Why are the posters on P&N so far to the left?

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Termagant
A think a computer technology site will tend to attract younger viewers, and younger voters tend more to the left than the right.

Until they grow up and cannot afford to be a Dem! 😉

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Termagant
A think a computer technology site will tend to attract younger viewers, and younger voters tend more to the left than the right.

Until they grow up and cannot afford to be a Dem! 😉

I've been in the computer field since the commodore days.
I'm grown up.
I'm making an assload of money.
I'm a Liberal.

Perhaps a computer technology site tends to attract INTELLIGENT viewers, not younger ones.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte


what are you learning impaired too? get off your slippery slope!! Leave the Straw Men alone!!

as far as writing up arguments against incest and poligamy omg!! its been done a thousand times on these boards!!

I do not forget about the unrepresented people. read my post again. Everyone who has a cause they want to fight for can and do fight for it. With sound and valid arguments in the courts AND/or legislature they can get their freedoms (key words SOUND and VALID arguments)

to entertain your playing "devils advocate" and to provide the 1001 answers to the slippery slopes that bigots love to cling to here are some of the reasons (and reasoning by state laws) as to why incestual marriage or poligamy cannot be allowed;

incestual marriage can be a marriage under duress. An argument can be made against incestual marriage because a family member, whom is a figure of authority, can force a marriage upon unconsenting persons. Examples, A father can force a marriage with his daughter, or a father can force his children to marry. There is a real danger of statutory rape in incestual relationships.

Or lets say for example that a brother and sister are both consenting to a marriage (incestual relationship), now you have the problem of ill offspring. Scientifically speaking the threat of ill offspring is higher in an incestual relationship, this leads to knowingly, and technically with the States permission, placing offspring in danger. Think about it...

Something else worth mentioning is the fact that there are no marriage privacy laws that exist nationally, so it is up to each state to make the rules right? These rules need only pass the "rational basis" requirement. This means that laws enacted by the state need be implemented with rational cause (justification.) Since it is socially acceptable here in the US to protect children against statutory rape, or underage marriage we establish these rules (wherein incestual marriage falls within and is outlawed due to the stated dangers.)

Poligamy. Im going to keep it short. In a regular marriage of two people everything is split 50/50. In a marriage of more than two people the courts cannot split everything 50/50. The issue of ownership is a minor issue but relevant. Also, poligamous relationships suffer from much of the same dangers as incestual relationships. With the threat of statutory rape, states have a rational basis for outlawing the practice.

so, what are your reasons against gays again? because the bible tells you so?

OH I remember, because gays cannot procreate. Problem with that is, marriage is not a requirement for procreation, and those that DO married are not required to procreate. I do not understand why this "excuse" gets used so much, its a bogus attempt to justify bigotry...again.

PS, if you read my post carefully you can see where the REAL argument against gay marriage is coming from and not what the Neo-con shrills like to use as fallacious arguments. Can you figure it out?

No, I am not learning impaired, I have a different opinon on the matter than you. See how that works? I think you are wrong, I debate the points with you, you think I am wrong, you debate the points with me and insult me.

I'm sure that it would't be too hard to come up with counter points to your arguments against polygamy and incest, but you don't agree with those counter points, so of course you are right in the matter.

Gay marriage degrades the sanctity of marriage. Especially in todays society, it is important to promote the traditional family, allowing gay marriage does the opposite. Look at how bad it is in the inner cities and compare that to the kids family life. Its obvious that the best thing for a child is a traditional, functional family. I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it, but a child does not need a daddy and a daddy, they need a mother and a father.

There really is no need to insult me, I have not once insulted you. This is the problem ProfJohn runs into, he brings up valid argurments, sparks debate, he even provides links, yet most of the people on this forum feel the need to insult him. Why can't we all just have good quality debates about the issues instead of insulting one another, or in other words, "why can't we all just get along".

You are probably a very intelligent person, so why do you feel the need to insult people that disagree with you?

