Conquer Club

The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Mon May 28, 2012 4:34 am

GreecePwns wrote:There is no tyranny going on here. Nothing being done is an illegal taking of power. But you speak of democracy as the be all, end all on this issue when you know you wouldn't on certain other issues. Why would you only use the popular opinion argument in one issue and not the next? Why would anyone? It's hypocrisy on all sides.

Which is why this thread is unimportant. Popular opinion does not matter on any issue when deciding which path is truly the best, because it is manipulated by people in offices on K Street and Madison Avenue all the time. You claim that some have said the side you disagree with is in the majority and tried to prove otherwise. The proper response is, "so what? Whether or not popular opinion is on your side, popular opinion is wrong on this issue because X, Y and Z."


I have said repeatedly, it's the best way to handle this issue, in my opinion. It's fair, and everyone has an equal say. Why do you hate equality? O:) Just accept that we have different opinions, and I have explained my side thoroughly and it shows no malice or prejudice, only principle. I prove this by continuing to support states who have went about recognizing gay marriage the democratic way, and not having a single judge overturning the votes of millions of people and having one judge impose their views on all people in that state. Call me crazy, but one unelected person ignoring the vote and putting in their own law the way they see fit is leaning towards tyranny.

Popular opinion is important when it comes to issues decided on a popular vote. I will believe you when you say popular opinion is worthless the day gay marriage supporters in general stop incorrectly citing popular opinion as a reason to redefine marriage...

You are making the same mistake with your assumptions that other people make. Just because I am for less regulation, does not mean I want all regulations eliminated. Just because I want lower taxes, does not mean I think all taxes should be abolished. Just because I think democracy is the best answer for this issue, does not mean I think it's best for all issues. It's sad that I have to point that out.

Your argument is silly and nonsense. Your hypocrite comment does not apply because your premise is incorrect. That's like saying since I voted for Obama, I support every single thing Obama does. It's utter nonsense. It really is a shame what this issue does to people when it comes to common sense. But perhaps you are more consumed with trying to make me look silly rather than focusing on what is actually being said,even in the face of what the law of the land says in the matter (DOMA).

I've always enjoyed talking with you. I hope my support of democracy and states rights does not make you hate me and want to bash me.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon May 28, 2012 10:06 am

In other words, phatscotty can't offer a reasonable counter-argument on the actual issue, so he'll keep resorting to "majority rule!" and "it's derrr popular!" Dodge King at his best.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby GreecePwns on Mon May 28, 2012 11:04 am

Reported for trolling.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Woodruff on Mon May 28, 2012 1:34 pm

Phatscotty wrote:The majority is not trying to push their beliefs on the minority. The minority is trying to push their beliefs on the majority. Tyranny of the majority does not apply. Tyranny of the minority does.


If you honestly believe this, then you are strongly deluded.

Phatscotty wrote:Your argument is silly and nonsense. Your hypocrite comment does not apply because your premise is incorrect. That's like saying since I voted for Obama, I support every single thing Obama does. It's utter nonsense.


And yet you actually created a thread specifically for the purpose of pointing out that people who voted for Obama are unhappy with his policies. Hypocrite much?

Phatscotty wrote:It really is a shame what this issue does to people when it comes to common sense.


Do you own any mirrors?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon May 28, 2012 1:43 pm

Phatscotty wrote:The majority is not trying to push their beliefs on the minority. The minority is trying to push their beliefs on the majority. Tyranny of the majority does not apply. Tyranny of the minority does.


I am not even sure "tyranny of the minority" even makes sense as a constructed phrase.

Using the OED's definition of tyranny, I am not sure how the quest for equality equals "Arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power; unjustly severe use of one's authority; despotic treatment or influence; harsh, severe, or unmerciful action; with a and pl., an instance of this, a tyrannical act or proceeding"


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Mon May 28, 2012 7:21 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The majority is not trying to push their beliefs on the minority. The minority is trying to push their beliefs on the majority. Tyranny of the majority does not apply. Tyranny of the minority does.


I am not even sure "tyranny of the minority" even makes sense as a constructed phrase.

