Where is the conservative outrage over this expense?

[lawgator1]

To conservatives, character matters so when one of their own or a fraud gets caught there are consequences. Newt Gingrich was the architect of one of the most incredible political feats in US history. He was shown the door when his private sins became public.

Is there room to forgive? I hope there always will be for the truly repentant. But anything you allow, you passively endorse.


As for the OP- fallacy of limited alternatives. You don't have to choose between wrong and wrong.

There is a "right" answer there... like putting those kids with a stable traditional family. In spite of liberal attempts to prove otherwise, the traditional home headed by a married man and woman STILL does the best job of raising children. It is even more vital to give at risk kids the best statistical advantage possible.

I agree with you except that you misunderstood the placement of the hypocrisy.

The fact that he's the right wing establishment's go to guy to bash gays as immoral by their own choice and in fact rehabilitatable, but then he turns out to be a flaming user of a 20 year old male prostitute, is outrageous for the reason you cite above.

The real hypocrisy, however, is that the Bill McCollum, who has tirelessly run on a platform of Democrat bashing which includes both morality and wasteful spending, ponied up sixty grand of taxpayer's money to this yahoo to run his mouth on behalf of the taxpayers, and all the while the guy is gay.

Its the confluence of the right wing politician who is supposedly concerned with morality and overspending shelling out sixty grand to disguise an agenda as a legal expense and then have the whole thing go kaput when the guy is doing the exact thing he was paid the public money to criticize on behalf of the public.

 

[KentheOrange]

By, "banned" do you mean, "illegal"?

I ask because its illegal for homosexuals to adopt in Tennessee (as it is similiarly illegal for a man and his goldfish, despite their, "life-partnership"). I also ask because I am compiling a book of monikers and euphamims which liberals use to disguise words such as, "abortion" (re: "pro-choice) and, "illegal" (re: moral dissent) - and need to know if I can include your use of, "banned".
Posted via VolNation Mobile

And this was such a problem that a law prohibiting it was needed?

 

[tigervol9802]

Classic straw man. It's the refuge for those without a real argument.

Obviously a 2 year old can not consent to such an activity, and it would be an infringement on the child's own freedom.


Let me play the extreme and improbable game:

What if a man and a woman adopted a child, but then it turned out the woman was actually a man with undescended testicles and a micropenis and didn't even know it(this actually happens). Should the child be taken away, since it is a homosexual couple?

First of all you are under the assumption that I have problem with homosexual couples adopting children. Truthfully, there are probably some homosexual couples more qualified to raise children than heterosexual ones.

Second, what is the limit then of consent? 18? 17? 16? 15? I'm making an extreme example.

Funny when my original stance was I go back and forth on this issue every day and I get attacked for it.

 

[IPorange]

Irrelevant. The state cannot presuppose what someone will do with a natural ability. Not by natural means with one another you don't. What does this have to do with anything? It goes to the reason for having marriage in the first place. Marriage was not conceived with tax benefits and such in mind. It may not hurt children. It does hurt society and injures the rights and liberties of those who object to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. Again, this debate is more about seeking legitimacy than anything else... being told that what they are doing is "right" with the clear implication that this "rightness" will be imposed on anyone who dissents.



Just something I read... you can doubt whatever you like. Anecdotally- it is consistent with what I have witnessed.

What about the rights and liberties of the people in question?! You impose your "rightness" on others without batting an eye, apparently.


Please, tell us the reasons we have marriage, and it's history. This should be good.

 

[sjt18]

If popular opinion had legal merit, we would still have segregated schools. Try again.

No we wouldn't. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by a bipartisan majority.

Also as so well put by Colin Powell, race is a benign characteristic. It is not subject to choice or characterized by behavior.

There is NO legitimate association of black civil rights and the homosexual rights movement. NONE.

 

[IPorange]

First of all you are under the assumption that I have problem with homosexual couples adopting children. Truthfully, there are probably some homosexual couples more qualified to raise children than heterosexual ones.

Second, what is the limit then of consent? 18? 17? 16? 15? I'm making an extreme example.

