|
Your Favorites for the Primary (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by barbina
i believe denying gay rights will send our country into ruin. its one reason why im moving to canada. |
Then why hasn't that ever happened in all recorded history? I've never read this empire or that state collapsed because they didn't give homosexuals marriage rights, etc. No offense, I believe people should do what they want, as long as they don't violate anyone elses rights (I'm on your side), but I don't think the issue is nearly as grave as endless wars, rumors of wars, and power-mongering, both inside and outside of the government. If these issues aren't taken care of, you will never get your gay rights. So I say focus on the most important issues first, then you'll have a chance to be recognized under the law, but right now, our law (legislators) are totally focused on the very serious issues of our failed foreign policy. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Then why hasn't that ever happened in all recorded history? I've never read this empire or that state collapsed because they didn't give homosexuals marriage rights, etc. |
The same is true for a lot of things that you worry about. You proclaim that American sovereignty is under siege by all kinds of things that have never brought down the American state before, nor likely ever will (Fed. Reserve, Trilateral Commission, evil bankers, etc.).
| quote: |
No offense, I believe people should do what they want, as long as they don't violate anyone elses rights (I'm on your side), but I don't think the issue is nearly as grave as endless wars, rumors of wars, and power-mongering, both inside and outside of the government. If these issues aren't taken care of, you will never get your gay rights. |
Protecting civil liberties are a fundamental component of the state's responsibilities - as a libertarian, I would expect you to argue that first and foremost. For those affected by potential attempts to ban gay marriage or civil unions outright, this is their civil rights movement. In the 1960's in many states, it was still illegal to marry inter-racially. This struggle is a continuation of the reclamation of the right to govern our own personal lives once again. It's interesting to see our roles reverse here - I believe in a strong federal government, but don't see its role in governing morality in one's personal life. You believe in small government, but don't seem to notice or care that this right is being infringed upon.
| quote: | | So I say focus on the most important issues first, then you'll have a chance to be recognized under the law, but right now, our law (legislators) are totally focused on the very serious issues of our failed foreign policy. |
I'm really surprised by how people in this forum assume that all Congress deals with is foreign policy. I agree, it's important. But they don't spend nearly as much time on Iraq/Iran as you might think. When it comes down to it, legislators are elected to represent their constituents on issues that matter most at home, not over-arching foreign policy ideals. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The same is true for a lot of things that you worry about. You proclaim that American sovereignty is under siege by all kinds of things that have never brought down the American state before, nor likely ever will (Fed. Reserve, Trilateral Commission, evil bankers, etc.). |
I've never talked about the trilateral commission here. I don't ever say "evil" bankers. I call them criminal bankers in terms of the law. I don't want the Federal Reserve to be taken down. I want the markets to decide interest rates and money supply. A precious metal backed currency should be circulated alongside the dollar. The competition will force the dollar to have to compete. Inflation would plummet, and the value of the dollar would rise once again. As for bringing down the state. The past doesn't guarantee the future...
| quote: | | Protecting civil liberties are a fundamental component of the state's responsibilities - as a libertarian, I would expect you to argue that first and foremost. For those affected by potential attempts to ban gay marriage or civil unions outright, this is their civil rights movement. In the 1960's in many states, it was still illegal to marry inter-racially. This struggle is a continuation of the reclamation of the right to govern our own personal lives once again. It's interesting to see our roles reverse here - I believe in a strong federal government, but don't see its role in governing morality in one's personal life. You believe in small government, but don't seem to notice or care that this right is being infringed upon. |
Listen, right now, we're in a mess. Now, before we talk about new civil liberties, we have to worry about losing BASIC civil liberties. This country is in a mess. You want to start talking about gay rights, while troops and Iraqis are dying everyday. Sorry, but gays aren't getting killed everyday in an occupation. Stop the killing, then worry about new civil liberties. Secure the basic liberties, which right now, are in peril.
| quote: | | I'm really surprised by how people in this forum assume that all Congress deals with is foreign policy. I agree, it's important. But they don't spend nearly as much time on Iraq/Iran as you might think. When it comes down to it, legislators are elected to represent their constituents on issues that matter most at home, not over-arching foreign policy ideals. |
Their constituents are the ones who bring up issues to their legislator to go to Congress to lobby for. Well, right now, constituents are too engulfed in Iraq, Iran, and the "war on terror" to care enough to even want to consider why gay couples deserve equal status as married couples have under the law. That issue is barely covered in the mainstream media. Little has been mentioned in the current primaries about it. Do you know why that is? It's because the bigger issue of our foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, etc.) has everyone's full attention. All I'm saying is fix the situation, then focus on new civil rights. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Listen, right now, we're in a mess. Now, before we talk about new civil liberties, we have to worry about losing BASIC civil liberties. This country is in a mess. You want to start talking about gay rights, while troops and Iraqis are dying everyday. Sorry, but gays aren't getting killed everyday in an occupation. Stop the killing, then worry about new civil liberties. Secure the basic liberties, which right now, are in peril. |
How does the War in Iraq have anything to do with basic American civil liberties? I'm not talking about the civil liberties of Iraqis, I'm talking about the civil liberties in the United States, where freedom is supposed to be pre-eminent.
