POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Some people think gay marriage is absurd and killing babies is absurd but, we are being told now that it is acceptable. Who are you to tell anyone that they can't marry their sister? BTW I don't agree with it myself but, if you are going to allow one why not the other?
To most people two men marrying each other is just as absurd as siblings marrying.
Normal is whatever we allow it to be.
Normal is whatever we allow it to be.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Both of them would probably sing the same song every morning. Mac Davis Oh Lord it's Hard to be humble.
My plan is to require taxes to equal spending. If you are voting for spending then you have to vote for the taxes to support that spending. Voting for spending is easy, voting for taxes is not easy. It requires that congress take responsibility for whatever spending they see fit.
Hell, who knows? Perhaps they cut so much spending that taxes can be cut on the first go around...
In essence I'm taking away their credit card. If they want to spend more then they will have to face the political consequences of the tax hikes required to pay for that spending and not kick the can down the road for the next generation to pay.
If you chose to go to war then we must all sacrifice to pay for that war. That is what we used to do and what we should do today.
We will see where their true priorities lay.
War is not the only area in which we are spending way too much on and, kicking the can has been going on for a long time now and so has raising taxes. Stop raising taxes and make them cut in able to meet the payments and perhaps we can get back on track. Does a parent continue to give money to a child that spends all its money on stuff it does not need or do they start reeling them in when the credit cards get unmanagable.
What is the "illegal alien demographic"?
Also, nice straw-man. Gay people can't marry their brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers either. I've yet to hear any group request the ability to do so.
I don't care if you cut spending to the level of taxation or raise taxation to the level of spending.
BTW, federal tax rates are at near modern day lows. The feds aren't in charge of your state tax, sales tax, property tax, etc bills. Take those issues up with the officials at the appropriate level.
I don't think that was his point. If you allow marriage in that context why not allow marriage for anyone who wants to get married. Who gets to draw the line? The arguement made by some before was that Christians were the driving force behind no gay marriages, now that that is going by the way side, you are now telling other people that it is absurd to want to marry siblings. Why do you get to say no to that?
What socioeconomic class of people were you working with? Dirt poor people willing to risk their lives to cross into the country illegally? Drug smugglers?
And LOL at "gay people can't marry their brothers..." as a reason to argue against incest. You do realize that is the exact same argument that's made as to way gay people shouldn't be able to get married correct? "I'm straight, but I can't marry a man. We all have the same rights."
And LOL at "gay people can't marry their brothers..." as a reason to argue against incest. You do realize that is the exact same argument that's made as to way gay people shouldn't be able to get married correct? "I'm straight, but I can't marry a man. We all have the same rights."
If they are near modern day lows lets cut spending to match it is all many of us are saying. Why is that so hard to understand. Why is the left so hell bent on taxing more?
Yep, if his term hadn't ran out pets.com would still be booming today. I can't believe there aren't statues of BC and Robert Rubin all across Silicon Valley. GWB created the crazy growth of Apple and Google in the 2000s, right?
I just find discussion about "issues" and POTUS elections kind of funny. The question that Obama dominated Romney in exit polling was about which candidate cared more about them. Pretty much every issue-oriented favored Romney slightly or were toss-ups. The average voter can't name the three branches of govt much less vett candidates and positions. Why do you think the Dems are fighting for automatic voter registration, no IDs, felon voting rights, Rock the Vote, etc etc etc. Pew stats showed voters followed political issues LESS after the financial crisis. They want populistic grandstanding and they get it in spades.
The whole raise taxes issue is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard. How much more should the government take from me to spend on others? Fact is our government has a serious spending problem. Many US citizens have a serious entitlement problem. The problem lies with both sides. Making me or someone else pay 5% more in taxes is not going to solve those problems.
The argument will be debated until we are all dead because the way our political system in Washington is setup now really gives me zero hope they will ever get the spending problem under control. The whole system is corrupt and nobody running for POTUS in 2016 is going to fix it.
The argument will be debated until we are all dead because the way our political system in Washington is setup now really gives me zero hope they will ever get the spending problem under control. The whole system is corrupt and nobody running for POTUS in 2016 is going to fix it.
The problem is both the left and right have spending wants and compromise by passing the spending without the funding. Everyone can talk about cutting spending but agreeing to what spending that gets cut is the difficult piece.
I'm calling for political fiscal responsibility. Not sure how you could disagree.
I am trying to find the story/video but the best example about voters is from one of the 2012 debate where a independent young guy asks a question about jobs and after the debate they ask him about which candidate impressed him. He proceeds to assign Romney's near exact answer as coming from Obama and state he would probably vote for him as a result.
I think the shift in public opinion on gay marriage is behind the Supreme Court inching closer to legalizing gay marriage. If support for incest ever cracks 50% you could make your argument. You might as well be asking why can't a cowboy marry his horse.
You really want to go there? I think we can find plenty of idiots representing most all political views.
Ahhhhhh. Got it. So Constitutional rights should be predicated on whether or not the majority wants to grant those rights to the minority.
Any reasons why a man should be able to marry a man but a brother shouldn't be able to marry his brother other than "because the majority would like to oppress that group"?
That's the way it works sometimes. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868 and guaranteed equal protection to all citizens but it took another 100+ years to be enforced.
