. Without them you have no Police, no Firefighters, no Doctors to help you in old age.
That being said, the institution is not what it once was. Those "perks" should now only go to the individuals that create the future citizens to help defray the cost of raising them. The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.
As for polygamists, without the sanction of Marriage as a Government sanctioned contract, the word "polygamy" is simply a stupid concept. People practice it, in one form our another millions of times a day but call it an "open relationship".
Wait....wut? Without marriage you nave no police or doctors to help you?
I still don't get it.
They were all once children. And that is the theory as to why the Government granted these perks. They, the children were being "financed" for future purpose, and with a growing nation, with growing needs, the Government used the "perks" as an incentive to increase population.
Ok, so what does having children have to do with marriage?
Why should those who marry be given government perks? For what? And why can't polygamists marry if gays can? State sanctioned marriage is just another brainless entitlement that divides America. Some are worthy of it, others are not.n This division is then fodder for future political campaigns to divide and conquer the nation.
In theory those "perks" were granted because the married couple was what provided future citizens that, in turn provided future citizens. Without them you have no Police, no Firefighters, no Doctors to help you in old age.
That being said, the institution is not what it once was. Those "perks" should now only go to the individuals that create the future citizens to help defray the cost of raising them. The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.
As for polygamists, without the sanction of Marriage as a Government sanctioned contract, the word "polygamy" is simply a stupid concept. People practice it, in one form our another millions of times a day but call it an "open relationship".
Wait....wut? Without marriage you nave no police or doctors to help you?
I still don't get it.
They were all once children. And that is the theory as to why the Government granted these perks. They, the children were being "financed" for future purpose, and with a growing nation, with growing needs, the Government used the "perks" as an incentive to increase population.
Ok, so what does having children have to do with marriage?
Today? far less than in the past.
If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?
If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?
I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.
Thanks for your input.
Nobody actually agrees on everything with any other individual, no less a bunch of people all completely agreeing on a whole bunch of issues and practices. The problem is that people allow their psychological need for acceptance and security to guide their actions, instead of applying introspection to clean that stuff up. There's no honesty or wisdom in a group mentality; only self-serving emotional appeasement.
But politicians only care about one thing, money and power............OK...............two things.
The reason abortion is the law of the land is because it is a billion dollar business, and Progs are all bent out of shape about preserving their natural resources, so depopulation is the goal.
Also, the reason gay marriage is the law of the land is because the gay lobby gives so much money to politicians. After all, gays tend to be socio-economically upwardly mobile, with no family to raise. Conversely, polygamists give all their money to support their large families, so they will never be allowed to marry because they don't give that money to bureaucrats. Promoting gay sex is also a means at population control. It's all about control.
The only way for polygamists to get married is if the gay lobby wishes it.
