Hard nosed, intelligent, political discussion

[Volunteer]

I am a political junkie and I would like to see what you guys believe in and possibly debate a little on some subjects.

I do not resort to name calling nor should I expect it.

If you make a claim, post a link to back up your opinion. Just because you think or feel it doesn't mean it is true.

Differing opinions is what makes America great, it's called freedom.

To start off with, I am a conservative republican. I believe in the Bill of Rights, free enterprise, small government, less taxes.

I am grateful that I can be a christian without persecution and I am thankful that my parents did not have to "choose".

I believe things should be earned rather than given and realize that not everyone agrees with me on that issue.


If anyone is interested in good political discussion and debate, then bring it on....if not, then so be it.

[VolunteerHillbilly]

nvm

[volsgal03]

IF THIER WAS ONE THING I WISH I KNEW MORE ABOUT I WOULD HAVE TO SAY IT'S POLITICS I DONT UNDERSTAND IT. THE MAJORITY OF MY FAMILY ARE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN I FEEL I'M A LITTLE OF BOTH. MY BROTHER IN-LAW GOES TO THIS WEBSITE CALLED TOWNHALL.COM I DONT KNOW IF YOU HAVE HEARD OF IT BUT YOU SHOULD CHECK IT OUT. I DO BELIEVE YOU SHOULD WORK FOR THINGS BECAUSE THATS HOW I WAS RAISED. I DO WORK WITH ALOT OF LIBERALS AND OCCASIONALLY THIER ARE HEAVY DEBATES AT WORK BUT WE ALL STILL GET ALONG.

[Volunteer]

Vols gal, I visit townhall every morning. My favorite columnists on that website are Thomas Sowell and Mike Adams. If you have a few moments and would like a good laugh, Mike Adams is hilarious. I'll post a link to today's column if you are interested.

[Volunteer]

I feel, therefore I am

[milohimself]

If there is one thing I cannot stand in this country, it is double standards. Equality, equality, EQUALITY in every sense of the word. Whether you be black, white, Mexican, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Republican, Democrat, straight, gay, or anything else you are human and you deserve the same rights from the government that everybody else benefits from, whatever they may be.

Case in point; Gay marriage. My stance on gay marriage is that marriage is a religious institution, and in keeping with true seperation of church and state, if a church would like to marry a gay couple, they may. It's none of the governments business. What is the governments business, however, is the benefits it affords to married couples. So I do believe in government-sanctioned civil unions for homosexuals that will afford them the same tax, health care, etc. benefits that a straight married couple can have as well. To not do so would be in violation of the idea of seperation of church and state, and if not that, then discrimination against gays short of it.

I still find it hard to believe that this is a problem in modern society... But it is.

[Volunteer]

Milo,
This discussion will be interesting.

My question to you is why stop at homosexuality? How about bestiality? In your scenario, if it's all about the benefits, then why couldn't a man and a horse get married for the sole purpose of receiving benefits? Not bestiality? Why not, because it is against the law or because of moral standards. Do you see the dilemma?

Some may say I am sick for even bringing this into the discussion, but it is sick to whose standards. Would it not be a civil union??????

[dan4vols]

I see opinions with very few back-up articles. I see where your coming from Volunteer about having documentation on subject matter....but brother politics is all about opinions. Its what individuals care about in relation to how that subject affects them. Its inherently to the point of Roe vs Wade....both sides are a little right, both sides are a little wrong. The trick in being a celebrated politician(imo) is to push for what you truly believe to be right and just, yet being prepared to negotiate on the details.

[Volunteer]

What is a civil union?

A civil union is one of several terms for a civil status similar to marriage, typically created for the purposes of allowing homosexual couples access to the benefits enjoyed by married heterosexuals (see also same-sex marriage); it can also be used by couples of differing sexes who do not prefer to enter into the legal institution of marriage but who would rather be in a union more similar to a common-law marriage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
I found the definition on the web at wikipedia.

In that definition, Milo, why would this term, that has been created limit itself to homosexual or same sex "partners"? I put partners in quotes because what would keep two FRIENDS, just any old John and Jimmy, not homosexual, not partners, from receiving a civil union?

Why don't you just campaign for all benefits received by straight couples to be dissolved by the federal government? Fair is fair right?

NOTE: I made a mistake in my original post...making a statement as fact should be backed up, I erred when I said backing up your opinion as Dan pointed out and I agree with him, an opinion does not need to be backed up.

[hatvol96]

Originally Posted by (Volunteer @ Mar 21, 2006 7:31 PM)

What is a civil union?

A civil union is one of several terms for a civil status similar to marriage, typically created for the purposes of allowing homosexual couples access to the benefits enjoyed by married heterosexuals (see also same-sex marriage); it can also be used by couples of differing sexes who do not prefer to enter into the legal institution of marriage but who would rather be in a union more similar to a common-law marriage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
I found the definition on the web at wikipedia.

In that definition, Milo, why would this term, that has been created limit itself to homosexual or same sex "partners"? I put partners in quotes because what would keep two FRIENDS, just any old John and Jimmy, not homosexual, not partners, from receiving a civil union?

Why don't you just campaign for all benefits received by straight couples to be dissolved by the federal government? Fair is fair right?

NOTE: I made a mistake in my original post...making a statement as fact should be backed up, I erred when I said backing up your opinion as Dan pointed out and I agree with him, an opinion does not need to be backed up.

There should be no benefits conferred on married couples, be they straight or gay. It's overreaching social engineering. Marriage was initially a religious institution. Leave it to the church.

[volsgal03]

Originally Posted by (Volunteer @ Mar 21, 2006 3:45 PM)

I feel, therefore I am

VOLUNTEER THAT WAS GOOD, BUT SO TRUE OF TODAYS SOCIETY.

[OWB]

Originally Posted by (Volunteer @ Mar 21, 2006 7:06 PM)

Milo,
This discussion will be interesting.

My question to you is why stop at homosexuality? How about bestiality?

Homosexuality involves human beings while bestiality obviously doesn't. That's why it would stop there. You can't seriously think that those two things have a lot in common do you?

[Volunteer]

OWB, if you are going to change the rules on marriage, then what are the limitations and who or what morals decide where those rules end. I don't think that bestiality and homosexuality are related in any sense.

[OWB]

Originally Posted by (Volunteer @ Mar 21, 2006 9:33 PM)

OWB, if you are going to change the rules on marriage, then what are the limitations and who or what morals decide where those rules end. I don't think that bestiality and homosexuality are related in any sense.

I see your point and didn't think that you really thought they were related....just kind of came off that way.

Given the fact that most homosexuals don't choose to be gay and it's in their genetic makeup, why don't they deserve the comfort, benefits and security that everyone else enjoys? Afterall, the ultimate pursuit of life is supposed to be happiness right?

People can talk about marriage being a sacred thing between a man and woman all they want and that's fine. But with divorce rates growing larger with every passing year, is it really all that sacred anymore?

The way I see it, who am I to tell a couple of any sex that they shouldn't get married? I think that they should be allowed to suffer and experience the pain and misery of marriage just like the man and woman experience. :D

[OWB]

Take with a grain of salt....

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.