 

[Steeplerot]

Wrong, straight folks screw up the concept of marriage well enough themselves, look at the divorce rate, and who are you to give a flying crap about how sanctimonious someone elses marriage is, mind your own buisness and keep your bigotry to yourself, maybe if right wingers worried about their OWN marriages red states wouldnt have the biggest divorce rates huh?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Stunt
There's three stages of life:
Teen - Liberal...student loans suck
Familyhood - Conservative...family values, lower tax
Senior - Conservative...those who have money and hate change, Liberal...those who have no money and think voting is charity before they die.

Welcome to the 50/50 split of US politics.

Could we possibly have a debate about political ideology without someone trotting this bullshit out every five minutes? I swear to God that I'm going to hit the next person who says "only conservatives have family values" in the face. Yes, OVER the Internet...you didn't know I could do that, did you? 😀

Seriously though, you say smart stuff a lot of the time...but every once in a while it's like talking to Sean Hannity.

I'm pointing out where Conservatives and Liberals gain most of their support. Do I have data and does everyone vote down these lines? Of course not.

Fact of the matter is when you are younger you require more assistance to get your life started and you have a more idealistic view of the world; therefore most are liberal. The ones who live in suburbia, have a family and carry most of the tax burden require little assistance and tend to be conservative. Finally the seniors are split into the two camps as some are more dependent than others.

This was in response to a comment that younger people are more liberal and I agree; trying to give a reason for this. Is it a generalization...yeah...no doubt...hell are there liberals who support the death penalty, oppose abortions and advocate gun rights? Yes. Discussing political ideologies is always going to make generalizations and assumptions; I'm surprised you are offended by this.

I'm not offended by the broad assumption of which groups tend to be more liberal or conservative, that's pretty well supported fact in my opinion. I am, however, offended by what I see as a silly stereotype of WHY certain groups are one way or the other. There is this conservative assumption that the reasons for liberal ideology are rooted in immaturity or a lack of connection with the "real world", while the reasons for conservative ideology are rooted in sound thinking and grown-up behavior. You didn't say it as bluntly as most conservatives do, but that was the thrust of your argument, no?

Sorry if I'm a little touchy about this, but after the 11 billionth time someone tells me I'm liberal because I'm some sort of pansy-ass loser not living in the real world who wants everyone else to support me, it gets a little old.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Wrong, straight folks screw up the concept of marriage well enough themselves, look at the divorce rate, and who are you to give a flying crap about how sanctimonious someone elses marriage is, mind your own buisness and keep your bigotry to yourself, maybe if right wingers worried about their OWN marriages red states wouldnt have the biggest divorce rates huh?

Wrong about what? I even said "I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it".

Once again, another "tolerant" liberal throwing insults at someone that they don't disagree with. You have to draw a line somewhere with marriage, the logical line would be with a man and a woman, the optimal family especially for a child. I could use your logic and say, "mind your own business, I can have sex with a goat", "mind your own business, that 12 year old wanted it", "mind your own business, my 10 wives are happy".

Where is this bigot stuff coming from? I have not said one negative thing about gays, I could care less if someone is gay. Just because I do not think that they shouldn't get married does not mean that I am a bigot. I don't agree with the view point that anyone and everyone should have the right to get married. Since when is marriage a right?

I am not against civil unions, I am not against gays. There are standards when it comes to marriage, it has to be one man and one woman. There are standards to get into Harvard, would you call me a bigot because I don't think someone that got a 700 on their SATs shouldn't go to Harvard? Stop with the name calling, it just weakens your argument. I have been nothing but civil through all of your insults, what does that say about you?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte


what are you learning impaired too? get off your slippery slope!! Leave the Straw Men alone!!

as far as writing up arguments against incest and poligamy omg!! its been done a thousand times on these boards!!

I do not forget about the unrepresented people. read my post again. Everyone who has a cause they want to fight for can and do fight for it. With sound and valid arguments in the courts AND/or legislature they can get their freedoms (key words SOUND and VALID arguments)

to entertain your playing "devils advocate" and to provide the 1001 answers to the slippery slopes that bigots love to cling to here are some of the reasons (and reasoning by state laws) as to why incestual marriage or poligamy cannot be allowed;

incestual marriage can be a marriage under duress. An argument can be made against incestual marriage because a family member, whom is a figure of authority, can force a marriage upon unconsenting persons. Examples, A father can force a marriage with his daughter, or a father can force his children to marry. There is a real danger of statutory rape in incestual relationships.

