Marriage is "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

[bendog]

I don't think it's necessary to subscribe to "original intent" to be a conservative.

I don't really care much about original intent. I'd have the same convictions (re: limited gov't) regardless. And for what it's worth, I don't consider myself "conservative".

I apologize. I meant to put in my post that I was imputing the original intent thing. I think the founders agreed with you as to limited govt.

 

[dblack]

I'd say there's no harm so long as other homeowners are not forced to subsidize others without having the opportunity to vote for, or against, subsidizing.

This raises a popular misconception I'd like to address outright. The "opportunity to vote" does nothing to protect our rights. It simply imposes the will of the majority, whose rights aren't generally in need of protection.

 

[Plasmaball]

Why do you continue to pull shit out of your ass? You treat your integrity like a 25 cent whore.

No wonder you're attracted to his posts.

How do you know he's wrong?

He's nutz... certifiable I tell you. One moment he's channeling Goldwater the next Kucinich.

he isnt lying like you do, therefore you dont know how to handle it.

 

[bendog]

I'd say there's no harm so long as other homeowners are not forced to subsidize others without having the opportunity to vote for, or against, subsidizing.

This raises a popular misconception I'd like to address outright. The "opportunity to vote" does nothing to protect our rights. It simply imposes the will of the majority, whose rights aren't generally in need of protection.

This is true. And, my post is not meant to say anything is right or wrong but just what "is." One only has legal reason to complain of the maj's actions if they are somehow penalized AND the action runs afoul of equal protection or due process or some other more seldom encountered protection in the BOR.

In a nutshell, I think your pol philosophy of corporatism basically implies our current understanding of equal protection is too "liberal" or expansive. The law is the govt may treat one group differently than another so long as it can pt to a "good reason." I think you'd be stricter with what constitutes a good reason.

I'm not making any value judgments. But, I wonder if your view is really workable in our 21st century economy. No insult implied in any way.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No wonder you're attracted to his posts.

How do you know he's wrong?

He's nutz... certifiable I tell you. One moment he's channeling Goldwater the next Kucinich.

he isnt lying like you do, therefore you dont know how to handle it.

Lying about what? Are you ******* retarded?
Oh, wait.. never mind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's an undeniable scientific fact:

That among mammalian species, heterosexuality is the predominant genetic and sexual trait. There is a reason for that. For a species to survive it must reproduce. This happens in one of two ways: sexually (by male and female copulation), or asexually (fission). Now, homosexuality does not belong to either of those methods of reproduction. Scientifically speaking, homosexuality takes away from the reproductive capability of a species. For a homosexual couple to raise a child, they must take advantage of reproductive process to do so, through surrogacy or if a lesbian, using the services of a sperm bank. Another is through adoption. If Homosexuality was normal in human beings, wouldn't you see a wider distribution of homosexuals in proportion to heterosexuals?

Now, I have nothing against homosexuals, but science proves that it is an abnormal trait. It is a recessive trait among the human species in particular. If you still don't believe me, explain why less than 3% of Americans and 1 in 5 people worldwide are gay. This signals that it is an aberration in human development.

Since homosexuality has never threatened the ability of humans to maintain or increase their populations,

maybe homosexuality is just a naturally occurring, harmless, variant that is fully integrated into the natural order of the human species.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'd say there's no harm so long as other homeowners are not forced to subsidize others without having the opportunity to vote for, or against, subsidizing.

This raises a popular misconception I'd like to address outright. The "opportunity to vote" does nothing to protect our rights. It simply imposes the will of the majority, whose rights aren't generally in need of protection.

Uhm, what? How does this explain Obama who was put in office primarily by minorities and young whites? Isn't Obama the champion of the underclass? Are their rights not in need of protection?

This makes no sense.

 

[dblack]

I'd say there's no harm so long as other homeowners are not forced to subsidize others without having the opportunity to vote for, or against, subsidizing.

This raises a popular misconception I'd like to address outright. The "opportunity to vote" does nothing to protect our rights. It simply imposes the will of the majority, whose rights aren't generally in need of protection.

Uhm, what? How does this explain Obama who was put in office primarily by minorities and young whites? Isn't Obama the champion of the underclass? Are their rights not in need of protection?

This makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Tradtional 'minorities' now comprise a majority voting block. And, as a group, their rights aren't in any jeopardy. As long as they vote together, they're ensured of getting their way, to the extent their leaders accurately represent their wishes.