NYS vote on Gay 'Marriage' tonight

[Adam]

In 1996 I went to a NYS college and as a SocialPsychology major I learned about homosexuality in a book called ABNORMAL PSYCH. It has oozed through the pours of society slowly for 15 years and now we are drowning in it. If we don't change this course, we will all reap what we sow and those of you who backed homosexuality will be the first to say how did this happen. This is all part of a much larger agenda and when it comes complete we will all be F@#$ed. This country needs to stop pandering to the bottom 10% and start worrying about problems that effect 100% of us.

 

 

I agree with you that marriage should be open, but only heterosexuals. To equate this new term of sexual orientation yo equality is PC crazy.

Do you still use a rotary phone? Yo. Checkout the new 8-track at the discotheque.

 

Moreover, he was concerned, rightly, about providing gay people the rights they deserve...and not concerned, rightly, with providing the ACLU and other militant political organizations the pretext to declare war on religion and the religious.

 

4. create equitable laws that deal with ALL consequences

 

Because, as we know: "If you want something to be done, let the far-left be in charge of doing the opposite!^TM"

I think we may have common ground. I don't want anyone to declare war on religion and I don't want to see religious groups declare on anyone either. I know many very religious people who are more than happy to keep their religion to themselves and find it very satisfying. It is the people who want to be right about everything for everybody that are a problem.

 

On point four, that is impossible- there is an amendment process for a reason.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Adam

[Delete This Account]

This country needs to stop pandering to the bottom 10% and start worrying about problems that effect 100% of us.

uhhh, civil rights is a problem that effects 100 percent of us.

 

I agree with you that marriage should be open, but only heterosexuals.

actually, you don't agree. try not to confuse the issue here.

 

jw

[OCinBuffalo]

I think we may have common ground. I don't want anyone to declare war on religion and I don't want to see religious groups declare on anyone either. I know many very religious people who are more than happy to keep their religion to themselves and find it very satisfying. It is the people who want to be right about everything for everybody that are a problem.

 

On point four, that is impossible- there is an amendment process for a reason.

All of you need to understand how this entire debate evolved:

This was a political calculation by the left. It was designed to be a wedge issue. IF you don't know what that means, google it. The goals were always political = excuse and distract from the utter failure of the 2006-8 Congress to deliver on anything it promised, and try to gain back ground lost to the right by forcing them to either choose their religious beliefs, or, choose to look insensitive and sketchy at least on civil rights, and thereby weaken their political position.

 

Notice: nowhere above do you find "the left was genuinely interested in gay rights, or, the main goal of the effort was gay rights". Everywhere you find the word: politics. Fortunately for the country, the left's craven political goals were seen through, and they were punished for it. Fortunately for the country, now that this is being properly approached by reasonable people on both sides, whose main goal is to remove inequity, and not create pretense for war on religion, or political gain, we are seeing positive results.

 

So, especially wawrow, spare me the BS. The only reason you are talking about "civil rights", now, is that talking about "religious zealots" failed, then. Now, after you get busted and beaten playing the game you created, you start crying? You should have spared us you stupid little game in the first place.

[Peace]

All of you need to understand how this entire debate evolved:

This was a political calculation by the left. It was designed to be a wedge issue. IF you don't know what that means, google it. The goals were always political = excuse and distract from the utter failure of the 2006-8 Congress to deliver on anything it promised, and try to gain back ground lost to the right by forcing them to either choose their religious beliefs, or, choose to look insensitive and sketchy at least on civil rights, and thereby weaken their political position.

 

Notice: nowhere above do you find "the left was genuinely interested in gay rights, or, the main goal of the effort was gay rights". Everywhere you find the word: politics. Fortunately for the country, the left's craven political goals were seen through, and they were punished for it. Fortunately for the country, now that this is being properly approached by reasonable people on both sides, whose main goal is to remove inequity, and not create pretense for war on religion, or political gain, we are seeing positive results.

 

So, especially wawrow, spare me the BS. The only reason you are talking about "civil rights", now, is that talking about "religious zealots" failed, then. Now, after you get busted and beaten playing the game you created, you start crying? You should have spared us you stupid little game in the first place.

 

Idiot.

 

I could care less about the politics, as could most people. People just want to set this dumb issue right. It's getting done.

 

Gay marriage will be allowed everywhere eventually; no rational person believes otherwise. Right now, the battle is on to make the change.

[/dev/null]

uhhh, civil rights is a problem that effects 100 percent of us.

