Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Coming Scrap Over Gay Marriage

You hold to no such thing. True conservatism seeks to conserve what is good because presumably it is also true. This nation was founded free and independent on an appeal to the laws of nature and of nature's God, whose truths were understood to be self-evident. Your entire position is the very negation of the natural right to equal protection under the law.

Jordan

You couldn't be more wrong if you worked at it. A handful of gays wanting to get married are not what is destroying the institution of marriage. That job is being accomplished by hetro's with a soaring divorce rate and a illegitimate birth rate that is rapidly passing 2 parent families. The hetro's have not done a very good job of preserving the sanctity of the marriage vows, maybe the homo's will fare better.

As far as homosexuality in nature, I was raised on a farm, and I saw more queer acting animals in the barnyard and pasture than I ever saw queer acting humans on the streets of Los Angeles.

BTW, I'm pretty well versed in the documents of the Founding Fathers and I can't recall any mention in there about sexual preference. There is a lot however about the principal of "All men (mankind) are created equal" and that supports my egalitarian views.

On this we agree, "This nation was founded free and independent on an appeal to the laws of nature and of nature's God, whose truths were understood to be self-evident."

Ok: Our rights come from our Creator. Our Creator created straights as well as gays. The rights he gave straights he also gave to gays. Therefore, I respect the rights of gays, just as I expect them to respect the rights of us straights.

Snotwad, lets continue this tomorrow. Its getting late.

As you wish, but I hate to see you go, I'm just getting warmed up. But, tomorrow it shall be, until then I wish you peace.

What about peddys?

Ever see two bulls in your "barnyard" have a calf?
But you agree with the "Laws of Nature" part. Yeah, right....

1 plus 1 being 2 was understood; now you can have a Court over turn said "rule" in order to grant a right that was already there.

People don't like rules, but need them and freedom doesn't last without some self-discipline. The fact that many wish to 180 nature and the concept of freedom is the reason some court, somewhere, won't decide good, bad or otherwise isn't a failing of said court....

Saying you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else is akin to skinning an onion, whether you're a homo or not.

Hawk1: What about peddys?
SW: The issue of pedophilia has nothing to do with gay marriage. Pedophiles have a victim. Homosexuals do not.

Hawk1: Ever see two bulls in your "barnyard" have a calf?
SW: No, but I sure saw them try a lot.

Hawk1: 1 plus 1 being 2 was understood; now you can have a Court over turn said "rule" in order to grant a right that was already there.
SW: Forgive me, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

Hawk1: People don't like rules, but need them and freedom doesn't last without some self-discipline.
SW: Agree! But the problem is that those who make the rules must protect the rights of the minority. That is the difference between a Democracy where 51% can enslave 49%, and a Constitutional Republic which is what we are supposed to have.

Hawk1: The fact that many wish to 180 nature and the concept of freedom is the reason some court, somewhere, won't decide good, bad or otherwise isn't a failing of said court... Saying you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else is akin to skinning an onion, whether you're a homo or not.
SW: Sorry, but I don't follow what you are talking about.

No, they don't get it.

I especially like how people like TAK seem to equate supporting the government not being involved with ANY marriage with support of gay marriage.

They are not the same thing.

First off, I liked the 3rd grade.

Second, referring to the party with an opposing view as "dumb [bleep]" is not name calling nor an insult. That is simply how normal people speak.

The populous has absolutely allowed the state to determine what is and is not allowable in all things marriage. Does nature employ the thousands of case workers in this country? The case workers that sit and calculate, all day, every day the amount of money that people should pay other people because they procreated? Does nature review cases in which two human beings have never even taken vows, and determine they are "married" and then proceed to distribute assets according to how they see fit? Does nature decide who gets the sectional, and who gets the TV when neither side can prove ownership of any of those items? Does nature give tax breaks to married couples? Does nature give tax breaks to people with children?

No. The state does that. More specifically, my [bleep] tax money goes toward paying for all that bullschit and it shouldn't.

So now you have the state deeply engrained in all these decisions. All these precedent setting cases. All these laws they have passed in order to "protect" individuals and their children. All these laws that "promote" family values. And the homosexuals have watched this for decades. They've been salivating to get at a piece of that proverbial pie. And now, since people have promoted and allowed the state to become so involved in their personal affairs, the homosexuals are going to get a piece of this pie. And as I already stated, it may not be next week, or next month, but they are going to get the same benefits.

