NationStates

Nerotysia wrote:

Ripoll wrote:
That black and white though.

What?

You clearly have an overwhelmingly polarized viewpoint over an issue where several viewpoints can be accepted as rational interpretations within the confines of the argument and the ultimate issue at hand.

Sorry but there are some good arguments for traditional marriage and it isn't blind bigotry.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
The reason that the Log Cabin Republicans have to exist as a separate entity is because the party is fundamentally anti-LGBT. If they were open to the LGBT crowd, then the Log Cabin folks wouldn't have to fight in order to be included in CPAC.

Cpac is not the Republican party.

No, but it's representative of the Republican Party's direction and policies, and the go-to place for would-be GOP candidates for the presidency. The treatment of the LGBT crowd by CPAC is representative of how they're treated by the party as a whole. I think that young Republicans are likely to shift the position of the party to a more inclusive one once they're in power, but that's pretty far down the road.

Ripoll wrote:

Nerotysia wrote:What?

You clearly have an overwhelmingly polarized viewpoint over an issue where several viewpoints can be accepted as rational interpretations within the confines of the argument and the ultimate issue at hand.

Sorry but there are some good arguments for traditional marriage and it isn't blind bigotry.

There are??? where?

Ripoll wrote:

Nerotysia wrote:What?

You clearly have an overwhelmingly polarized viewpoint over an issue where several viewpoints can be accepted as rational interpretations within the confines of the argument and the ultimate issue at hand.

Sorry but there are some good arguments for traditional marriage and it isn't blind bigotry.

Such as?

Ripoll wrote:

Nerotysia wrote:What?

You clearly have an overwhelmingly polarized viewpoint over an issue where several viewpoints can be accepted as rational interpretations within the confines of the argument and the ultimate issue at hand.

Sorry but there are some good arguments for traditional marriage and it isn't blind bigotry.

I don't think I've ever heard one.

Ripoll wrote:

Nerotysia wrote:What?

You clearly have an overwhelmingly polarized viewpoint over an issue where several viewpoints can be accepted as rational interpretations within the confines of the argument and the ultimate issue at hand.

Sorry but there are some good arguments for traditional marriage and it isn't blind bigotry.

Your first sentence is onerous. You could trim that down to "You are polarized, there are many reasonable arguments." Just a tip on better writing.

So, would you like to propose some reasonable anti-gay marriage viewpoints? Or do you just assume they exist? Do you also assume there are reasonable white supremacist viewpoints?

Ripoll wrote:You clearly have an overwhelmingly polarized viewpoint over an issue where several viewpoints can be accepted as rational interpretations within the confines of the argument and the ultimate issue at hand.

Sorry but there are some good arguments for traditional marriage and it isn't blind bigotry.

I've never heard one, so if you could make one it would certainly be interesting.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Cpac is not the Republican party.

No, but it's representative of the Republican Party's direction and policies, and the go-to place fori would-be GOP candidates for the presidency. The treatment of the LGBT crowd by CPAC is representative of how they're treated by the party as a whole. I think that young Republicans are likely to shift the position of the party to a more inclusive one once they're in power, but that's pretty far down the road.

Cpac represents the religious right. While I will agree they are fighting for Republican hearts and minds, they are not representing the party as a whole.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
No, but it's representative of the Republican Party's direction and policies, and the go-to place fori would-be GOP candidates for the presidency. The treatment of the LGBT crowd by CPAC is representative of how they're treated by the party as a whole. I think that young Republicans are likely to shift the position of the party to a more inclusive one once they're in power, but that's pretty far down the road.

Cpac represents the religious right. While I will agree they are fighting for Republican hearts and minds, they are not representing the party as a whole.

When even moderates are making the pilgrimage, it's pretty much won the heart of the party. Face facts: there are reasonable, moderate Republicans who believe in a strong defense and the free market without caring overmuch about social issues, but they're decidedly in the minority, and have been ever since Lee Atwater realized just how many votes you could get by characterizing Democrats as people ready to punch Jesus in the face in order to get welfare dollars flowing.

Ripoll wrote:

Nerotysia wrote:What?

You clearly have an overwhelmingly polarized viewpoint over an issue where several viewpoints can be accepted as rational interpretations within the confines of the argument and the ultimate issue at hand.