Using the OED's definition of tyranny, I am not sure how the quest for equality equals "Arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power; unjustly severe use of one's authority; despotic treatment or influence; harsh, severe, or unmerciful action; with a and pl., an instance of this, a tyrannical act or proceeding"


--Andy


http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/sa ... arnick.php
The Tyranny of the Minority

How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage" Undermines a Free Society

by S. T. Karnick

From the beginning, the debate over "same-sex marriage" has been one of those topsy-turvy issues in which the side that is truly tolerant and fair has been characterized as narrow-minded and oppressive, while the side that is intolerant and blatantly coercive has been depicted as open-minded and sympathetic.

Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex "marriage" want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights.

The issue, it's important to remember, is not whether society will allow homosexuals to "marry." They may already do so, in any church or other sanctioning body that is willing to perform the ceremony. There are, in fact, many organizations willing to do so: the Episcopal Church USA, the Alliance of Baptists, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Unity School of Christianity, the Unitarian Universalists, the Swedenborgian Church of North America, the Quakers, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and the United Church of Christ, among others. Such institutions either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex "marriages" or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.

No laws prevent these churches from conducting marriage ceremonies—and nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to stay out of a church's decision on the issue. Further, any couple of any kind may stand before a gathering of well-wishers and pledge their union to each other, and the law will do nothing to prevent them. Same-sex couples, or any other combination of people, animals, and inanimate objects, can and do "marry" in this way. What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force third parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize these "marriages" and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.

An insurance company, for example, is free to treat a same-sex couple (or an unmarried two-sex couple) the same way it treats married couples, or not. A church can choose to bless same-sex unions, or not. An employer can choose to recognize same-sex couples as "married," or not. As Richard Thompson Ford noted in Slate, "In 1992 only one Fortune 500 company offered employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners; today hundreds do."

In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex "marriage" want to destroy; they want to use the government's power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages whether they want to or not.

The effects of such coercion have already been felt in some places. Adoption agencies, for example, like any other organization, ought to be able to choose whether to give children to same-sex couples, or not. But in Massachusetts, where same-sex "marriage" has been declared legal, these agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.

Minority Rule

What's at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what's in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such "marriages." Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.

Although pro-homosexual radicals continually refer to the forced recognition of same-sex "marriage" as a civil right, as well as a matter of liberating society from hidebound prejudices, such policies are actually the government-enforced imposition of a small group's sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population. That's why nearly all of the moves to legalize same-sex "marriage" have come from the courts, not the democratic process. After all, court cases would not be necessary if the public already agreed with the radicals.

This was made clear in the California Supreme Court's recent ruling that the state constitution's equal protection clauses mean that individuals have a fundamental "right to marry" whomever they choose and that gender restrictions in marriage are thus unconstitutional. The court, Republican-dominated and previously known as moderately conservative, voted by a slim 4—3 margin that sexual orientation would have to be treated just like race and sex in the state's laws. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George declared,

Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation. An individual's sexual orientation—like a person's race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

The court ruled that the state's law approving "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples was not enough—only official recognition as marriage would do.

Note these words in the court's decision: "Our state now recognizes." Actually, the state did no such thing; the court did it for them. The decision struck down Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by 61 percent of the state's voters in the year 2000, which stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." Thus, four judges decided to impose their personal views over the people's clearly expressed will, shown powerfully in the state referendum. Nor does their decision reflect a changed social atmosphere. The issue will remain in contention through the November elections, as the ballot in California will include an initiative to amend the state constitution to prohibit the government from recognizing same-sex "marriages."

What that would mean, of course, is not that Californians would be barred from "marrying" people of the same sex, but that they could not use the government to force other individuals, businesses, and institutions to recognize those "marriages."

As this case shows, the people who seek to "impose their values" on others are those who support government recognition of same-sex "marriage," not those who oppose it.

Moreover, it is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex "marriage" ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not. The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn't decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.

Moreover, even homosexuals agree that marriage is a valid institution. They confirm this powerfully by trying to alter the institution through force of law so that same-sex couples can be included in it. The key difference between traditional marriage and same-sex "marriage," however, is that the government, in acknowledging heterosexual marriage, does not force anything on society; it merely effects the enforcement of a contract that all—or nearly all—people accept as valid and sensible. Same-sex "marriage," by contrast, is not seen as such by most people; forcing individuals to recognize it is not the legal codification of an existing social reality, but instead a radical social change forced by a few on the many.

