Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)
[quote=thesightless;647556]my responses are obviously the italics. i will do my best to play the advocate and give both sides of the coin and explain the best i can.[/quote]
[quote=sammwalk]the response to this is typically, how'd it be if someone said to you, you can be a citizen, have freedom, like apple pie and baseball, vote, but you can't call yourself "american".
[quote=thesightless;647556]not really, but your point is close. empathize (word of the month for me) you cannot deny the history of religion, the fact that the sacrament was around for roughly what? 3000? years of judiaism? people getting what they want while shitting on others is what leads to the current state of affairs. cut some slack in the fact that the major religions hold thier sacraments above a lot. you should have juxtaposed the words american and citizen. because that is really what it's about. the legality of a union between same sex and rights associated. the whole gay rights debate is more centered on the fact that the gov't does not recognise thier partnership in any way. they cannot assign thier pensions, benifits, helthcare to thier "spouse". you cannot just shit on the majority because the minority want something, you need to find a wayt to get the minorrity the most out of the situation while asking the majority to sacrafice a little. if the whole thing was put to a popular citizens vote, the GLBT community would lose everything. our gov't has to prevent this.[/quote][/quote]
the argument here is why it matters what other people do. churches wouldn't have to recognize the marriages but the government should mainly because the people in question want something that theoretically should have no effect on anyone else. i realize that there may be practical concerns like benefits and pensions but i think the people opposed to this are hiding behind the fear of the degradation of "family values"; meanwhile equally good and loving families can and do come from same-sex parents. but i digress....
[quote=sammwalk]but the fact that this is even an issue that the presidential candidates have to think about is pathetic. abortion, gay rights, religion, etc. shouldn't have anything to do with the president. his/her ideology shouldn't enter into it. this isn't a kingdom.
[quote=thesightless;647556]but they are held to the duty of protecting the sanctity, existence and safety of all those things, trying to get all those items to co-exist without threat. [/quote][/quote]
the public doesn't understand this; neither do presidents. if it were that way, then people would be asking questions about what steps they would take to get people to agree or to be moderate. instead, they are "pro-" or "anti-". and they attempt to further specific agendas while in office.
[quote=sammwalk]speaking of vision (and sean i know you're anti-bipartisanship, but work with me here) what would be the conservative's vision? what kind of country are they trying to form? what is their ideal day or week? this kind of question never gets asked, and I think it'd be quite revealing.
[quote=thesightless;647556]1987 conservatives? or 2007 conservatives. two different things at this point. gearge bush did to conservatism what tiesto did to trance. regan started it, he held the name while dragging it down. john and alex were the first true blue trance DJ's, then a few dutch fags along with matt darey pushed it to 138+ BPM with echoed strings & horns.[/quote][/quote]
i of course refer to conservatives now. but i will leave it open, as both "conservative" and "liberal" are, as far as i'm concerned, entirely contradictory platforms in and of themselves. for instance, it seems that conservatives are pro-industry, pro-gun/hunting, pro-free market, yet anti-environment and anti-poor. edit: perhaps a better example would be the "rugged individualist", seeking vast open spaces, self-determination, and free-enterprise, the fucking up the very source of his/her goals, the earth.
but I'd like someone who considers themselves a conservative and votes bush and mccain to run down their ideal society, and not just: everyone can have a gun, there's no abortion, yada yada. like, describe the society in more detail.
I will say this: how can [I]anyone[/I] on this board be conservative when it is conservatives that are the most anti-culture, anti-drug, anti-freedom group? i mean cmon, giuliani shut down twilo.