Perhaps whenever gay siblings start to ask for the right to marry they'll start to garner popular support. As for now you have a cause without a need or want.
In my lifetime all the Republican presidents were what I would generally categorize as right/center - Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford (unelected), G H W Bush, G W Bush, the only exception is Regan but he raised taxes and greatly increased deficits so I'm not sure he could be truly called right wing either.
The only true right wing conservative that ran for the Republicans that I can recall was Goldwater who was trounced by Johnson.
On the other side of the fence, the lefties have fared no better - George McGovern and Mondale come to mind. They were both hammered.
Yeah, I guess that's a big problem.
I mean, I guess it's a problem if you aren't the one imposing your mores on everyone else.
Fairly hypocritical, I'd say.
Deee's conceptualization of the left/right spectrum is the greatest bit of running comedy in this thread.
Yes, public opinion has a lot of sway. Society deems what's acceptable and what is not is the best answer I can give you. Your question is absurd and rhetorical - circular reasoning at it's best. If you want to compare incest with gay marriage it's your right, but it's also demeaning to the LGBT community.
The question is in no way rhetorical. And it seems your answer is the majority should be able to oppress the minority. That's disturbing.
If me thinking the government shouldn't discriminate against people in marriage laws offends the LGBT community, then they are a bunch of goddam bigoted idiots.
As has been the point all along, if you think gay marriage is fine, but you draw the line at incest or polygamy, you carry the same level of bigotry as someone who is against gay marriage.
If me thinking the government shouldn't discriminate against people in marriage laws offends the LGBT community, then they are a bunch of goddam bigoted idiots.
As has been the point all along, if you think gay marriage is fine, but you draw the line at incest or polygamy, you carry the same level of bigotry as someone who is against gay marriage.
A constant over the 10+ years of this thread.... but it gives a little insight into his "moderate" self-title.
Yes, I support marriage rights for LGBT. And I am against incest. I let let your comments speak for themselves.
Last edited:
Policies to allow people the liberty to make decisions and choices on their own is in no way imposing mores on everyone else. Conservatives say they want govt out of people's lives yet they want the govt to dictate behaviors which they don't approve.
There are actual biological reasons to prohibit incest between male/female family members. If gay family members want to marry, it's no sweat off of my balls. Hell, if betrothed family members want to marry and at least one of the two is willing to be sterilized...go for it. I've already stated that I have no problem with polygamy.
Applaud your efforts to recognize gay marriage. But we don't have that right to define the capacity two consenting adults do with each other. If you're gonna stick up for the LGBT, make sure you don't leave out those incestuous families who have to live in fear because they cannot come out and tell society because of how they will be perceived. That's a shame. I'd hate for any incestuous families to have to live in the same fear as gays and lesbians had to endure while getting their rights to marry. These are good incestuous families who are tax payers and they should have the same tax rights as gays and lesbians.
Now this post epotomizes hypocrisy. Why is it demeaning to the LGBT community? Because it is considered taboo by you and others? However, if they love each other, should they not have that right? Afterall, was not homosexuallity considered taboo as well? The left crows about the Christian right trying to impose their will while all the long telling everyone that you must adopt their way of thinking or you are a racist, bigoted, uneducated redneck, domestic terrorist, homophobic trouble maker.
Last edited:
Only when you agree with the policies. This line of thinking is no different than the way the right thinks about gay marriage and the left blast them for it.
There are also more health concerns to consider when engaging in gay sex than heterosexaul sex as well but, it is allowed with two consenting adults. Hypocrisy knows no bounds with liberals.
For the record, my position comes solely from a tax perspective. And the fact that I love pointing out the stupidity of the left's gay marriage position.
There is absolutely zero logic involved in an argument that says a man and a man should be able to get married, but if those two men are brothers or father and son, they should no longer be able to get married. "Well they might have blue babies." Ha yeah, it's about the kids. Should drug addicts be prevented from getting married because the kids might be unhealthy? Obese people? Bigotry is all it is.
It's 100% as "bigoted" (as the gay marriage proponents would say) as being against gay marriage. Period. You think the majority should be able to oppress the minority you disagree with.
So yes, I think if I have a wealthy client who is a man, he should be able to marry his son if they love each other. Or his daughter. Or both. And enjoy the spousal exemption from the gift and estate taxes. So long as the federal government feels the need to discriminate against/if favor based on marital status, I don't think we should discriminate against anyone based on marital status.
There is absolutely zero logic involved in an argument that says a man and a man should be able to get married, but if those two men are brothers or father and son, they should no longer be able to get married. "Well they might have blue babies." Ha yeah, it's about the kids. Should drug addicts be prevented from getting married because the kids might be unhealthy? Obese people? Bigotry is all it is.
It's 100% as "bigoted" (as the gay marriage proponents would say) as being against gay marriage. Period. You think the majority should be able to oppress the minority you disagree with.
So yes, I think if I have a wealthy client who is a man, he should be able to marry his son if they love each other. Or his daughter. Or both. And enjoy the spousal exemption from the gift and estate taxes. So long as the federal government feels the need to discriminate against/if favor based on marital status, I don't think we should discriminate against anyone based on marital status.
Similar threads