A Pew Research Center Survey released earlier this year noted in its title that "Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage." The survey reported that 55 percent of Americans oppose "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally," while only 36 percent support such a policy. A table in the report noted that "Most Groups Oppose Gay Marriage," though the study observed that poll respondents approved of allowing civil unions for same-sex couples by a 54—42 percent margin. Clearly, this suggests that most Americans are willing to allow same-sex couples to formalize their relationships in some way, but they don't want to be forced to change the definition of marriage to include them.

A Sea Change

Even fewer people would support same-sex "marriage" if the full implications of laws allowing them were widely known. A few days after the California Supreme Court decision, conservative columnist Dennis Prager noted just how sweeping and anti-democratic the decision was, saying, "Nothing imaginable—leftward or rightward—would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history." Unless the decision is reversed by an amendment to the California or US Constitution, Prager argued, "four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison."

Prager listed some of the social changes he foresees resulting from the court's decision:

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming—to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. . . . Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. . . .

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger—if they show only women's fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

Traditional Jews and Christians—i.e., those who believe in a divine scripture—will be marginalized.

Some might argue that Prager is indulging in hyperbole and will only cause unnecessary panic with these absurd hobgoblins, but it is difficult to see how the people of California would be able to stop sexual radicals from using the state's courts to implement all of these changes—and more—if the decision is allowed to stand. Yet, ironically, Prager notes, this far-reaching, radical decision has been deemed by the press as the compassionate, liberal-minded position on the matter. The mind boggles at the thought of what oppression might look like.

The libertarian writer Jennifer Roback Morse likewise notes that same-sex "marriage" is not a reduction of government intrusion into private lives, but an immense expansion of it. Writing in the National Catholic Register, she observes,

Advocates of same-sex "marriage" insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex "marriage" is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.

Morse provides several examples that show how oppressive the same-sex "liberators" are in practice, including the following:

Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. . . .

And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faced a hearing with the state's Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn't want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

This list could be expanded and will only grow, as sexual radicals across the nation increasingly use the government to break down all resistance to their agenda. Recognizing the vast implications of a successful movement to disallow anyone from recognizing any difference between the sexes, Morse sees who the real victims of oppression would be:

Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?

Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?

As Morse and Prager both note, what advocates of government recognition of same-sex "marriage" are after is not "tolerance and respect," but a forcible reordering of all of society along "gender-neutral" principles—and anyone who resists will face punishment by the government. In such an environment, it should hardly surprise us to see freedom of speech become a thing of the past.

Attitude Adjustments

An example of the suppression of dissent occurred in a debate last year in which the candidates for the Democratic party's presidential nomination discussed issues related to homosexual rights. When Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel came out explicitly for forcing all of society to recognize same-sex "marriages," and the audience erupted in cheers, the more prominent candidates kept their heads down and clearly tried to avoid making any big mistakes.

Two of them, however, were forced into Orwellian moments of self-abasement. Former Senator John Edwards felt compelled to apologize for once having said that he opposed same-sex "marriage" for religious reasons. He promised not to impose his "faith belief" on the American people—though he would apparently be willing to impose the radicals' unbelief on all of society.

Even more revealingly, New Mexico Governor William Richardson, a strong supporter of the homosexualist agenda, blundered when asked whether homosexual behavior is a biological imperative or a choice. Richardson said, "It's a choice." Some people in the audience gasped audibly. This was potentially catastrophic for him because the great majority of homosexual activists claim that homosexual behavior is biological in origin.

Richardson's campaign organization quickly issued a retraction of what he said in the debate. As Prager and Morse point out, this sort of forced "attitude adjustment" will become universal if the "same-sex marriage" agenda is embedded in the nation's laws.

The question of whether the definition of marriage will be made by the free choices of society or by government fiat is the central issue in the "same-sex marriage" controversy. To be sure, those who argue that the government should not discriminate between traditional and same-sex couples can make their case seem principled and liberal-minded. The truth, however, is that those who favor forced recognition of same-sex "marriage" seek to suppress freedom, and those who oppose these ideas represent real liberty.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Symmetry on Thu May 31, 2012 8:13 pm

Scotty- what freedom do you feel you feel would be suppressed? I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a practical example, cos I'm genuinely interested.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:30 pm

Symmetry wrote:Scotty- what freedom do you feel you feel would be suppressed? I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a practical example, cos I'm genuinely interested.


It's icky, dammit!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby AAFitz on Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:01 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
I've always enjoyed talking with you. I hope my support of democracy and states rights does not make you hate me and want to bash me.