 

Edukashin affects 100% of us

[Delete This Account]

All of you need to understand how this entire debate evolved:

This was a political calculation by the left. It was designed to be a wedge issue. IF you don't know what that means, google it. The goals were always political = excuse and distract from the utter failure of the 2006-8 Congress to deliver on anything it promised, and try to gain back ground lost to the right by forcing them to either choose their religious beliefs, or, choose to look insensitive and sketchy at least on civil rights, and thereby weaken their political position.

 

Notice: nowhere above do you find "the left was genuinely interested in gay rights, or, the main goal of the effort was gay rights". Everywhere you find the word: politics. Fortunately for the country, the left's craven political goals were seen through, and they were punished for it. Fortunately for the country, now that this is being properly approached by reasonable people on both sides, whose main goal is to remove inequity, and not create pretense for war on religion, or political gain, we are seeing positive results.

 

So, especially wawrow, spare me the BS. The only reason you are talking about "civil rights", now, is that talking about "religious zealots" failed, then. Now, after you get busted and beaten playing the game you created, you start crying? You should have spared us you stupid little game in the first place.

bub, civil rights isn't "a game." this is not about distraction or wedge issues. any one who characterizes it this way has lost grip with what we're dealing with here: and that's people. this is not a left-right issue, it's an issue of fairness and equality.

 

the Republican Party's roots are based in this issue, so why would anyone want to make it a left-right debate, i don't know. what's troubling is how some have lost the ability to see that through modern-colored lenses.

 

i find it morally repulsive and shameful that anyone would want to debate this on a political level. i haven't, but you, sir, appear to want to push it in that direction. not biting.

 

jw

[DC Tom]

bub, civil rights isn't "a game." this is not about distraction or wedge issues. any one who characterizes it this way has lost grip with what we're dealing with here: and that's people. this is not a left-right issue, it's an issue of fairness and equality.

 

Generally, "fairness" is a left-right issue, seeing how each side defines it differently.

[Peace]

bub

[Delete This Account]

Generally, "fairness" is a left-right issue, seeing how each side defines it differently.

interesting point, and worthy of some thought. in today's world, fairness could well be regarded as being completely out of whack, and i think even traditional Republicans might agree as to what was once regarded as "fair" and "equitable."

could you not go back and say that this republic was built -- to some degree -- on the ideal of fairness, that a group of disenfranchised people revolted against the unfairness of the imperialist establishment of its day.

and was it not out of this ideal for fairness that the Republican Party was founded.

in fact, traditional conservatives were regarded as being fair-minded and charitable folk.

 

i'd make a contention that "fairness" and "unfairness" in the case of the issue in this thread has less to do with traditional right versus left ideology, as it might have to do with religious demagoguery and zeal: a product nourished more out of dark-age totalarian fear and ignorance than Christ-minded tolerance.

 

i could be wrong, but you got me thinking there.

 

jw

Edited July 19, 2011 by john wawrow

[Adam]

All of you need to understand how this entire debate evolved:

This was a political calculation by the left. It was designed to be a wedge issue. IF you don't know what that means, google it. The goals were always political = excuse and distract from the utter failure of the 2006-8 Congress to deliver on anything it promised, and try to gain back ground lost to the right by forcing them to either choose their religious beliefs, or, choose to look insensitive and sketchy at least on civil rights, and thereby weaken their political position.

 

Notice: nowhere above do you find "the left was genuinely interested in gay rights, or, the main goal of the effort was gay rights". Everywhere you find the word: politics. Fortunately for the country, the left's craven political goals were seen through, and they were punished for it. Fortunately for the country, now that this is being properly approached by reasonable people on both sides, whose main goal is to remove inequity, and not create pretense for war on religion, or political gain, we are seeing positive results.

 

So, especially wawrow, spare me the BS. The only reason you are talking about "civil rights", now, is that talking about "religious zealots" failed, then. Now, after you get busted and beaten playing the game you created, you start crying? You should have spared us you stupid little game in the first place.

You might be right about the intentions, and if you are, its pretty sad that politics have come to that.

 

to me, the solution is to make marriage an individual right, to any other living, consenting human being, instead of the right of a couple. Trying to make it the right of a couple opens up too many problems.

[DC Tom]

interesting point, and worthy of some thought. in today's world, fairness could well be regarded as being completely out of whack, and i think even traditional Republicans might agree as to what was once regarded as "fair" and "equitable."

could you not go back and say that this republic was built -- to some degree -- on the ideal of fairness, that a group of disenfranchised people revolted against the unfairness of the imperialist establishment of its day.

and was it not out of this ideal for fairness that the Republican Party was founded.

in fact, traditional conservatives were regarded as being fair-minded and charitable folk.