| quote: | | Their constituents are the ones who bring up issues to their legislator to go to Congress to lobby for. Well, right now, constituents are too engulfed in Iraq, Iran, and the "war on terror" to care enough to even want to consider why gay couples deserve equal status as married couples have under the law. That issue is barely covered in the mainstream media. Little has been mentioned in the current primaries about it. Do you know why that is? It's because the bigger issue of our foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, etc.) has everyone's full attention. All I'm saying is fix the situation, then focus on new civil rights. |
The mainstream media is not a barometer of what average Americans care about. As popular as cable news is, the majority of Americans don't even watch it. What is most important to a person varies based on the individual in question. Just because the PDD is obsessed with Iran and Iraq does not mean Joe Schmoe in Peoria is. If Joe is gay, or has friends or relatives that are gay, I bet he cares very deeply about the issue of gay marriage, and believes that the inability of two people in love to have that love recognized by the state like any other two people in love is a transgression against our fundamental rights as individuals.
I'm not saying that foreign policy isn't important. I'm simply saying that this issue really is as well for a lot of people, and I find it surprising that you are overlooking its significance and relevance. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
How does the War in Iraq have anything to do with basic American civil liberties? I'm not talking about the civil liberties of Iraqis, I'm talking about the civil liberties in the United States, where freedom is supposed to be pre-eminent. |
Have you not been watching what the bush admin has been doing with this war on terror? The Patriot Act? Domestic spying? Verizon and AT&T helping warrentless wiretapping? Where have you been?
| quote: | | The mainstream media is not a barometer of what average Americans care about. As popular as cable news is, the majority of Americans don't even watch it. What is most important to a person varies based on the individual in question. Just because the PDD is obsessed with Iran and Iraq does not mean Joe Schmoe in Peoria is. If Joe is gay, or has friends or relatives that are gay, I bet he cares very deeply about the issue of gay marriage, and believes that the inability of two people in love to have that love recognized by the state like any other two people in love is a transgression against our fundamental rights as individuals. |
If gays want new civil rights, not just them have to want it. The majority of the voters have to want it. The point is the atmosphere for debating gay rights is not favorable for those who want them. War is the reason why.
| quote: | | I'm not saying that foreign policy isn't important. I'm simply saying that this issue really is as well for a lot of people, and I find it surprising that you are overlooking its significance and relevance. |
Ok, fine. Get voters out in good enough numbers to vote in favor or gay rights. You don't get what I'm saying. Do you think voters right now are in any mode to clamor for gay rights? No. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Well he was breaking campaign finance reform laws, which in my opinion are actually good components of election law. |
Yeah.
But hey, it's okay to get financed by military and pharmaceutical industries, but we got a big problem when doritos gets involved!! |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
I think this is totally incorrect. Politicians are a part of the society. Gay civil rights are not acceptable to many people in the US. Same sex marriages are still not as socially acceptable as straight marriages anywhere in the world. The politicians stand to gain more by opposing these rights than supporting them. How many people will frown on same sex marriages ? You can talk about this all over the internet, but when it comes to real life, society is still not ready to accept these issues. If you see two gay men openly kissing in public what fraction of the watchers will feel a revulsion and what fraction will approve of the behavior ? Now replace the kissing couple by a guy and a girl. |
I know when I see a black guy kissing a white girl in public I feel such strong words such as "revulsion".
But eventually black and white couples will become accepted in society and be able to marry, I'm sure. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I don't. But I do like to point out blatant hypocrisy by the GOP base instead.
And for someone like Grandpa Fred to be aligned with someone who's colorful past in the drug trade is, well, rather interesting to say the least. |
What about pointing out the hypocrisy of the democratic base? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
What about pointing out the hypocrisy of the democratic base? |
Are there certain topics you have in mind? Not to say I don't have my gripes at some of the issues with the Democrats right now, actually I've got a lotta gripes with them, which I've expressed intermittently on this forum lately. But what did you have in mind? |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Are there certain topics you have in mind? Not to say I don't have my gripes at some of the issues with the Democrats right now, actually I've got a lotta gripes with them, which I've expressed intermittently on this forum lately. But what did you have in mind? |
I think the question was more of a statement on your eagerness to call out the republicans when both parties are just as corrupt.
Though I won't lie; since we were just talking about gay rights, the first thing that came to mind when I was typing it were some of Clinton's shadier motions on stalling civil rights. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
I think the question was more of a statement on your eagerness to call out the republicans when both parties are just as corrupt.
Though I won't lie; since we were just talking about gay rights, the first thing that came to mind when I was typing it were some of Clinton's shadier motions on stalling civil rights. |
Well here's a bone to throw out against a pretty well-known Democrat pertaining to gay rights. One of Obama's top spokesmen "blasts gays at Gospel concert", and Obama has done very little to distance himself from him:
http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/...-at-gospel.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/65297
Can't say that helped Obama out too much.
(so does that count? :D) |
|
|
| barbina |
I think whats going on at home is a hell of a lot more important than whats going on overseas.
You're obviously straight, so this argument doesn't hit close to home for you. Maybe its because your rights aren't being denied directly, only people you know.
People may not be dying for gay rights but equality is a given right, a promised right. And thats something the US fights wars for so how is this any different? You don't need a war for change..or have you forgotten about movements like those for women's rights and inter-racial marriages/schools/towns.I honestly don't see the difference.
So yes, this is more important than the war in Iraq, or immigration, or damn taxes. |
|
|
|
|