It is you that are defending hating and bashing. The rest of us have learned from history and are simply trying to educate the rest.

In the end, such evil policies and those that defended them through mob rule, such as slavery, anti voting rights for women, anti marriage rights for different races will most certainly win out, as reasonable and good always does in the end.

What we are doing now, is just getting you to argue against it more, so if your grandchildren great-grandchildren ever read your filth, you will get exactly what you deserve.

Quite frankly, you are not worthy of an emotion such as hate.

What you will look like in history:
Image
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:31 pm

History will continue to prove that people who think race and sexual preference is the same thing are incorrect and have not even begun to explore the issue. You just want to use it to bash.

Race and sexual preference are two different things.

And my support for democracy does not auto-imply that the people are right 100% of the time. Try to understand that, and you will see that your constant badgering about decades old racial issues in one or two places (which ignore the reality of everywhere else) are based in your own hatred and ignorance and exploitation of another issue in order to further your own.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:35 pm

Phatscotty wrote:History will continue to prove that people who think race and sexual preference is the same thing are incorrect and have not even begun to explore the issue. You just want to use it to bash.

Race and sexual preference are two different things.


None of us are saying they're the same thing. Not a single one of us. We're saying the situations involved in denying access to homosexuals to the same services is precisely the same as the situation involving denying access to services for those of different races in the past.

I don't want to use it to bash. I want to use it to educate. But you do seem to be dead-set against education.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby AAFitz on Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:14 pm

Phatscotty wrote:History will continue to prove that people who think race and sexual preference is the same thing are incorrect and have not even begun to explore the issue. You just want to use it to bash.

Race and sexual preference are two different things.

And my support for democracy does not auto-imply that the people are right 100% of the time. Try to understand that, and you will see that your constant badgering about decades old racial issues in one or two places (which ignore the reality of everywhere else) are based in your own hatred and ignorance and exploitation of another issue in order to further your own.


Yes, that's what you've been saying all along as have your historical brethren:

No, slaves are not people therefore not protected by God: the majority have decided
No, women are not people so they have no right to vote: the majority have decided
No, they are different races so they shall not: the majority have decided
No, they have a different sexual preference so they cant marry: the majority have decided

I have no hatred nor ignorance, cept perhaps the hatred of your ignorance.

And I have no issue of my own here, I merely support others in their fight against oppression, from the likes of you.
Last edited by AAFitz on Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:16 pm

AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
I've always enjoyed talking with you. I hope my support of democracy and states rights does not make you hate me and want to bash me.


It is you that are defending hating and bashing. The rest of us have learned from history and are simply trying to educate the rest.

In the end, such evil policies and those that defended them through mob rule, such as slavery, anti voting rights for women, anti marriage rights for different races will most certainly win out, as reasonable and good always does in the end.

What we are doing now, is just getting you to argue against it more, so if your grandchildren great-grandchildren ever read your filth, you will get exactly what you deserve.

Quite frankly, you are not worthy of an emotion such as hate.

What you will look like in history:



I am with the overwhelming majority of society. Why don't you join us instead of calling all of us names and bullying your new terminologies and trying to define us in your own hateful terms, because that's all you are doing.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby AAFitz on Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:20 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
I've always enjoyed talking with you. I hope my support of democracy and states rights does not make you hate me and want to bash me.


It is you that are defending hating and bashing. The rest of us have learned from history and are simply trying to educate the rest.

In the end, such evil policies and those that defended them through mob rule, such as slavery, anti voting rights for women, anti marriage rights for different races will most certainly win out, as reasonable and good always does in the end.

What we are doing now, is just getting you to argue against it more, so if your grandchildren great-grandchildren ever read your filth, you will get exactly what you deserve.

Quite frankly, you are not worthy of an emotion such as hate.

What you will look like in history:



I am with the overwhelming majority of society. Why don't you join us instead of calling all of us names and bullying your new terminologies and trying to define us in your own hateful terms, because that's all you are doing.


What name did I call you, how in any way am I bullying you, and what new terminology am I trying to define you with, and with what hateful terms?

All you are doing is trying to oppress an entire group of people unjustly, and using mob rule to do it. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of society may wish something evil, will never make me go a long with it, if wrong, or at least, I hope not.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:11 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
I've always enjoyed talking with you. I hope my support of democracy and states rights does not make you hate me and want to bash me.