And the reason they are going to get these benefits is because "conservatives" cheered when all these states were passing "deadbeat" dad laws, and all these states were issuing benefits to citizens based on their being married, or the amount of children they had. They cheered and voted in favor of all that schit. And now that the state is there, and now that the state determines who is and who isn't married, the only argument conservatives have is "but the Bible says." And that argument, ain't gonna [bleep] hold in court. It's too late.



Travis

You are an ignoramus. Read Kirk. Egalitarian = Robspierre.

This much is true.

Amen Brother Trav!!!

all I'll say, is if I came upon a case worker, or some of these DHS.. or whatever multiple mission agencies they work for... and they were in need of immediate medical attention, I wouldn't lift a friggin finger for them... if they were dying of thirst, I wouldn't take the time to piss on them...

The amount of people's lives I have seen them destroy, right down to the children they are supposedly protecting...

they always justify their actions with "its for the children..." it isn't 'for the children'... its about creating many problems that don't exist, but creating job security for themselves and their agencies, so they can administer the solutions for the problems they created....

and the children are the ones who frequently are hurt the most...

I hope there is a special place in hell for each one of those people....

and since we are talking about Gays.... there seems to be a lot of overweight lesbians that seem to find employment in that industry...and candyassed [bleep]...

While I understand your sentiment, those people are not really the problem any more than police are the problem when they issue a citation for not wearing your seatbelt.

The problem is the elected officials and judges that pass the legislation or rule on the case that empowers those employees of the state.

And don't forget, we're the ones that put those officials and judges there.


Travis

How well I know... I didn't have one elected official that represented where I lived in Minnesota or Oregon, that did not know me by my first name and dreaded seeing my smiling face in their office....

but the people I have seen and dealt with in those offices, migrated there for a reason... and it was not based on some overwhelming concern for 'the children'....

and what judge in their right mind, wants to be assigned to those kind of cases? just the jackasses in life....I always envisioned the male judges in those courts were the ones that were getting back at the world for their child hood, the ones that got their asses kicked regularly and their lunch money taken from them....those types...

TAK: "You are an ignoramus..."

I appeal to you, to avoid the slippery slope of personal attacks and name calling. If everyone practices just a little restraint, we can have a meaningful discussion and agree to disagree without being disagreeable. For my part, I will do my best to stick to the issues and keep it civil.

I've found it sometimes takes a while for people to realize I'm right about everything.

But they get there eventually. The ones that don't, typically go insane and dedicate their lives to hating and destroying me. But I view that as a victory.



Travis

Peddys are only peddys because (like homosexuality) it has a cultural stigma as a sexual deviation in our society, for good reason. I can show you cultures that basically promote it. You gonna go hatin' on it, or do you have limits? Where did the idea for your close-mindedness come from?
Look for data on the victimless notion of homosexual behavior...it aren't pretty.

People have this notion of equality before the law. Its a good concept, until you have people demanding equality that circumvents all truth and reality. Example: G.I. Jane wants to be a Navy Seal. She must be allowed. When she is not, she sues for that opportunity and has the state pay for man junk surgery....but she's still a 98 pound chick.

The number one wishes to be number two, so the number one sues and wins.

The problem is, the court isn't going to fix these absurd notions, its probably going to make them worse. The idea that destroying all semblance of order based on primal whims is an exercise in "freedom" means people really aren't capable of handling that responsibility; the courts aren't either.

Snotwad, you have apparently seriously misread my posts. Perhaps you are seeing what you expect to see?

My serious objection is to the whole gay agenda, which seems to seek to make the gays a protected class, based on behavior. What they seem intent on achieving is a situation where people cannot say that they find gay sexual activity sinful, or that they simply don't like gay sexual expression. That already seems to have come to pass in some countries. It is a serious infringement on the right of free speech.

Some people are protected from discrimination on the basis of gender or ethnicity or personal beliefs. I'm fine with that. I would even extend the list to people who find themselves romantically attracted to the same sex. They didn't choose to have those feelings.

On the other hand, the gays seem to want protection on the basis of their chosen sexual activities. I find that notion preposterous: Engage in homosexual activity, and you are no longer subject to criticism, ridicule or scorn that might hurt your tender feelings. Somebody says homosexual activity is a sin, and you can have them arrested. That's absolutely not right.

Deflave: "I've found it sometimes takes a while for people to realize I'm right about everything. But they get there eventually. The ones that don't, typically go insane and dedicate their lives to hating and destroying me. But I view that as a victory."

Well said Sir, I salute you.

Denton: "...you have apparently seriously misread my posts."

Perhaps I have. I will take the time to re-read them carefully and see if you are correct. More to follow.