Bachmanmania!

Oklahomahawk said:
yeah, I've stepped into enough fires (from the frying pan) this evening but while I would never tell two consenting adults what they could/couldn't do in the privacy of their own homes, let me ask you this, how many societies over time have allowed or even encouraged same sex marriage? Remember now we aren't talking about same-sex, well "sex", we're talking about marriage which has always been a sort of combination of the religious beliefs of the society involved (and those have certainly varied over the centuries) and the civil rules and regulations of the society involved?

How many? Which ones?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this: how many societies over time have disallowed or even discouraged slavery? How many? Which ones?
 
jpx7 said:
Let me ask you this: how many societies over time have disallowed or even discouraged slavery? How many? Which ones?
Click to expand...

The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another, but every society that we as humans would deem to be a great, noteworthy society throughout time, every single one of them were built on the back of slave labor. Now you can do a figure 8 and some 180's and maybe some other geometric maneuvers if you want, but if you do I can dig up some other silly BS practices those societies have that also have nothing to do with same sex relations and before long we'll have both forgotten what we started this conversation over. By the way, even though I'm not in favor of same sex "marriage' I am 100% in favor of civil unions, you can even call it civil-marriage if you want, with 100% of the same rights and guarantees, and I have even pledged to go along with any state that allows same sex marriage by a vote of the people. My stance has not changed.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another, but every society that we as humans would deem to be a great, noteworthy society throughout time, every single one of them were built on the back of slave labor. Now you can do a figure 8 and some 180's and maybe some other geometric maneuvers if you want, but if you do I can dig up some other silly BS practices those societies have that also have nothing to do with same sex relations and before long we'll have both forgotten what we started this conversation over. By the way, even though I'm not in favor of same sex "marriage' I am 100% in favor of civil unions, you can even call it civil-marriage if you want, with 100% of the same rights and guarantees, and I have even pledged to go along with any state that allows same sex marriage by a vote of the people. My stance has not changed.
Click to expand...

My only point is I don't find historical precedent very germane to this conversation; as you say, we can "dig up [all sorts of] silly BS practices" from the past, but I don't think they're per se justifications for present policy.

Personally, as I've said before, I actually take a sort of sturg-esque position on this topic: I don't think the government should be in the business of any marriage, whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, cissexual, transsexual, pansexual, parasexual, ultrasexual, or catasexual.
 
jpx7 said:
My only point is I don't find historical precedent very germane to this conversation; as you say, we can "dig up [all sorts of] silly BS practices" from the past, but I don't think they're per se justifications for present policy.

Personally, as I've said before, I actually take a sort of sturg-esque position on this topic: I don't think the government should be in the business of any marriage, whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, cissexual, transsexual, pansexual, parasexual, ultrasexual, or catasexual.
Click to expand...

I'm not crazy about the government getting involved either, especially not at the national level, but do the people of a state, county, or community not have at least some rights to decide what does/doesn't get practiced in their own community? It's a tough question to be sure. I've just been in too many discussions with the "anything goes crowd", when they hear a particular state is going to vote in favor of same sex marriage they're like, "yeah, democracy works, the will of the people rules!!! Isn't America great???" but then when the votes don't go their way they want to find a judge who'll vote to make it legal because it's "clearly a civil rights issue" and the government shouldn't be telling people what they can and can't do. It's really like the TEA party buffoons who hold up signs saying "keep your government hands off my medicare" not realizing that Medicare really is "government money" and therefore must pass through government hands. LOL

It's really just a matter IMO of "everybody wants what THEY want" and we're all guilty of that from time to time. We just don't see it that way when it's us and what we're after. Human nature I suppose.

I will say this, while I believe and stand for what I said about same sex marriage it's really not something I consider anything close to "epic". Stand up and hold you hand up as high as you can reach. That's where I consider abortions done only for birth control as far as importance goes, now lean down towards the floor and hold your hand about 6 inches off the floor. that's the importance level I place on same sex marriage. I feel the way I do about it and don't care if anyone else agrees or disagrees, but I don't lose any sleep over it one way or the other.
 
AerchAngel said:
I think it is higher, like rape, incest, health to the mother. It depends on how they worded the question.
Click to expand...

True. The wording is very important.

I personally take it very simply. If the baby can live on it's own outside of the womb, then no abortion. If it can't, then it's the mother's choice. Seems like around 22 weeks is the earliest.
 
zitothebrave said:
True. The wording is very important.

I personally take it very simply. If the baby can live on it's own outside of the womb, then no abortion. If it can't, then it's the mother's choice. Seems like around 22 weeks is the earliest.
Click to expand...

That's essentially what Roe v Wade says though almost nobody seems to realize it. It's not nearly as "anything goes" as anti-abortion folks think and it's certainly not as "anything goes" as the pro-choice folks think and it definitely DOES NOT allow partial birth abortions.
 
BedellBrave said:
So you want women to be able have someone else mutilate innocent human children in their wombs, even though you being the one slicing the child up would make you too queazy?
Click to expand...
Tell me why politicians especially gop candidates running for office use the in the case of rape incest or mother's health verbiage?
 
as crazy as the stance is

i respect the ones that think the woman should give birth no matter how it was conceived over the ones that gives exceptions for it
 
goldfly said:
as crazy as the stance is

i respect the ones that think the woman should give birth no matter how it was conceived over the ones that gives exceptions for it
Click to expand...

Why do you respect the black and white position on this issue and not others?
 
BedellBrave said:
So you want women to be able have someone else mutilate innocent human children in their wombs, even though you being the one slicing the child up would make you too queazy?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the relevance here.
My gf is a RN, and the crap she tells me about, I would get queasy doing.
That doesn't mean I think no one should do it.
 
weso1 said:
Why do you respect the black and white position on this issue and not others?
Click to expand...

cause if you tell me it is a human and all life is a plan from God

then it means it was Gods plan for your father to rape you and have a baby

making up scenarios where the fetus/baby is more important than the others is weird if you are trying to tell me how precious they all are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top