Funny when my original stance was I go back and forth on this issue every day and I get attacked for it.

You compared allowing consenting adults to get married to having sex with a 2 year old.

Expect an attack on that every time.

 

[IPorange]

No we wouldn't. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by a bipartisan majority.

Also as so well put by Colin Powell, race is a benign characteristic. It is not subject to choice or characterized by behavior.

There is NO legitimate association of black civil rights and the homosexual rights movement. NONE.

Said the bigot who has unilaterally decided homosexuals choose to be that way.

 

[droski]

Irrelevant. The state cannot presuppose what someone will do with a natural ability. Not by natural means with one another you don't. What does this have to do with anything? It goes to the reason for having marriage in the first place. Marriage was not conceived with tax benefits and such in mind. It may not hurt children. It does hurt society and injures the rights and liberties of those who object to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. Again, this debate is more about seeking legitimacy than anything else... being told that what they are doing is "right" with the clear implication that this "rightness" will be imposed on anyone who dissents.



Just something I read... you can doubt whatever you like. Anecdotally- it is consistent with what I have witnessed.

what about married couples where the man is infertile and they decide to get artificial insemination?

i agree in principle that children are better off with a mother and a father, but until we start taking children away from single mothers i dont' see why homosexuals shoudl be held to higher standards.

 

[tigervol9802]

You compared allowing consenting adults to get married to having sex with a 2 year old.

Expect an attack on that every time.

*sighs*

So where is the limit of freedom then? If a 16 year old should be legal, then what about 15, 14, 13, etc.? What is the limit?

You will always have someone wanting "more" freedom. That is the entire gist of my argument that you won't answer.

 

[droski]

*sighs*

So where is the limit of freedom then? If a 16 year old should be legal, then what about 15, 14, 13, etc.? What is the limit?

You will always have someone wanting "more" freedom. That is the entire gist of my argument that you won't answer.

most states have that at 18 years old to legally get married. i doubt that will get lowered. the old slippery slope argument woudl have stopped many just laws from getting passed. many laws (like the patriot act) that i assume you are in favor of.

 

[lawgator1]

what about married couples where the man is infertile and they decide to get artificial insemination?

i agree in principle that children are better off with a mother and a father, but until we start taking children away from single mothers i dont' see why homosexuals shoudl be held to higher standards.

We all know the reason for it. There is a suspicion/stereotype that homosexuals are deviant by nature, that this translates into a lesser standard of morality in their community, and that therefore a homosexual adoptive parent(s) is much more likely to sexually abuse an adopted child than would be a straight person.

 

[sjt18]

What about the rights and liberties of the people in question?! You impose your "rightness" on others without batting an eye, apparently.

Nope. I already said that if you could convince a majority in a state to extend the privilege of legal marriage to homosexuals that I would disagree with that decision but respect your right to do so. (FTR- sayings someone does not qualify for a privilege DOES NOT infringe on their rights or liberties.)

However it will create a situation of whose ox is going to be gored. What about the Christian business owner who provides spousal benefits to his employees. What happens to his legitimate religious rights when a homosexual spouse shows up and demands those same benefits? Will you then argue that he must subordinate his genuine, constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of conscience?

Please, tell us the reasons we have marriage, and it's history. This should be good.

From a religious perspective, legal perspective, or theocratic perspective?

 

[droski]

What about the Christian business owner who provides spousal benefits to his employees. What happens to his legitimate religious rights when a homosexual spouse shows up and demands those same benefits? Will you then argue that he must subordinate his genuine, constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of conscience?

what about the owner that thinks that interracial marriage is immoral?

 

[BigPapaVol]

What is being demanded? Marriage or something equivalent to it is being demanded for two men. On what basis? Friendship? No. It is being demanded purely because they are having sex. No one is arguing that best buds who live together for years without having sex should be able to have these benefits or be further legitimized by the state.

It is flat out absurd to pretend that the marriage license for a man and woman is any less arbitrary than for a man and a man. Your social statistics are meaningless when one can readily prove homosexuals can raise children the same way as can heterosexuals. The lone difference is insemination via sex, but volumes of couples can't do that either and are using artificial means to be parents. The argument is that people want to buy a marriage licence but are being arbitrarily denied because of age old societal norms based upon the Bible and for no other reason.