It is you that are defending hating and bashing. The rest of us have learned from history and are simply trying to educate the rest.

In the end, such evil policies and those that defended them through mob rule, such as slavery, anti voting rights for women, anti marriage rights for different races will most certainly win out, as reasonable and good always does in the end.

What we are doing now, is just getting you to argue against it more, so if your grandchildren great-grandchildren ever read your filth, you will get exactly what you deserve.

Quite frankly, you are not worthy of an emotion such as hate.

What you will look like in history:


I am with the overwhelming majority of society.


Which is undoubtedly why you don't want to discuss that concept known as the Tyranny of the Majority.

Phatscotty wrote:Why don't you join us instead of calling all of us names and bullying your new terminologies and trying to define us in your own hateful terms, because that's all you are doing.


Would you join the Nazis? Would you join the slave owners? Would you join the British during the Revolutionary War? You're asking him to join something that he doesn't believe in, as if he's against you for unimportant reasons. Nobody is bullying here, other than you...that's what the majority is really good at.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:16 pm

A look back into 2009

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:21 pm

Phatscotty wrote:A look back into 2009


More important than the economy?!?!? That right there...yeah, stopped listening at that point.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:21 pm

Like this woman a few years ago said early on in this video. "Civil Unions today, gay marriage tomorrow." And now we are still supposed to believe that the argument has not been changed to "Gay marriage today, gay adoption tomorrow". The argument keeps changing. The large majority of people support civil unions, myself included. Everything beyond that is overreaching and about benefits.




It's not that I wish to prevent gay married couples from getting benefits. It is that I believe the government should not grant any benefits to any married couples period. The sooner people begin to understand the principle, the sooner we can start an actual debate, free from calling people slave owners and enemies of interracial marriage. This is within the overall philosophy of less government involvement in our lives and staying true to the principles to abolish ALL tax credits, write offs, loopholes, and welfare, corporate, joint, and individual...

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Woodruff on Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:41 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Like this woman a few years ago said early on in this video. "Civil Unions today, gay marriage tomorrow." And now we are still supposed to believe that the argument has not been changed to "Gay marriage today, gay adoption tomorrow". The argument keeps changing.


Progress is funny that way...things keep changing.

Phatscotty wrote:The large majority of people support civil unions, myself included. Everything beyond that is overreaching and about benefits.


Because benefits are unimportant to those like you who already get them.

Phatscotty wrote:It's not that I wish to prevent gay married couples from getting benefits. It is that I believe the government should not grant any benefits to any married couples period.


But that ISN'T what you're arguing, typically.

Phatscotty wrote:The sooner people begin to understand the principle, the sooner we can start an actual debate


Wait...you want an actual debate? With legitimate responsiveness from yourself? Or is that too much to ask?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:58 pm

maybe progress isn't just what you say it is. Maybe people are redefining the word progress just the same as they are redefining marriage? Maybe progress has been highjacked. Maybe progress is overreaching. Maybe the issue of progress does not and cannot pertain to the institution of marriage. perhaps progress is the wrong term to use here? Perhaps some people are just using and exploiting progress just because their might be a cash benefit involved? Perhaps gay marriage is just a stepping stone to the issue of gay adoption?

Is any of that a possibility?

I took you off foe to say this. Don't make me regret it! They are honest questions.

Whatever the answer is on this issue, the people have had their say. The verdict is in, for now. You are just going to have to keep fighting. If you truly believe these are rights, like the rights we had to fight the Revolutionary war or the Civil war to get and grant, then you are going to have to fight for them, just like everyone else. I think it's about benefits and adoption.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=171233#p3740443
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby GreecePwns on Sun Jun 03, 2012 3:45 pm

What's your beef with gay adoption? How does that even have to do with your bogus argument that those who fight for gay marriage are doing it for the benefits. And that is what you're saying, don't deny it. That's the only way "using and exploiting progress just because their might be a cash benefit involved" can be taken. Not that government shouldn't be giving benefits.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:03 pm

GreecePwns wrote:What's your beef with gay adoption? How does that even have to do with your bogus argument that those who fight for gay marriage are doing it for the benefits. And that is what you're saying, don't deny it. That's the only way "using and exploiting progress just because their might be a cash benefit involved" can be taken. Not that government shouldn't be giving benefits.