Or lets say for example that a brother and sister are both consenting to a marriage (incestual relationship), now you have the problem of ill offspring. Scientifically speaking the threat of ill offspring is higher in an incestual relationship, this leads to knowingly, and technically with the States permission, placing offspring in danger. Think about it...

Something else worth mentioning is the fact that there are no marriage privacy laws that exist nationally, so it is up to each state to make the rules right? These rules need only pass the "rational basis" requirement. This means that laws enacted by the state need be implemented with rational cause (justification.) Since it is socially acceptable here in the US to protect children against statutory rape, or underage marriage we establish these rules (wherein incestual marriage falls within and is outlawed due to the stated dangers.)

Poligamy. Im going to keep it short. In a regular marriage of two people everything is split 50/50. In a marriage of more than two people the courts cannot split everything 50/50. The issue of ownership is a minor issue but relevant. Also, poligamous relationships suffer from much of the same dangers as incestual relationships. With the threat of statutory rape, states have a rational basis for outlawing the practice.

so, what are your reasons against gays again? because the bible tells you so?

OH I remember, because gays cannot procreate. Problem with that is, marriage is not a requirement for procreation, and those that DO married are not required to procreate. I do not understand why this "excuse" gets used so much, its a bogus attempt to justify bigotry...again.

PS, if you read my post carefully you can see where the REAL argument against gay marriage is coming from and not what the Neo-con shrills like to use as fallacious arguments. Can you figure it out?

No, I am not learning impaired, I have a different opinon on the matter than you. See how that works? I think you are wrong, I debate the points with you, you think I am wrong, you debate the points with me and insult me.

I'm sure that it would't be too hard to come up with counter points to your arguments against polygamy and incest, but you don't agree with those counter points, so of course you are right in the matter.

Gay marriage degrades the sanctity of marriage. Especially in todays society, it is important to promote the traditional family, allowing gay marriage does the opposite. Look at how bad it is in the inner cities and compare that to the kids family life. Its obvious that the best thing for a child is a traditional, functional family. I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it, but a child does not need a daddy and a daddy, they need a mother and a father.

There really is no need to insult me, I have not once insulted you. This is the problem ProfJohn runs into, he brings up valid argurments, sparks debate, he even provides links, yet most of the people on this forum feel the need to insult him. Why can't we all just have good quality debates about the issues instead of insulting one another, or in other words, "why can't we all just get along".

You are probably a very intelligent person, so why do you feel the need to insult people that disagree with you?

Lighten up sparky I am only insulting you because you obviously don't like it.

Ill stop now. 🙂

so, what are those counter points exactly? I knew you wouldn't agree with my reasoning (and the reasoning of several state legislatures) but I laid it out there anyway.

As for the "traditional family" and the "sanctity of marriage" stuff...the same rhetoric was used against inter-racial marriages, and to a certain extent, womens rights. The problem with this rhetoric is that it is all relative. If you have 20 people in a room you will have 20 different opinions on the "traditional family" and the "sanctity of marriage." Who gets to make the decision that may ultimately end up in legislation?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Wrong, straight folks screw up the concept of marriage well enough themselves, look at the divorce rate, and who are you to give a flying crap about how sanctimonious someone elses marriage is, mind your own buisness and keep your bigotry to yourself, maybe if right wingers worried about their OWN marriages red states wouldnt have the biggest divorce rates huh?

Wrong about what? I even said "I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it".

Once again, another "tolerant" liberal throwing insults at someone that they don't disagree with. You have to draw a line somewhere with marriage, the logical line would be with a man and a woman, the optimal family especially for a child. I could use your logic and say, "mind your own business, I can have sex with a goat", "mind your own business, that 12 year old wanted it", "mind your own business, my 10 wives are happy".

Where is this bigot stuff coming from? I have not said one negative thing about gays, I could care less if someone is gay. Just because I do not think that they shouldn't get married does not mean that I am a bigot. I don't agree with the view point that anyone and everyone should have the right to get married. Since when is marriage a right?