 

And in all those cases, I can easily make a counterpoint that some other group found that manifestly unfair (the British believed the colonies were reaping the benefits of Imperial protection without contributing in turn; the 'fairness' of the Republican party was manifestly unfair to the Southern land-owners they disenfranchised - and, quite honestly, not even very fair to the freed slaves, left as they were with absolutely no means of support or survival). The thought that prompted me to make the observation in the first place is how Democrats define "fairness" raising the underprivileged standard of living, whereas Republicans define it as keeping the fruits of one's labor. "Fairness", as a political doctrine, is usually defined by those in power, hence is manifestly unfair.

 

i'd make a contention that "fairness" and "unfairness" in the case of the issue in this thread has less to do with traditional right versus left ideology, as it might have to do with religious demagoguery and zeal: a product nourished more out of dark-age totalarian fear and ignorance than Christ-minded tolerance.

 

"Fairness" in a religious context, I don't even want to touch. That smacks of arguing moral relativism in a doctrine that absolutely does not recognize it - "fairness" in religion is, if not a fallacy, then close enough that I won't even offer an opinion.

 

Which in itself is impressive...you've found something that I refuse to offer an opinion on. That only took all y'all fifteen years or so.

[Delete This Account]

Which in itself is impressive...you've found something that I refuse to offer an opinion on. That only took all y'all fifteen years or so.

You're Welcome.

 

jW

Edited July 19, 2011 by john wawrow

[Buftex]

Idiot.

 

I could care less about the politics, as could most people. People just want to set this dumb issue right. It's getting done.

 

Gay marriage will be allowed everywhere eventually; no rational person believes otherwise. Right now, the battle is on to make the change.

 

 

It's OC's world...and only he lives in it...

[OCinBuffalo]

Idiot.

 

I could care less about the politics, as could most people. People just want to set this dumb issue right. It's getting done.

 

Gay marriage will be allowed everywhere eventually; no rational person believes otherwise. Right now, the battle is on to make the change.

IF you are telling the truth...then you shouldn't be calling me names and/or directing your anything my way. I'm not one of the craven assclowns that decided to weaponize this issue. Your friends on the left did that. You have an issue? Take it up with them.

 

Meanwhile, the rational people like myself, who have been 100% about solving the problem in a holistic way, that does not give the haters on either side an opportunity? Well, I am happy things are moving along what appear to be rational lines, as are the rest of us.

 

I don't know if you belong with us, the rational people, or if you are simply one more emoting assclown. Hint: there are emoting assclowns on both sides. In any event, I am never going to ignore truth because it allows for better emoting for others.

 

bub, civil rights isn't "a game." this is not about distraction or wedge issues. any one who characterizes it this way has lost grip with what we're dealing with here: and that's people. this is not a left-right issue, it's an issue of fairness and equality.

 

the Republican Party's roots are based in this issue, so why would anyone want to make it a left-right debate, i don't know. what's troubling is how some have lost the ability to see that through modern-colored lenses.

 

i find it morally repulsive and shameful that anyone would want to debate this on a political level. i haven't, but you, sir, appear to want to push it in that direction. not biting.

 

jw

Wawrow. you are dreaming if you think that this wasn't done exactly as I have described above.

 

You don't like it? Well, as I told peace, take it up with your friends on the left. You find your friends' behavior morally repulsive and shameful? Well, I agree. There's no way in hell gay rights should have even been considered to be a political tool. But your friends made that decision. They, stupidly, wanted to make it a right-left debate, and they lost. Now, Republicans that have RECENTLY been supporting it are gaining mainstream/independent appeal: just the opposite of what your friends on the left intended. How many times need we say: if you want something done, put Wawrow and his friends in charge of doing the opposite? :lol:

 

The simple fact here is: I am telling you the truth. You don't like the truth? Tough schit.

 

Spare me your phony attempt at moralizing. Your party has no chance of taking the high ground on this, as you already attempted to sell that real estate for votes.

Edited July 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

It's OC's world...and only he lives in it...

No, that's impossible. I am constantly reminded that assclowns like you live in it as well. Where to begin? The stimulus, Obama getting elected...to anything, the not-war in Libya, the Frank-Dodd soon-to-be debacle....just for starters...

