The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[Kagom]

That the reason the homoseuxal "rights" advocates have had such a problem - they haven't figured out how to fight their "war" properly. Instead, they focus on individual battles hoping that single victory will win them the war. Anyone who's studied even the most basic texts on strategy understand that you have to choose your battles with winning the war in mind. In this case, the homosexual advocates need to focus on increasing public acceptance of homosexuals WITHOUT trying to force the issue through one or two "battles" in court.

*sigh*

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CockySOB again.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That the reason the homoseuxal "rights" advocates have had such a problem - they haven't figured out how to fight their "war" properly. Instead, they focus on individual battles hoping that single victory will win them the war. Anyone who's studied even the most basic texts on strategy understand that you have to choose your battles with winning the war in mind. In this case, the homosexual advocates need to focus on increasing public acceptance of homosexuals WITHOUT trying to force the issue through one or two "battles" in court.

*sigh*

Yes, your post makes sense, however, the "gay war" is a hoax.

Leftist socialist communists are the ones who are leading the "gay movement". They could care less about "acceptance" of the gays. Instead they want to create as much havoc as they can with our American system because their goal is to breakdown our society and country and take over. This is the REAL war.

The stupid gays don't even realize they are just puppets of the Left. Just look at how gays will support Islam and attack Christianity because the Left leads them to do so. How stupid is that? Christians aren't out to kill gays but Muslims are. Totalitarian new world orders will not tolerate gays if they are not useful to them. Doesn't America come first before gay "marriage"? What's your take on that Kagom? When are gay Americans going to wake up to reality and stop being simpering selfish fools?

 

[mattskramer]

Bullshit. It's common knowledge that the APA was under siege by the queer community, even from the inside....

Yadda yadda yadda. Now the APA is under siege by the anti-gay community.

 

[musicman]

Yadda yadda yadda. Now the APA is under siege by the anti-gay community.

The constant, then - it would seem - is the APA, as an organization whose opinion of what is and isn't mental illness is up for grabs.

Q: What is the APA's position on homosexuality today?

A: I don't know - where is the political pressure coming from?

Hard science, indeed! Sounds like the whole organization is being run by the Clintons.

 

[musicman]

That the reason the homoseuxal "rights" advocates have had such a problem - they haven't figured out how to fight their "war" properly. Instead, they focus on individual battles hoping that single victory will win them the war. Anyone who's studied even the most basic texts on strategy understand that you have to choose your battles with winning the war in mind. In this case, the homosexual advocates need to focus on increasing public acceptance of homosexuals WITHOUT trying to force the issue through one or two "battles" in court.

*sigh*

You're so right. This is why I seldom get into discussions on homosexual rights or abortion policy anymore; to my mind, it always boils down to the same question: whose call should it be? If the answer is anything besides, "the people", I know I'm dealing with a tyrant who distrusts the principle of representative government. If you're convinced of the rightness of your viewpoint, change minds, and leave the shysters out of it.

 

[jillian]

You're so right. This is why I seldom get into discussions on homosexual rights or abortion policy anymore; to my mind, it always boils down to the same question: whose call should it be? If the answer is anything besides, "the people", I know I'm dealing with a tyrant who distrusts the principle of representative government. If you're convinced of the rightness of your viewpoint, change minds, and leave the shysters out of it.

What's wrong with the libertarian route of each person deciding for themselves when their actions affect no one but themselves?

 

[musicman]

Yes, your post makes sense, however, the "gay war" is a hoax.

Leftist socialist communists are the ones who are leading the "gay movement". They could care less about "acceptance" of the gays. Instead they want to create as much havoc as they can with our American system because their goal is to breakdown our society and country and take over. This is the REAL war.

The stupid gays don't even realize they are just puppets of the Left. Just look at how gays will support Islam and attack Christianity because the Left leads them to do so. How stupid is that? Christians aren't out to kill gays but Muslims are. Totalitarian new world orders will not tolerate gays if they are not useful to them. Doesn't America come first before gay "marriage"? What's your take on that Kagom? When are gay Americans going to wake up to reality and stop being simpering selfish fools?

Bullseye! Those who will not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it.

 

[musicman]

What's wrong with the libertarian route of each person deciding for themselves when their actions affect no one but themselves?

Not a thing. Can that freedom apply to communities, as well?

 

[jillian]

Not a thing. Can that freedom apply to communities, as well?

It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality. It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no? I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us. Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"... not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.

 

[musicman]

It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality.