I am not against civil unions, I am not against gays. There are standards when it comes to marriage, it has to be one man and one woman. There are standards to get into Harvard, would you call me a bigot because I don't think someone that got a 700 on their SATs shouldn't go to Harvard? Stop with the name calling, it just weakens your argument. I have been nothing but civil through all of your insults, what does that say about you?

Try looking the definition up, if you dont like being repeatedly called it, then why is it people call you this? duh, it is a bigoted stance you take.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: OrByte


what are you learning impaired too? get off your slippery slope!! Leave the Straw Men alone!!

as far as writing up arguments against incest and poligamy omg!! its been done a thousand times on these boards!!

I do not forget about the unrepresented people. read my post again. Everyone who has a cause they want to fight for can and do fight for it. With sound and valid arguments in the courts AND/or legislature they can get their freedoms (key words SOUND and VALID arguments)

to entertain your playing "devils advocate" and to provide the 1001 answers to the slippery slopes that bigots love to cling to here are some of the reasons (and reasoning by state laws) as to why incestual marriage or poligamy cannot be allowed;

incestual marriage can be a marriage under duress. An argument can be made against incestual marriage because a family member, whom is a figure of authority, can force a marriage upon unconsenting persons. Examples, A father can force a marriage with his daughter, or a father can force his children to marry. There is a real danger of statutory rape in incestual relationships.

Or lets say for example that a brother and sister are both consenting to a marriage (incestual relationship), now you have the problem of ill offspring. Scientifically speaking the threat of ill offspring is higher in an incestual relationship, this leads to knowingly, and technically with the States permission, placing offspring in danger. Think about it...

Something else worth mentioning is the fact that there are no marriage privacy laws that exist nationally, so it is up to each state to make the rules right? These rules need only pass the "rational basis" requirement. This means that laws enacted by the state need be implemented with rational cause (justification.) Since it is socially acceptable here in the US to protect children against statutory rape, or underage marriage we establish these rules (wherein incestual marriage falls within and is outlawed due to the stated dangers.)

Poligamy. Im going to keep it short. In a regular marriage of two people everything is split 50/50. In a marriage of more than two people the courts cannot split everything 50/50. The issue of ownership is a minor issue but relevant. Also, poligamous relationships suffer from much of the same dangers as incestual relationships. With the threat of statutory rape, states have a rational basis for outlawing the practice.

so, what are your reasons against gays again? because the bible tells you so?

OH I remember, because gays cannot procreate. Problem with that is, marriage is not a requirement for procreation, and those that DO married are not required to procreate. I do not understand why this "excuse" gets used so much, its a bogus attempt to justify bigotry...again.

PS, if you read my post carefully you can see where the REAL argument against gay marriage is coming from and not what the Neo-con shrills like to use as fallacious arguments. Can you figure it out?

No, I am not learning impaired, I have a different opinon on the matter than you. See how that works? I think you are wrong, I debate the points with you, you think I am wrong, you debate the points with me and insult me.

I'm sure that it would't be too hard to come up with counter points to your arguments against polygamy and incest, but you don't agree with those counter points, so of course you are right in the matter.

Gay marriage degrades the sanctity of marriage. Especially in todays society, it is important to promote the traditional family, allowing gay marriage does the opposite. Look at how bad it is in the inner cities and compare that to the kids family life. Its obvious that the best thing for a child is a traditional, functional family. I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it, but a child does not need a daddy and a daddy, they need a mother and a father.

There really is no need to insult me, I have not once insulted you. This is the problem ProfJohn runs into, he brings up valid argurments, sparks debate, he even provides links, yet most of the people on this forum feel the need to insult him. Why can't we all just have good quality debates about the issues instead of insulting one another, or in other words, "why can't we all just get along".

You are probably a very intelligent person, so why do you feel the need to insult people that disagree with you?

Lighten up sparky I am only insulting you because you obviously don't like it.

Ill stop now. 🙂

so, what are those counter points exactly? I knew you wouldn't agree with my reasoning (and the reasoning of several state legislatures) but I laid it out there anyway.

As for the "traditional family" and the "sanctity of marriage" stuff...the same rhetoric was used against inter-racial marriages, and to a certain extent, womens rights. The problem with this rhetoric is that it is all relative. If you have 20 people in a room you will have 20 different opinions on the "traditional family" and the "sanctity of marriage." Who gets to make the decision that may ultimately end up in legislation?