Sorry but there are some good arguments for traditional marriage and it isn't blind bigotry.

Damn straight.

Lying is generally bad however it can be justified in certain situations. Hopefully Bush does what Obama did and "turns it around" once he has already been elected. If he doesn't then he isn't as separate from the other parties and quite frankly it would really personally make some (at least me) lose a lot of motivation to vote at all, but I still would.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Cpac represents the religious right. While I will agree they are fighting for Republican hearts and minds, they are not representing the party as a whole.

When even moderates are making the pilgrimage, it's pretty much won the heart of the party. Face facts: there are reasonable, moderate Republicans who believe in a strong defense and the free market without caring overmuch about social issues, but they're decidedly in the minority, and have been ever since Lee Atwater realized just how many votes you could get by characterizing Democrats as people ready to punch Jesus in the face in order to get welfare dollars flowing.

We disagree.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
When even moderates are making the pilgrimage, it's pretty much won the heart of the party. Face facts: there are reasonable, moderate Republicans who believe in a strong defense and the free market without caring overmuch about social issues, but they're decidedly in the minority, and have been ever since Lee Atwater realized just how many votes you could get by characterizing Democrats as people ready to punch Jesus in the face in order to get welfare dollars flowing.

We disagree.

I'm typing.

Sorry, thought that we'd started seeing who could make the more obvious statement.

Merizoc wrote:

United Russian Soviet States wrote:That is the way the tide turned. Stalin brought on the conflict between superpowers, not the Illuminati.
I know about attempts to change the old traditions.

And are you against such attempts?

I am often against it.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

United Russian Soviet States wrote:That is the way the tide turned. Stalin brought on the conflict between superpowers, not the Illuminati.
I know about attempts to change the old traditions.

1) If the Illuminati was real, why wouldn't they just stop Stalin? This is just crazy talk, listen to yourself. This isn't even just politically nonsense, this is literally insane. Combined with your obsession with Frozen, I'm rather inclined to merely think you a troll.

2) Name one.

They probably didn't want to interfere with the USSR. I am not a troll. Same-sex marriage is an attempt to change the old traditions.

United Russian Soviet States wrote:

Merizoc wrote:And are you against such attempts?

I am often against it.

United Marxist Nations wrote:1) If the Illuminati was real, why wouldn't they just stop Stalin? This is just crazy talk, listen to yourself. This isn't even just politically nonsense, this is literally insane. Combined with your obsession with Frozen, I'm rather inclined to merely think you a troll.

2) Name one.

They probably didn't want to interfere with the USSR. I am not a troll. Same-sex marriage is an attempt to change the old traditions.

You mean the old traditions of bigotry against gay people?

United Russian Soviet States wrote:

Merizoc wrote:And are you against such attempts?

I am often against it.

United Marxist Nations wrote:1) If the Illuminati was real, why wouldn't they just stop Stalin? This is just crazy talk, listen to yourself. This isn't even just politically nonsense, this is literally insane. Combined with your obsession with Frozen, I'm rather inclined to merely think you a troll.

2) Name one.

They probably didn't want to interfere with the USSR. I am not a troll. Same-sex marriage is an attempt to change the old traditions.

1) If their goal was Marxism, why the fuck wouldn't they?

2) No it isn't; I was referring to the Soviet programs aimed at creating a new Soviet people.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

United Russian Soviet States wrote:I am often against it.
They probably didn't want to interfere with the USSR. I am not a troll. Same-sex marriage is an attempt to change the old traditions.

You mean the old traditions of bigotry against gay people?

It is not bigotry. It is morality.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

United Russian Soviet States wrote:I am often against it.
They probably didn't want to interfere with the USSR. I am not a troll. Same-sex marriage is an attempt to change the old traditions.

1) If their goal was Marxism, why the fuck wouldn't they?

2) No it isn't; I was referring to the Soviet programs aimed at creating a new Soviet people.

I don't know.

United Russian Soviet States wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
You mean the old traditions of bigotry against gay people?

It is not bigotry. It is morality.

You make it sound like you're doing something right.

Kelinfort wrote:

Tea party separation of america wrote:Probably because it was forced on them by out-of-state liberals with a bone to pick.