Surely you don't think that being pompous, condescending, and dismissive passes for a "reasoned" argument. Of course it has legal merit since it is by and large the popular opinion of most of the people in MOST of the states.

Explain to me how this worked in terms of slavery.

Our federal constitution specifically grants authority for everything not specifically granted to Congress to the states and the people.

So that makes something right? How about voting rights in this country that were set by societal norm? We've already talked slavery.

If you don't like the will of the majoity then change it. But don't try to redefine the argument and terms so that you can impose your opinion on them.

I'm not trying to impose my opinion on them. You are. I actually don't care who can get married. If homosexuals want to, have at it. Seems to me the imposing being done is against homosexuals. Getting the government out of the way seems most reasonable to me.

 

[tigervol9802]

most states have that at 18 years old to legally get married. i doubt that will get lowered. the old slippery slope argument woudl have stopped many just laws from getting passed. many laws (like the patriot act) that i assume you are in favor of.

There is a definite consequence to the Patriot Act that I am well aware of and the slippery slope argument has been used many times before on it. All and all I am for it.

All I will say is that 100 eyars ago, heck, 50-60 years ago the idea of even discussing homosexual marriage/adoptions would have been under the same umbrella.

(By the way, congrats on finally getting the stadium upgrades. I saw when the Bears are at PacBell for 2011.)

 

[IPorange]

*sighs*

So where is the limit of freedom then? If a 16 year old should be legal, then what about 15, 14, 13, etc.? What is the limit?

You will always have someone wanting "more" freedom. That is the entire gist of my argument that you won't answer.

I wasn't avoiding the question, I was addressing the ridiculous 2 year old comment first.

The slippery slope argument is quite popular when resisting a change from the status quo. In the end though, exact legal age of consent doesn't matter. One way to approach it is from the opposite direction: What age is too young? 12? 13? All I know is we put some kids behind the wheel of a car at 14 in this country. We will put someone in jail for having consensual sex with a 17 year old, at the same time. Does that sound right to you?

 

[tigervol9802]

what about the owner that thinks that interracial marriage is immoral?

From a person living in a town whose students carry rebel flags into high school football games, I can tell you that this demographic is very small and will probably be non-existant in the next 10 years.

 

[sjt18]

Said the bigot who has unilaterally decided homosexuals choose to be that way.

That isn't bigotry. It is quite bigoted for you to characterize me that way because I disagree with you.

FWIW, researchers have attempted for at least 60 years to find a biological cause for homosexuality. They have spent literally billions trying to do it. Not only have they failed... their attempts have forced them grudgingly in the other direction.

I believe the origins of the impulses are man's sin nature. You can disagree with that... but you can't disagree with the results of the research. I believe further that someone who is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex has a choice in whether they pursue their desires or not.

I wholly reject the idea that man is an amoral animal that cannot control his impulses for sake of a higher moral purpose.

I believe that homosexuals have the "right" to do whatever they like on their dime and on their property. I do not believe they have the "right" to force anyone much less everyone else to accept their behavior as correct or moral.

 

[droski]

(By the way, congrats on finally getting the stadium upgrades. I saw when the Bears are at PacBell for 2011.)

hopefully it happens. never underestimate the cal administrations ability to screw up anything thta is positive to major athletics.

 

[droski]

From a person living in a town whose students carry rebel flags into high school football games, I can tell you that this demographic is very small and will probably be non-existant in the next 10 years.

40 years from now i bet we say the same thing about homosexual marriage.

 

[sjt18]

We all know the reason for it. There is a suspicion/stereotype that homosexuals are deviant by nature, that this translates into a lesser standard of morality in their community, and that therefore a homosexual adoptive parent(s) is much more likely to sexually abuse an adopted child than would be a straight person.

It isn't a suspicion that homosexuality is deviant or lesser in a moral sense... it is an absolute conviction.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that homosexuality is a legitimate expression of sexuality. However, I believe fully that others have the right to not only disagree but engage in that behavior if they so choose. But their rights end at the tip of my nose just as mine end at the tip of theirs.