Well, I wasn't around back when womens rights and inter-racial marriages were an issue, but I am sure that those same arguments were made. But, I'm sure you believe as well as I do that there must be a line somewhere. I think we just disagree on where that line should be.

And as far as the counterpoints to incest and polygamy, I have no clue since I don't support them, but I am sure there are plenty out there. I'm sure Dave can give you some counterpoints to the whole incest thing, being a product of it and all😉

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Wrong, straight folks screw up the concept of marriage well enough themselves, look at the divorce rate, and who are you to give a flying crap about how sanctimonious someone elses marriage is, mind your own buisness and keep your bigotry to yourself, maybe if right wingers worried about their OWN marriages red states wouldnt have the biggest divorce rates huh?

Wrong about what? I even said "I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it".

Once again, another "tolerant" liberal throwing insults at someone that they don't disagree with. You have to draw a line somewhere with marriage, the logical line would be with a man and a woman, the optimal family especially for a child. I could use your logic and say, "mind your own business, I can have sex with a goat", "mind your own business, that 12 year old wanted it", "mind your own business, my 10 wives are happy".

Where is this bigot stuff coming from? I have not said one negative thing about gays, I could care less if someone is gay. Just because I do not think that they shouldn't get married does not mean that I am a bigot. I don't agree with the view point that anyone and everyone should have the right to get married. Since when is marriage a right?

I am not against civil unions, I am not against gays. There are standards when it comes to marriage, it has to be one man and one woman. There are standards to get into Harvard, would you call me a bigot because I don't think someone that got a 700 on their SATs shouldn't go to Harvard? Stop with the name calling, it just weakens your argument. I have been nothing but civil through all of your insults, what does that say about you?

Arguing for "standards" is not a defensible position that you aren't a bigot. After all, while obviously a lot of standards aren't bigoted in the least, it's quite possible to set standards that ARE bigoted. In your mind, the "standard" that marriage can only apply to one man and one woman is fair just because it's a "standard", yet I assume you wouldn't be quite so supportive of a marriage standard that declared marriage to be between one man and one woman of the same race only. It's all about where you draw the line, you think we're crazy because we draw the line at two adults that love each other, while we think you are discriminating because you think it should only apply to two adults of the opposite sex.

But you're point (that's made repeatedly in this argument) about "rights" is interesting. If marriage is not a right, doesn't that imply that the state can approve or deny ANY marriage at will? Yet I'm not aware of cases where they do so...if we're trying to create the "optimal family", shouldn't we be a little more intelligent about our decision making than giving every idiot straight couple a marriage license and not allowing ANY gay couples to get married? I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the worst straight couple can make a better family environment than the best gay couple, yet that's (apparently) the system.

And for that matter, if it's about preventing those evil gays from creating a "non-optimal family environment", why approve of civil unions? Yet approval of civil unions among anti-gay marriage folks is rather high...I wonder if the argument has less to do with reasonable arguments than it does with the fact that people just don't LIKE changing traditions.

 

[OrByte]

no I do not agree with drawing a line. Why draw a line?

If someone has the balls to approach the courts and/or legislature to try and win rights to marry cars and sailboats and animals and UFOs and 20 kids from the honduras then by all means go for it.

and see how far you get. 🙂

a valid and rational argument is all it takes. But it works both ways, a valid and rational argument is all it takes to shoot it down.

I think homosexuals are presenting a valid and rational argument. I can't say the same for the opposition.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Arguing for "standards" is not a defensible position that you aren't a bigot. After all, while obviously a lot of standards aren't bigoted in the least, it's quite possible to set standards that ARE bigoted. In your mind, the "standard" that marriage can only apply to one man and one woman is fair just because it's a "standard", yet I assume you wouldn't be quite so supportive of a marriage standard that declared marriage to be between one man and one woman of the same race only. It's all about where you draw the line, you think we're crazy because we draw the line at two adults that love each other, while we think you are discriminating because you think it should only apply to two adults of the opposite sex.

