CDZ If you . . .

[Billy_Kinetta]

I am not, nor have I ever been connected with any political party.

I am an originalist where it concerns constitutional matters.

"Your rights end where mine begin."

So long as you don't interfere with another's rights, then do whatever the hell you want.

Keep in mind I'm speaking of RIGHTS. Mere desire or offense does not confer a right.

 

[Pop23]

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.

The abortion issue is a question as to what makes you human.

I think we both agree that the state has an obligation to enforce laws against murder, so that objection does not fly.

Not even libertarians want to make murder legal.

It actually makes perfect sense.

 

[Votto]

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.

Yeah, simply asking people still stuck in Plato's cave what they believe is kind of pointless. But encouraging them to honestly evaluate those beliefs is worthwhile, which I believe is what she's trying to do with this thread. If a person can be made to understand that their political position is contradictory with their own values, they may be inspired to change. Though this requires courage and an earnest desire to be in accord with truth - two rather taboo qualities in our society.

Most people are incapable of thinking.

I know of a lady who says she liked Obama but not Trump. I asked her why, and she said, "I dunno, I just think Obama is a nicer man".

That is where we are at.

 

[martybegan]

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.

We already say 3 people can't marry each other, or you can't have an abortion after 24 weeks in most places. It's not a black/white thing with control, its about degrees.

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Ok, so why should the state be in the marriage business?

I actually posted earlier that they should not be in the marriage business.

Here:

The institution should be removed as a governmental sanctioned relationship for obvious reasons.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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?

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Yeah, simply asking people still stuck in Plato's cave what they believe is kind of pointless. But encouraging them to honestly evaluate those beliefs is worthwhile, which I believe is what she's trying to do with this thread. If a person can be made to understand that their political position is contradictory with their own values, they may be inspired to change. Though this requires courage and an earnest desire to be in accord with truth - two rather taboo qualities in our society.

Most people are incapable of thinking.

I know of a lady who says she liked Obama but not Trump. I asked her why, and she said, "I dunno, I just think Obama is a nicer man".

That is where we are at.

Probably not really that funny, but you just have to laugh at that kind of ignorance. You could probably argue with that woman all day long and bring up some very cogent points about why you don't have to "like" someone in order for them to be good at a job, but you would probably just be wasting your time unfortunately. It is well known throughout history that governments like to keep their subjects ignorant and uneducated because they are easier to control through propaganda that way.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It's also about how local you can make the choices.

Absolutely. And the logical conclusion of this thinking is to localize choices down to the individual level.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh and nowadays, just because you might have a college degree, that doesn't really mean you are "educated" or "enlightened" in any way at all . . . obviously.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

At least not when it comes to personal matters, such as pregnancies and marriages.

 

[Pop23]

I'm noticing a lack of "Progressives" in this thread. I would think one or two would chime in, if for no other reason to give the impression that they actually do make thoughtful arguments.

But then again, maybe they just don't?

I dunno

 

[rightwinger]

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? 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.

I could never handle more than one wife let alone six. It is not the sex but the emotional baggage that comes with having a mate.
But, I see no harm in it, so do not see a reason for it being illegal.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Most people are incapable of thinking.

I know of a lady who says she liked Obama but not Trump. I asked her why, and she said, "I dunno, I just think Obama is a nicer man".

That is where we are at.

It's really bad, and can be very subtle. Did you ever hear Dave Chapelle's skit about ordering chicken? It's a metaphor for an extremely important and rarely-considered circumstance (I'll post it here; the relevant point is at 1:35).



One of the most striking and uncomfortable realizations I've made along my journey is that my ideas were not my own. I thought these ideas were "of me" - they felt like my own; I had reasons and everything - but they were simply programming all along.

A string of otherwise valid logic can emerge from a false premise, and unless we follow that train of thought all the way to the core, it will seem to us that we're thinking soundly because the logic has no broken links. This is why it's so hard to make someone understand that they're not thinking straight. They're being honest, and their ducks are all in a row, but if they are unwilling to follow the line all the way to the end, they'll never see that their perfect row of ducks are following a rabid squirrel onto the highway.

If the conversation is about cops, for instance, and you start following the thread down to emotional needs, people will say you're off-topic, or spouting psycho-babble. But if you're not willing to go where the thread leads - all the way to the root cause - you'll never be able to think clearly about the effects.

This is our work. And it's hard, vehemently-despised work. You're trying to save a drowning man while he beats you off with an oar.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I've been side tracked and have to take care of something, but will be back later to check out all of the interesting replies to the thread. Thanks to all the participants so far! I really appreciate your honesty and we are having a very civil and nice discussion so far.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm a proud member of the Mind Your Own F@#&ing Business Party.

The one and only policy is shut your mouth and stop telling people what to do.

 

[Pop23]

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? 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.

I could never handle more than one wife let alone six. It is not the sex but the emotional baggage that comes with having a mate.
But, I see no harm in it, so do not see a reason for it being illegal.

RightWinger an I have had some epic battles, but in other cases have been on the same side on a few issues and I've been battling those on the right along side him.

The above is a case in point, and applaud him for those times.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Probably not really that funny, but you just have to laugh at that kind of ignorance. You could probably argue with that woman all day long and bring up some very cogent points about why you don't have to "like" someone in order for them to be good at a job, but you would probably just be wasting your time unfortunately. It is well known throughout history that governments like to keep their subjects ignorant and uneducated because they are easier to control through propaganda that way.

I actually voted for George W. the first time around because he seemed like a nice guy. If you had any idea how many light years that perspective is from where I am now, it would blow your hair back. But people must be earnestly seeking to grow in wisdom; the best we can do is lead by example and encourage them to follow.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

At least not when it comes to personal matters, such as pregnancies and marriages.

I don't see why these issues are different from any other.

 

[Votto]

I'm noticing a lack of "Progressives" in this thread. I would think one or two would chime in, if for no other reason to give the impression that they actually do make thoughtful arguments.

But then again, maybe they just don't?

I dunno

I made the same observation.

I don't think Dims think, they just act how the DNC and media tell them

 

[rightwinger]

Probably not really that funny, but you just have to laugh at that kind of ignorance. You could probably argue with that woman all day long and bring up some very cogent points about why you don't have to "like" someone in order for them to be good at a job, but you would probably just be wasting your time unfortunately. It is well known throughout history that governments like to keep their subjects ignorant and uneducated because they are easier to control through propaganda that way.

I actually voted for George W. the first time around because he seemed like a nice guy. If you had any idea how many light years that perspective is from where I am now, it would blow your hair back. But people must be earnestly seeking to grow in wisdom; the best we can do is lead by example and encourage them to follow.

I was Conservative Republican up until I was in my mid 30s. My parents were hard core Republican and my dad was Archie Bunker Lite. I voted for Reagan and Bush 41 twice and bought most of the party doctrine.
Republicans at the time were more inclusive and had members like Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits who were socially liberal.

But by the mid nineties the party seemed to become more cruel. Any left leaning views were forced out of the party. I heard some of the rhetoric coming from my party and decided that was not the type of person I wanted representing me