I will not invade or ask the state to invade their homes to catch them. I will not ask the state to diminish any of their God given rights. I will not demand that they hire me at their business if they disagree with my religiously derived morality... and expect the same in return.

Live and let live.

 

[tigervol9802]

I wasn't avoiding the question, I was addressing the ridiculous 2 year old comment first.

The slippery slope argument is quite popular when resisting a change from the status quo. In the end though, exact legal age of consent doesn't matter. One way to approach it is from the opposite direction: What age is too young? 12? 13? All I know is we put some kids behind the wheel of a car at 14 in this country. We will put someone in jail for having consensual sex with a 17 year old, at the same time. Does that sound right to you?

It was intended to be a ridiculous comparison. Sometimes it works to prove a point, others it does not. Too ridiculous in this case.

I'll argue there are some 13 year olds who were capable of driving and that there are some 18 year olds who are not capable of handling the decision to have consentual sex (or some 30 year olds for that matter).

I will argue once you start going down any path in any situation, there is always a chance for a slippery slope.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That isn't bigotry. It is quite bigoted for you to characterize me that way because I disagree with you.

FWIW, researchers have attempted for at least 60 years to find a biological cause for homosexuality. They have spent literally billions trying to do it. Not only have they failed... their attempts have forced them grudgingly in the other direction.

Then goodness knows they're right. Has to be environment, deviance or just poor decision making. We heterosexuals are just better people.

I believe the origins of the impulses are man's sin nature. You can disagree with that... but you can't disagree with the results of the research. I believe further that someone who is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex has a choice in whether they pursue their desires or not.

So heterosexuals simply don't have sin nature, especially as it applies to sex? I can absolutely disagree with the research, but what does it matter. Why does it matter who pursues their desires. It happens in everyone, not just homosexuals.

I wholly reject the idea that man is an amoral animal that cannot control his impulses for sake of a higher moral purpose.

but you don't get to decide morality nor is it right to legislate it. Having majority opinion on your side when you're forbidding something available to everyone else is hardly immoral. Acting as if all homosexual couples are just sex driven and can't share the same emotional attachment as heterosexuals is the ultimate in bigotry.

I believe that homosexuals have the "right" to do whatever they like on their dime and on their property. I do not believe they have the "right" to force anyone much less everyone else to accept their behavior as correct or moral.

Nobody has the right to force any behavior as moral on anyone else, just as you don't have any right to force homosexuals to buy into your faux moral high ground.

 

[Brog]

It isn't a suspicion that homosexuality is deviant or lesser in a moral sense... it is an absolute conviction.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that homosexuality is a legitimate expression of sexuality. However, I believe fully that others have the right to not only disagree but engage in that behavior if they so choose. But their rights end at the tip of my nose just as mine end at the tip of theirs.

I will not invade or ask the state to invade their homes to catch them. I will not ask the state to diminish any of their God given rights. I will not demand that they hire me at their business if they disagree with my religiously derived morality... and expect the same in return.

Live and let live.

Tell you what, we won't make you be gay or have a gay marriage.

 

[droski]

That isn't bigotry. It is quite bigoted for you to characterize me that way because I disagree with you.

FWIW, researchers have attempted for at least 60 years to find a biological cause for homosexuality. They have spent literally billions trying to do it. Not only have they failed... their attempts have forced them grudgingly in the other direction.

I believe the origins of the impulses are man's sin nature. You can disagree with that... but you can't disagree with the results of the research. I believe further that someone who is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex has a choice in whether they pursue their desires or not.

I wholly reject the idea that man is an amoral animal that cannot control his impulses for sake of a higher moral purpose.

I believe that homosexuals have the "right" to do whatever they like on their dime and on their property. I do not believe they have the "right" to force anyone much less everyone else to accept their behavior as correct or moral.

i have never seen a study by any reputable research compnay that has shown that homosexuals can willingly become heterosexuals. and trust me, many would gladly make that decision if possible. a simple look at the massive failures of religious groups trying to change this behavior is enough.