But you're point (that's made repeatedly in this argument) about "rights" is interesting. If marriage is not a right, doesn't that imply that the state can approve or deny ANY marriage at will? Yet I'm not aware of cases where they do so...if we're trying to create the "optimal family", shouldn't we be a little more intelligent about our decision making than giving every idiot straight couple a marriage license and not allowing ANY gay couples to get married? I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the worst straight couple can make a better family environment than the best gay couple, yet that's (apparently) the system.

And for that matter, if it's about preventing those evil gays from creating a "non-optimal family environment", why approve of civil liberties? Yet approval of civil liberties among anti-gay marriage folks is rather high...I wonder if the argument has less to do with reasonable arguments than it does with the fact that people just don't LIKE changing traditions.

Well, going by the strict definition of bigot, I would say that a lot of people on this board are bigots.

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own


Although, I am perfectly tolerant of opinions differing from my own, I might think that they are wrong and I completely disagree with them, but I am tolerant and can accept other peoples viewpoints.

Anyways, when you get down to the bottom line, I think that you are probably right when you say, "people just don't LIKE changing traditions". If the majority of people in a state agree with gay marriage, then fine, I might not agree with it but its the majorities will. Are there any states where the majority of people want gay marriage?

 

[AutumnRayne]

Originally posted by: JD50


Gay marriage degrades the sanctity of marriage. Especially in todays society, it is important to promote the traditional family, allowing gay marriage does the opposite.

That is one of the most humorous statements I have seen in a while. Considering more than half of all heterosexuals that get married will also get divorced. Last I heard married people were actually approaching minority status in this country. So much for the sanctity of marriage, eh?

This is really a moot point. Debating/arguing isn't going to change anyone's opinion on this subject matter. We all have the freedom to believe how we choose. My biggest problem with this, is that I think it is unfair for a majority of people to force the rest, to believe what they believe. You can disagree with gay marriage all day long, but what right does that give you or anybody else to tell homosexuals, hey you're not allowed to share in the same joy as every other heterosexual human, and get married. How does two gay people being married, hurt you? Does it make your marriage any less sound? I think not.

Just my two cents.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: AutumnRayne

Originally posted by: JD50


Gay marriage degrades the sanctity of marriage. Especially in todays society, it is important to promote the traditional family, allowing gay marriage does the opposite.

That is one of the most humorous statements I have seen in a while. Considering more than half of all heterosexuals that get married will also get divorced. Last I heard married people were actually approaching minority status in this country. So much for the sanctity of marriage, eh?

This is really a moot point. Debating/arguing isn't going to change anyone's opinion on this subject matter. We all have the freedom to believe how we choose. My biggest problem with this, is that I think it is unfair for a majority of people to force the rest, to believe what they believe. You can disagree with gay marriage all day long, but what right does that give you or anybody else to tell homosexuals, hey you're not allowed to share in the same joy as every other heterosexual human, and get married. How does two gay people being married, hurt you? Does it make your marriage any less sound? I think not.

Just my two cents.

It's not humorous, its sad, like I said, "I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it". But you are right, no one here is going to change there mind, but does anyone here really change their mind on anything? I guess its all pointless debating just to waste time.

But like I said, its really about drawing a line, what gives you the right to tell someone that they can't marry 10 other people, or that they can't marry their sister?

If you have a degree from Harvard does it make your degree worth less because some dumb high school dropout got a degree from Harvard too? Of course, and for obvious reasons. There has to be standards and there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It makes me no more of a bigot to think that gays shouldn't get married then it does someone else to think that sibling shouldn't get married, or men shouldn't marry 10 women.

 

[AutumnRayne]

I never said you were a bigot. You, just like anyone else, are entitled to your opinion. Guess we can agree to disagree. 🙂

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: AutumnRayne
I never said you were a bigot. You, just like anyone else, are entitled to your opinion. Guess we can agree to disagree. 🙂

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you, more towards the multitude of other posters that calls anyone that disagrees with gay marriage a bigot. Agree to disagree is a good policy on these boards.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Tab
Still waiting for those 5+ quotes....

What are you trying to prove? I am not going to spend all night digging up quotes.
Do you disagree with the idea that this forum leans to the left?

Why you made the claim that liberals in this forum say things like the following...