I believe you. I find that disturbing. You are a bright, articulate person who distrusts the fundamental precepts of representative government. I like you - I enjoy chatting with you - but I consider your mindset misguided and dangerous.

It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no?

What's wrong with that, if that's what they want? Isn't it natural to want to be among kindred spirits? With the understanding that everyone's constitutional rights are to be respected, people ought to be allowed to run their own affairs.

I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us.

Do you believe diversity should be enforced, if necessary?

Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"...

In a representative republic, that "government" which "insinuates" itself into "certain issues" is called "the will of the people". The only time I see anyone being forced to do anything is when the central government overflows its constitutional banks and attempts to insinuate ITself in the people's business.

not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that term deals with the creation of the Electoral College - without which there truly would be a "tyranny of the majority". Voting outside large metropolitan areas would be pointless.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality. It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no? I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us. Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"... not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.

You prefer tyranny of the minority?

 

[jillian]

You prefer tyranny of the minority?

Are the only choices tyranny of one sort or another?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Are the only choices tyranny of one sort or another?

You poor misled libs and your foolish "choices"....heads up here!.....a majority vote is NOT tryranny.

 

[jillian]

You poor misled libs and your foolish "choices"....heads up here!.....a majority vote is NOT tryranny.

And if the majority oppresses the minority? That's not tyranny? You poor widdle righties always seeking the authoritarian approach.

Are you so far to the right that you think libertarians are liberals?

 

[mattskramer]

Are the only choices tyranny of one sort or another?

Sufficient things considered, I think that we have a good balance in America with three branches of government and a system of checks and balances. We have a representative democracy with several layers (local, state, and federal jurisdiction). Moderation is almost always the key.

 

[archangel]

and all we hear is Gay-Gay-Gay issues...really getting old...unless y'all mean Happy-Happy-Happy as the definition applies! Okay now... ya can smack me cause' I have no idea of what I am talikng about...just a Red Neck I guess...who deserves a spanking!:fifty:

 

[musicman]

And if the majority oppresses the minority? That's not tyranny? You poor widdle righties always seeking the authoritarian approach.

I think it's just the opposite. Any true oppression of the rights of minorities must submit itself to correction according to the protections of the U.S.Constitution. But, that doesn't seem to be good enough for the left. It is THEY who seek to impose the authoritarianism of central government run amok.

Are you so far to the right that you think libertarians are liberals?

If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community, I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian.

 

[Gunny]

It's fine in concept, but I don't think it works in reality. It would have the effect of segregating people into homogeneous groups, no? I think we all benefit from diversity and having people of all beliefs and groups around us. Also, why should people be forced to uproot themselves to get away from government which has no business insinuating itself into certain issues just because of "majority rule"... not to mention the fact that our Constitution supposedly protects us from tyranny of the majority.

The problem is, people should be able to segregate themselves if they want to. That is ALSO part of "freedom."

I would hardly call enforced multi-culturalism as any form of "freedom." Sounds more like the authoritarianism you claim to not care for.

The minority not having to suffer the tyranny of the majority does not automatically swing 180 so that the majority has to suffer the tyranny of the minority; which, more and more seems to be the case.

 

[musicman]

I'm going to augment and amplify my statement a bit. I'm doing this because I find it extraordinary that the left has been able to hijack language and discourse to the point where the right are portrayed as "authoritarian".

If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community - preferring instead the edicts of a brutish, unelected authority which happens, in this case, to agree with YOU - I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian, and me an authoritarian.

 

[jillian]

I think it's just the opposite. Any true oppression of the rights of minorities must submit itself to correction according to the protections of the U.S.Constitution. But, that doesn't seem to be good enough for the left. It is THEY who seek to impose the authoritarianism of central government run amok.

I think that's kind of disingenuous. You can't realistically say that when people don't want the government to interfere with individual liberties that that they "seek to impose authoritarianism".

If you would not extend libertarian ideals to the collection of individuals known as a self-representing community, I don't know how you can call yourself a libertarian.

I'm not a libertarian, though there is a great deal that the libertarian party stands for that I agree with. And "self-representing communit[ies]" aren't what's embodied in the libertarian platform, because when you talk about self representing communities, you are actually talking about government calling the shots in our personal lives.

This is from the Libertarian Party Platform:

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml


Interestingly enough, Barry Goldwater, the ultimate conservative, probably wouldn't be welcome among today's brand of extremists. He was pro-choice, pro-individual rights and truly supported smaller government, at least when it came to its interference in the lives of individuals.