Hard nosed, intelligent, political discussion

#1
Volunteer

Volunteer

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2003
Messages
814
Likes
1
#1
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.

 
#3
#3
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.
 
#4
#4
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.
 
#6
#6
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.
 
#7
#7
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??????
 
#8
#8
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.
 
#9
#9
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.
 
#10
#10
(Volunteer @ Mar 21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#12
#12
(Volunteer @ Mar 21 said:
Milo,
This discussion will be interesting.

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

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?
 
#13
#13
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.
 
#14
#14
(Volunteer @ Mar 21 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
#15
#15
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.
 
#16
#16
(Volunteer @ Mar 21 said:
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?
Click to expand...
As far as old John and Jimmy go, I'm sure the idea of public knowledge of their union would be enough to scare them away from scamming the government... Short of that, I'm sure some sort of fraud prevention can be schemed up.

Whatever floats your boat by the way of benefits... I don't have any opinion one way or the other on benefits recieved by married couples. Just as long as the law treats people equal regardless of sexual preference.

Also, OWB argued my point for me on the subject of bestiality.

On a seperate note, I think a lot of my viewpoints might be a biproduct of my mom's viewpoints... She is extremely vocal about her beliefs. She believes that American society is mostly composed of WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants for those who don' know) and that by majority rule, society and government should be built entirely for and only the needs of this one group. Not that other groups need to be terminated from society but that they had better learn to get along...
 
#17
#17
I hope I'm not interupting the flow, but my question is how you reconcile being against entitlements and against (high) taxes in the case of the inheritance tax?

Personally, I'm in favor of some sort of inheritance tax, especially on the mega-$$$ estates. Apparently this position isn't popular in many Republican circles?
 
#18
#18
First of all, I fail to see the connection between an entitlement and an inheritance??

No, the Death Tax is not popular because in most cases it's a simple case of double taxation which in my book makes no sense at all. Why should accumulated wealth which has already been taxed as income be taxed again simply because it's being transferred to an heir?
 
#19
#19
The problem with the estate tax, as with most taxes, is that it's the middle and upper middle class people who get the screw job. Anyone with significant wealth is going to put their assets into corporate "persons" that can live on for thousands of years and they will put the stock that represents their ownership of those corporations into trusts, which crafty lawyers and accountants will perpetuate as long as legally possible. All the while their pile of wealth will grow and grow virtually tax-free long after they and their children are dead and gone.

The people who get nailed by inheritance taxes are primarily the beneficiaries of small business owners, farmers, and people who put all their money into one asset (like a nice house) and die early before it all gets taken away for skilled nursing home care. The beneficiaries of these people will immediately be hit with a huge inheritance tax bill, which, of course, they generally cannot pay out-of-pocket. So what do they do? They sell the one asset (business, farm, or home) that they were left. Usually they get hosed on the price because they have no idea what they are selling or its actual value. They pay the taxes and are left with a little money but nothing that can produce income.
 
#20
#20
Bingo! It's not the "Mega-estate" that is impacted anyway since most of them are well sheltered, it's the estate that is barely over the limit and has not effectively planned that inevitably gets hammered by the tax burden.

 
#21
#21
(Volunteer @ Mar 21 said:
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??????
Click to expand...

Actually not a bad come back but you and I both know that horses have no rights under the US constitution. Th only right a horse has is being made into glue.

The dilemma here is where to draw the line in regard to social norms. There are a group that believe that morals as described in the Bible are the norms our society should live with. In the case that persons in society do not follow the Bible, then government laws take over to dictate acceptable social norms and punish those outside those norms. With homosexuality, the Bible types want the government to accept the Biblical definition of marriage and interpersonal morality. Hence the problem worsens. Churches in the US have become money raising, social and entertainment centers for it's members. As a result, the Biblically dictated norms or morality if you like, have greatly slipped over the past several decades. Politicians have found in certain parts of the country that they can obtain votes (thus additional personal power and more $$$) to bring Biblical morals into government, at least as a part of their campaigns. Should I continue?
 
#22
#22
(Volunteer @ Mar 21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The rules of marriage should be decided according to the rules of fairness and equal protection, not on some outdated moral standard. The way things are right now, if I am incapacitated for some reason, my wife can legally make decisions on my behalf. If I die, my wife gets everything I own. What is the problem with allowing gay and lesbian couples those same rights?
 
#23
#23
(BHAMVOLFAN @ Mar 22 said:
Actually not a bad come back but you and I both know that horses have no rights under the US constitution. Th only right a horse has is being made into glue.

The dilemma here is where to draw the line in regard to social norms. There are a group that believe that morals as described in the Bible are the norms our society should live with. In the case that persons in society do not follow the Bible, then government laws take over to dictate acceptable social norms and punish those outside those norms. With homosexuality, the Bible types want the government to accept the Biblical definition of marriage and interpersonal morality. Hence the problem worsens. Churches in the US have become money raising, social and entertainment centers for it's members. As a result, the Biblically dictated norms or morality if you like, have greatly slipped over the past several decades. Politicians have found in certain parts of the country that they can obtain votes (thus additional personal power and more $$$) to bring Biblical morals into government, at least as a part of their campaigns. Should I continue?
Click to expand...
Exactly, and it will be interesting if the conservatives do manage to overturn Roe, to see what they come up with next to "rally the troops" come election time.
 
#24
#24
(MyBloodRunnethOrange @ Mar 22 said:
The rules of marriage should be decided according to the rules of fairness and equal protection, not on some outdated moral standard. The way things are right now, if I am incapacitated for some reason, my wife can legally make decisions on my behalf. If I die, my wife gets everything I own. What is the problem with allowing gay and lesbian couples those same rights?
Click to expand...

Just for grins and giggles.....

What if the American culture became "gay." Is "gay" acceptable? Are we as a country willing to let the old ways slip away? The million dollar question at least in my mind is "is the gay lifestyle" an acceptable life style for the country. Truthfully, I struggle with answering that question and lean toward "no."

Back to your comments, from one perspective, and likely the only biologically correct perspective, heterosexual families typically have biologically connected offspring that are in the family lineage, therefore by law are the legal heirs to an estate. Yes, the same can be said for heterosexual couples who adopt. I suspect one fear is that a trend allowing homosexual couples to raise children would potentially promote the lifestyle over a period of time and there is certainly a lot of resistance to our society eventually being gay and without the ability to reproduce.
 
#25
#25
As long as the government issues licenses for, and creates special privileges, for people who are married to one another then any two people who want to get married should be able to do so. In the old days it was easier to argue that society has a special interest in protecting the male-female marriage contract becasue it can result in children who are necessary to carry on the state in the next generation. The problem with that argument now is that we allow old folks who are way past reproductive age to get married, we let sterile people get married, and we let people marry and divorce for an unlimted number of times. Unless we are going to ban anyone other than fertile man-woman couples from marrying we should not ban anyone from doing it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top