Government has a solution for every problem
If we just leave Iraq, Middle East and Israel the terrorists will leave us alone
Raising taxes is a good thing
Talking to dictators like Kim in North Korea will bring about positive long term peace
Nationalized healthcare or any of the other ideas that believe government should take over healthcare or be more involved in it
Radical pro-abortion- anything later than first trimester, partial birth, not having some form of parental notification when your 14 year old wants an abortion
Calling Bush a traitor, war criminal, committer of treason etc etc
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the source for all evil in the world, but Keith Olbermann is a rational moderate commentator (there a lot on here who might make that statement)

Are going not going support your claim? I dont see this present in the forums.

There really is no need to quote this stuff, if you want examples just start browsing this forum.

Sounds like he's just going to cut and run...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Smilin
I've been in the computer field since the commodore days.
I'm grown up.
I'm making an assload of money.
I'm a Liberal.

Self-loathing?

Perhaps a computer technology site tends to attract INTELLIGENT viewers, not younger ones.

Right, and let me guess ... only liberals are 'INTELLIGENT', right? 😕

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Tab
Still waiting for those 5+ quotes....

What are you trying to prove? I am not going to spend all night digging up quotes.
Do you disagree with the idea that this forum leans to the left?

Why you made the claim that liberals in this forum say things like the following...

Government has a solution for every problem
If we just leave Iraq, Middle East and Israel the terrorists will leave us alone
Raising taxes is a good thing
Talking to dictators like Kim in North Korea will bring about positive long term peace
Nationalized healthcare or any of the other ideas that believe government should take over healthcare or be more involved in it
Radical pro-abortion- anything later than first trimester, partial birth, not having some form of parental notification when your 14 year old wants an abortion
Calling Bush a traitor, war criminal, committer of treason etc etc
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the source for all evil in the world, but Keith Olbermann is a rational moderate commentator (there a lot on here who might make that statement)

Are going not going support your claim? I dont see this present in the forums.

There really is no need to quote this stuff, if you want examples just start browsing this forum.

Sounds like he's just going to cut and run...

Umm...it wasn't my argument. Looks like you want someone to go out and find quotes for you that are right in front of your face when you hit the "Politics & News" tab.

Sounds like you are lazy and don't want to do any research.

Edit: Here is a hint, hit the "back" button on your browser, then left click on the "Lynne Cheney ripps CNN" thread and look at some of the posts claiming that Fox is ultra right wing and that CNN is completely unbiased.

Edit2: LOL, you are in that group, no wonder you think that P&N is not full of liberals.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Wrong, straight folks screw up the concept of marriage well enough themselves, look at the divorce rate, and who are you to give a flying crap about how sanctimonious someone elses marriage is, mind your own buisness and keep your bigotry to yourself, maybe if right wingers worried about their OWN marriages red states wouldnt have the biggest divorce rates huh?

Wrong about what? I even said "I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it".

Once again, another "tolerant" liberal throwing insults at someone that they don't disagree with. You have to draw a line somewhere with marriage, the logical line would be with a man and a woman, the optimal family especially for a child. I could use your logic and say, "mind your own business, I can have sex with a goat", "mind your own business, that 12 year old wanted it", "mind your own business, my 10 wives are happy".

Where is this bigot stuff coming from? I have not said one negative thing about gays, I could care less if someone is gay. Just because I do not think that they shouldn't get married does not mean that I am a bigot. I don't agree with the view point that anyone and everyone should have the right to get married. Since when is marriage a right?

I am not against civil unions, I am not against gays. There are standards when it comes to marriage, it has to be one man and one woman. There are standards to get into Harvard, would you call me a bigot because I don't think someone that got a 700 on their SATs shouldn't go to Harvard? Stop with the name calling, it just weakens your argument. I have been nothing but civil through all of your insults, what does that say about you?

Try looking the definition up, if you dont like being repeatedly called it, then why is it people call you this? duh, it is a bigoted stance you take.

http://dict.die.net/bigot/

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own

I can completely understand the pro gay marriage view, and although I disagree with it I am tolerant of it. I believe you are the one that cannot accept my view and you insult me because of it (in other words you are "intolerant of any opinion differing from your own").

Edit: duh, it is a bigoted stance you take, yet I still have the maturity and decency to debate the issue with you and refrain from name calling.