 

Yes, I am constantly reminded of your and your friends aggressive pursuit of stupidity, and despite my ability to largely keep it away, you guys always manage to get some of your stupidity on me. Thankfully, I am also adept at cleaning it up. I could have stayed safe behind the walls of corporate America, and lived out my days making a killing for doing the mindless, for me, and boring.

 

Instead, I ventured forth in the clownlands of government controlled or hindered industries. I will cleanse them of your stupidity, or I will die trying. I am bringing the light of reason, accountability, and efficiency and dispelling the darkness of the Big Government statist's emoting, inconstancy nearing the point of treachery, and infeasibility.

And that's the point: if only I existed in my world, I'd be bored, because I wouldn't have any of your evil and stupidity to destroy, and much worse...I wouldn't have any fun metaphors to write.

[Peace]

IF you are telling the truth...then you shouldn't be calling me names and/or directing your anything my way. I'm not one of the craven assclowns that decided to weaponize this issue. Your friends on the left did that. You have an issue? Take it up with them.

 

Meanwhile, the rational people like myself, who have been 100% about solving the problem in a holistic way, that does not give the haters on either side an opportunity? Well, I am happy things are moving along what appear to be rational lines, as are the rest of us.

 

I don't know if you belong with us, the rational people, or if you are simply one more emoting assclown. Hint: there are emoting assclowns on both sides. In any event, I am never going to ignore truth because it allows for better emoting for others.

 

 

GOTO http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/131044-nys-vote-on-gay-marriage-tonight/page__view__findpost__p__2189665

[Delete This Account]

 

 

Spare me your phony attempt at moralizing. Your party has no chance of taking the high ground on this, as you already attempted to sell that real estate for votes.

 

my party? what party? party?

i do enjoy parties, but i don't know what you're specifically referring to. but thanks for ignoring my point that i don't think this should be a political issue, while you do.

 

jw

[/dev/null]

GOTO http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/131044-nys-vote-on-gay-marriage-tonight/page__view__findpost__p__2189665

 

Does he get to collect $200 if he passes Go?

[OCinBuffalo]

my party? what party? party?

i do enjoy parties, but i don't know what you're specifically referring to. but thanks for ignoring my point that i don't think this should be a political issue, while you do.

 

jw

Says the guy who doesn't come here enough to know that we are all quite immune to:

1. dropping Mediia Matters/Huffington Post/DNC talking points as though they are your own insights,

2. assuming that somehow we don't know and can't infer your party status from the "rinse and repeat" of #1

3. the phonies like yourself who claim independent status, yet spend every off second inserting their political beliefs into incongruent places, then ask "what party? i don't know what you're specifically referring to"

 

 

 

 

Bottom Line: I never thought this should be anything other than a simple property issue, and so did the rest of the people in my "party".

 

You cannot say the same. Period. You can say whatever you want about yourself, but your party is clear, and so is it's failure.

Edited July 25, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Delete This Account]

Says the guy who doesn't come here enough to know that we are all quite immune to:

1. dropping Mediia Matters/Huffington Post/DNC talking points as though they are your own insights,

2. assuming that somehow we don't know and can't infer your party status from the "rinse and repeat" of #1

3. the phonies like yourself who claim independent status, yet spend every off second inserting their political beliefs into incongruent places, then ask "what party? i don't know what you're specifically referring to"

 

 

 

 

Bottom Line: I never thought this should be anything other than a simple property issue, and so did the rest of the people in my "party".

 

You cannot say the same. Period. You can say whatever you want about yourself, but your party is clear, and so is it's failure.

party, hardy, bubba. you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. i party to the Replacements, Joe "baby" Strummer and Stevie Earle. if that makes me a phony, then, since we're laying labels, that makes you captain or tenille and paul anka all rolled into one sugary sloppy one.

 

 

as you've degenerated this thread to its utter base level, in which sense makes no sense and reality is but a myth, then i'll respond with a big, fat, wet fart. c'mon, now tell me who's freaking talking points i'm referring to now?

 

jeeesus, whatta crybaby. in your world, the only thing that makes sense is to label people one thing or the other and to wholeheartedly imagine yourself as the last free-thinker alive.

well, guess what, flubber, ain't even close. in fact, i'd accuse you of being a simpleton, but why disparage the foolish?

 

so i'll leave you with one last thought: why do you take yourself so seriously, when few others do?

 

as for me, i've as dumb as they come, acting with a distinct instinct of what's fair and what's not. i don't need a script for that, or a party to follow. i'm a dog, but not dogmatic.

 

jw

Edited July 31, 2011 by john wawrow