It doesn't have anything to do with my argument. It's an identification of what I think their argument is really all about. The example before us is that when they were fighting for civil unions, they really didn't care about the civil union, since obviously a civil union is not good enough anymore (now that the goalposts have been moved again). It was just a stepping stone to marriage.

Don't take my response to woodruff and intertwine it with yours. That just gets confusing

If you want to participate in the response to woodruff, you can start by opining on whether any of that is possible, and you don't need to incorporate what you think my thoughts or feelings on the issue have to do with that, as they are irrelevant.

The issue had a fair chance for both sides. They won a couple, and lost the rest. We are and have been reasonable about all this. You guys have to meet us halfway, just the same way we did for you. civil unions are the compromise we both seek, and that is what we mostly have, and most people are A-OK with that. But rather than appreciate your victory, it seems you guys have gotten even angrier and more demanding, calling people slave-owners for holding the opinion today that was totally acceptable to your side just a few years ago.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby MeDeFe on Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:17 pm

Phatscotty wrote:maybe progress isn't just what you say it is. Maybe people are redefining the word progress just the same as they are redefining marriage? Maybe progress has been highjacked. Maybe progress is overreaching. Maybe the issue of progress does not and cannot pertain to the institution of marriage. perhaps progress is the wrong term to use here? Perhaps some people are just using and exploiting progress just because their might be a cash benefit involved? Perhaps gay marriage is just a stepping stone to the issue of gay adoption?

Is any of that a possibility?

Wow. I am impressed. I mean, seriously, I didn't think it was possible to imitate Lionz' style of posting that well, and completely without using images, too.


Now, you may have missed this before, but a fairly interesting question was asked, maybe you could be so kind as to answer it clearly and to the point?
Symmetry wrote:Scotty- what freedom do you feel you feel would be suppressed? I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a practical example, cos I'm genuinely interested.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:20 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:maybe progress isn't just what you say it is. Maybe people are redefining the word progress just the same as they are redefining marriage? Maybe progress has been highjacked. Maybe progress is overreaching. Maybe the issue of progress does not and cannot pertain to the institution of marriage. perhaps progress is the wrong term to use here? Perhaps some people are just using and exploiting progress just because their might be a cash benefit involved? Perhaps gay marriage is just a stepping stone to the issue of gay adoption?

Is any of that a possibility?

Wow. I am impressed. I mean, seriously, I didn't think it was possible to imitate Lionz' style of posting that well, and completely without using images, too.


Now, you may have missed this before, but a fairly interesting question was asked, maybe you could be so kind as to answer it clearly and to the point?
Symmetry wrote:Scotty- what freedom do you feel you feel would be suppressed? I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a practical example, cos I'm genuinely interested.


I did miss it, as I cannot see Symmetries posts. I foed him because I feel he was trolling me and every single post I made for about a week.

To answer Symm's Q, I do not think any freedom is being suppressed. I think things are fine the way they are. That is, recognizing civil unions while not changing the definition of marriage, and letting people democratically vote if they want to change it on a state level. Seemed like a total and fair compromise to me.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

Postby MeDeFe on Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:26 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:maybe progress isn't just what you say it is. Maybe people are redefining the word progress just the same as they are redefining marriage? Maybe progress has been highjacked. Maybe progress is overreaching. Maybe the issue of progress does not and cannot pertain to the institution of marriage. perhaps progress is the wrong term to use here? Perhaps some people are just using and exploiting progress just because their might be a cash benefit involved? Perhaps gay marriage is just a stepping stone to the issue of gay adoption?

Is any of that a possibility?

Wow. I am impressed. I mean, seriously, I didn't think it was possible to imitate Lionz' style of posting that well, and completely without using images, too.


Now, you may have missed this before, but a fairly interesting question was asked, maybe you could be so kind as to answer it clearly and to the point?
Symmetry wrote:Scotty- what freedom do you feel you feel would be suppressed? I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a practical example, cos I'm genuinely interested.


I did miss it, as I cannot see Symmetries posts. I foed him because I feel he was trolling me and every single post I made for about a week.

To answer Symm's Q, I do not think any freedom is being suppressed. I think things are fine the way they are. That is, recognizing civil unions while not changing the definition of marriage, and letting people democratically vote if they want to change it on a state level. Seemed like a total and fair compromise to me.

Do I understand this correctly? You are of the opinion that recognising gay marriage as equal to hetero marriage would not suppress anyone's freedom.

Because that is what Sym was asking about.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users