 

[Steeplerot]

Nice one, how many dictionary sites did you go through to find such a neutral definition, regardless

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. -American Heritage Dictionary

People getting married affects you in no way at all, and you have no reason to discriminate as it takes away nothing from you or affects your own personal freedoms.

If for some reason gay folks married around you threatens your idea of a straight relationship then I suggest you look to yourself for the problem about your insecurites, not discrimate against others just trying to lead happy lives.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Wrong, straight folks screw up the concept of marriage well enough themselves, look at the divorce rate, and who are you to give a flying crap about how sanctimonious someone elses marriage is, mind your own buisness and keep your bigotry to yourself, maybe if right wingers worried about their OWN marriages red states wouldnt have the biggest divorce rates huh?

Wrong about what? I even said "I'm not saying that heterosexuals are doing a great job of it".

Once again, another "tolerant" liberal throwing insults at someone that they don't disagree with. You have to draw a line somewhere with marriage, the logical line would be with a man and a woman, the optimal family especially for a child. I could use your logic and say, "mind your own business, I can have sex with a goat", "mind your own business, that 12 year old wanted it", "mind your own business, my 10 wives are happy".

Where is this bigot stuff coming from? I have not said one negative thing about gays, I could care less if someone is gay. Just because I do not think that they shouldn't get married does not mean that I am a bigot. I don't agree with the view point that anyone and everyone should have the right to get married. Since when is marriage a right?

I am not against civil unions, I am not against gays. There are standards when it comes to marriage, it has to be one man and one woman. There are standards to get into Harvard, would you call me a bigot because I don't think someone that got a 700 on their SATs shouldn't go to Harvard? Stop with the name calling, it just weakens your argument. I have been nothing but civil through all of your insults, what does that say about you?

Try looking the definition up, if you dont like being repeatedly called it, then why is it people call you this? duh, it is a bigoted stance you take.

http://dict.die.net/bigot/

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own

I can completely understand the pro gay marriage view, and although I disagree with it I am tolerant of it. I believe you are the one that cannot accept my view and you insult me because of it (in other words you are "intolerant of any opinion differing from your own").

Edit: duh, it is a bigoted stance you take, yet I still have the maturity and decency to debate the issue with you and refrain from name calling.

Your opinion incorporates forcing it upon others... that is intolerant. You have no reason to restrict gay marriage beside for the fact that you personally disagree with it.. yet you also want that opinion enforced.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As I pointed out in a recent thread.
Each of the top 25 metro areas have populations over 2 million, while there are 15 states with populations of less than that.

The candidates would do nothing but visit this 25 or so cities since so much of the population lives within them.
These 25 have a total population of around 132 million, nearly half the country.
Link

Exactly. This has been hashed and rehashed a thousand times.

The Electoral College is a proven, effective method for giving EACH state a say in the national election.

The problem: California has a high number of electoral votes because of its size. That high number of votes should be split to reflect the voting within Cali instead of all of the points being given to one side or the other. The primary fault with the entire electoral system is that states give over their entire # of votes to the majority winner within their state. Therefore, the # of electoral votes is never a true representation of the voters themselves. If 60% of Californians vote democratic, then the Democratic party should get 60% of Cali's electoral votes... not 100%. (and vice versa of course)

the electoral system is most certainly broken.

 

[Pandaren]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9Your opinion incorporates forcing it upon others... that is intolerant. You have no reason to restrict gay marriage beside for the fact that you personally disagree with it.. yet you also want that opinion enforced.

It's pointless to argue with religious conservatives. I'll put this plainly - they are just squeemish at the thought of someone being fraked up the ass. That's what they believe because that's what they were taught from childhood.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Your opinion incorporates forcing it upon others... that is intolerant. You have no reason to restrict gay marriage beside for the fact that you personally disagree with it.. yet you also want that opinion enforced.

wow. you are really out of touch with reality.

Society makes it's own rules for the betterment of that society. These are based on peoples views.

So we have EVERY RIGHT to force our views upon you.

-edit-
Just like you have your right to push your homo agenda, we have the right to push our good for society agenda. We'll keep voting with our overwhelming majority to keep this crap out of our country.