Freedom's so bad, ain't it Mr. libertarian?

Please stop insulting the term libertarian by associating it with reactionary nonsense.

United Russian Soviet States wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
You mean the old traditions of bigotry against gay people?

It is not bigotry. It is morality.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

You're disallowing two people from having their marriage recognized by the state because it goes against your personal beliefs despite the fact that it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Where I come from, that's bigotry.

United Russian Soviet States wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
You mean the old traditions of bigotry against gay people?

It is not bigotry. It is morality.

United Marxist Nations wrote:1) If their goal was Marxism, why the fuck wouldn't they?

2) No it isn't; I was referring to the Soviet programs aimed at creating a new Soviet people.

I don't know.

Then maybe you should stop believing it, because it is bullshit.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:We disagree.

I'm typing.

Sorry, thought that we'd started seeing who could make the more obvious statement.

well to be honest, once you went to the gratuitous crack i thought the conversation was over.

But i will concede these points,

If you read jesus, it is pretty obvious jesus was a socialist, if not a communist. There was not a lot of free political thought back in the 1st century. Jesus would not be a good republican.

Also while he would not have approved of the gay lifestyle and would not have supported gay marriage, again he was a first century jew. He would have loved gay people, and hung out with them. HE would pray for them, as he would pray for anyone else who needed his help.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
I'm typing.

Sorry, thought that we'd started seeing who could make the more obvious statement.

well to be honest, once you went to the gratuitous crack i thought the conversation was over.

But i will concede these points,

If you read jesus, it is pretty obvious jesus was a socialist, if not a communist. There was not a lot of free political thought back in the 1st century. Jesus would not be a good republican.

Also while he would not have approved of the gay lifestyle and would not have supported gay marriage, again he was a first century jew. He would have loved gay people, and hung out with them. HE would pray for them, as he would pray for anyone else who needed his help.

What crack? If I wrote something that could be interpreted as a slight against you in any way whatsoever, I apologize. I'm not directly opposed to insulting people when necessary, but I hate doing so accidentally.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
well to be honest, once you went to the gratuitous crack i thought the conversation was over.

But i will concede these points,

If you read jesus, it is pretty obvious jesus was a socialist, if not a communist. There was not a lot of free political thought back in the 1st century. Jesus would not be a good republican.

Also while he would not have approved of the gay lifestyle and would not have supported gay marriage, again he was a first century jew. He would have loved gay people, and hung out with them. HE would pray for them, as he would pray for anyone else who needed his help.

What crack? If I wrote something that could be interpreted as a slight against you in any way whatsoever, I apologize. I'm not directly opposed to insulting people when necessary, but I hate doing so accidentally.

not insulting me, no. the punch jesus in the face line, wasn't really conducive to reasoned conversation. besides i thought my points about jesus would be more interesting

and with this i am off to bed, nite yummy .

Ethel mermania wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
What crack? If I wrote something that could be interpreted as a slight against you in any way whatsoever, I apologize. I'm not directly opposed to insulting people when necessary, but I hate doing so accidentally.

not insulting me, no. the punch jesus in the face line, wasn't really conducive to reasoned conversation. besides i thought my points about jesus would be more interesting

and with this i am off to bed, nite yummy .

Ah. I was attempting to convey Lee Atwater's characterization of Democrats with some exaggeration, though not much. Apologies if that got confused somehow.

Night.

Ripoll wrote:Sorry but there are some good arguments for traditional marriage and it isn't blind bigotry.

Really? So why haven't opponents of gay marriage found them yet?

Ethel mermania wrote:Tell that to the log cabin republicans.

The Log Cabin Republicans exist because if you're a wealthy white male, the GOP is still a pretty good place to be. Even if they're not too keen on who you go home to after railing about the evils of socialism and government and immigration and the black culture of violence.

Imperializt Russia wrote:I agree.
I'd love to get me some of my brother's wives when he dies. Also his wives' slaves.

I'll be halfway to a harem by then.

Must be kept in mind that, as always, the conservative definition of 'traditional' is 'whatever is currently useful to our agenda.'.

In this case, 'traditional marriage' stretches all the way back into the misty antiquity of the 1960's, to just after those liberal activist judges overthrew the moral and divinely ordained laws forbidding intermingling of the races.