POLITICAL THREAD

[Willy4UK]

TIL- Fuzz lived in the 1840s and knows about lifestyle issues that no one in the 1840s were talking about, but apparently he does. SMH.

It's almost as if Fuzz stole Marty McFly's Delorian and is gracing us with his knowledge of the past.

Thanks Fuzz.

For the record, you're 100% complete full of humanoid shit.

 

[Willy4UK]

Bill Cosby nailed it. This whole federal gov't intrusion of marriage is a tax issue. Because no matter how hard you GD work in your life, whether it be a fry cook or a bazillionaire, the gov't has to some how and some way feed off your life time hard work. Whether it be put in stocks, bonds, savings, property, the state gets to collect off your hard work.

That's why this whole mockery of incest is more than valid.

and appreciate it Bill Derrington. We see eye to eye on most things. Not all, but most. Funny thing is, most people do have a lot of similarities.

 

[Bill Derington]

Fuzz, So if its a popular view it's not bigotry, but if it's not popular it is. That's basically what you're saying.
All I'm saying is that the left picks and chooses what and whom to call bigots, all the while doing the exact same thing.

 

[Willy4UK]

Fuzz, So if its a popular view it's not bigotry, but if it's not popular it is. That's basically what you're saying.
All I'm saying is that the left picks and chooses what and whom to call bigots, all the while doing the exact same thing.

Bill, You're 100% right. It seems with gay marriage, that is the Dem limit. Beyond gay marriage Dems get to call what is ok or not (because of all the bullshit so-called college degrees that makes them feel like they are academically superior). Truth is. What happens when the male body is manipulated scientifically to produce birth? It will happen. Will Dems support that? Will Dems support a scientific gene modified baby who is a victim of family incestuous rape? I mean if we change DNA what the F*** does it matter?

It matters to simpletons. People should go get Dr. Who 2005 and watch it.

 

[fuzz77]

Fuzz, So if its a popular view it's not bigotry, but if it's not popular it is. That's basically what you're saying.
All I'm saying is that the left picks and chooses what and whom to call bigots, all the while doing the exact same thing.

"the left picks and chooses what and whom to call bigots"?
So, does "the right" consider anyone to be bigots or no?
YOU choose who you call a bigot.

I'm not saying anything, I'm explaining my understanding and my POV on the subject. You're free to agree or disagree.
Again, I refer you to the definition of the word bigot. It doesn't matter what I think or you think, there is a societal accepted norm and understanding of vocabulary.

In general you're probably right. The "left" is generally more accepting of people's differences than those on the right. "Progressive" means one who progresses so they are probably seeing bigotry earlier, thus labeling it earlier than those on the right. Acceptance of differences generally begins on the left and works its way right. .

You seem awfully insecure in your beliefs. If someone calls me a bigot because I dislike something that I truly dislike, it's water off a duck's back. I couldn't care less.

As I said above...If you want to call people who oppose incest as bigots, go right ahead. The label won't carry much weight.

 

[fuzz77]

TIL- Fuzz lived in the 1840s and knows about lifestyle issues that no one in the 1840s were talking about, but apparently he does. SMH.

It's almost as if Fuzz stole Marty McFly's Delorian and is gracing us with his knowledge of the past.

Thanks Fuzz.

For the record, you're 100% complete full of humanoid shit.

I take it that you are functionally illiterate if that is what you got from my posting.
Willy, they've got these things called books that you can read and learn things about how things were back in the old days. You might also search your parents or grandparents homes for old artifacts that may still exist that will give you even a closer, more personal view into yesteryear.
Of course, if you're functionally illiterate little of that will matter.

 

[Willy4UK]

No, not functionally illiterate. Maybe a little bit. You aren't one of those self inflated folks who looks in the mirror as they sniff their own farts, are you?

Sorry man, Fuzz doesn't get to make the call what a "credible relationship" consist of. You going to support bio human android integration marriage when it happens? Or is your small brain too ill-equipped to conceive that?

 

[fuzz77]

No, not functionally illiterate. Maybe a little bit. You aren't one of those self inflated folks who looks in the mirror as they sniff their own farts, are you?

Sorry man, Fuzz doesn't get to make the call what a "credible relationship" consist of. You going to support bio human android integration marriage when it happens? Or is your small brain too ill-equipped to conceive that?

I didn't know that anyone thought I was important enough to actually decide for anyone except for myself what makes a "credible relationship". All I can give you is my POV. Sorry to disappoint.

I'll tackle bio human android integration marriage when it gets here.

On the grand scale of things what I think doesn't mean jack shit...nor should it. Likewise with your thoughts or anyone else on this board. We can exchange ideas, bitch at one another...agree, disagree. C'est la vie.

 

[Willy4UK]

I didn't know that anyone thought I was important enough to actually decide for anyone except for myself what makes a "credible relationship". All I can give you is my POV. Sorry to disappoint.

I'll tackle bio human android integration marriage when it gets here.

On the grand scale of things what I think doesn't mean jack shit...nor should it. Likewise with your thoughts or anyone else on this board. We can exchange ideas, bitch at one another...agree, disagree. C'est la vie.

Well that's pretty obvious as you will make a new screen name not to pay Brady....That bet... anywhoo

You're POV sets limitations to human relationship. Sorry. Not good enough. As Austin would say "Next".

 

[KyFaninNC]

Dude, that "slippery slope" has been trending down hill for thousands of years. At what point did you decide it had gone far enough? If you could roll it back, to what year would you go?
I can't wait to read your answer.

If you are gonna let gays and lesbians marry, then let any human of age marry anyone they choose to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, or relation. If siblings want to marry, let them. The line has always been that marriage is between one man and one woman, if you want that changed ,then change it to include everyone, no lines drawn.

Sorry to disappoint you, DUDE.

 

[fuzz77]

If you are gonna let gays and lesbians marry, then let any human of age marry anyone they choose to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, or relation. If siblings want to marry, let them. The line has always been that marriage is between one man and one woman, if you want that changed ,then change it to include everyone, no lines drawn.

Sorry to disappoint you, DUDE.

Way to answer the question there champ.
Boo, hoo...if we can't keep those fagots from marrying then let's suggest that anyone can marry anything because it's all the same thing...right?. Again as I've told others... that's what you want then take up that fight. I'll wait to see the line that forms behind you.
Maybe down the road that where we get...but change usually happens a little at a time. For now, you can go ahead and bang your sister and mom. You just can't marry either.

 

[Willy4UK]

Way to answer the question there champ.
Boo, hoo...if we can't keep those fagots from marrying then let's suggest that anyone can marry anything because it's all the same thing...right?. Again as I've told others... that's what you want then take up that fight. I'll wait to see the line that forms behind you.
Maybe down the road that where we get...but change usually happens a little at a time. For now, you can go ahead and bang your sister and mom. You just can't marry either.

What if your mom is Selma Hayek?

 

[fuzz77]

What if your mom is Selma Hayek?

Why would you want to ruin it with marriage?

 

[From-the-stands]

I was pretty surprised by the argument by the right-wing crowd comparing gay marriage to incest, which to me is just absurd. I should have known it's just a new talking point promoted by Fox News, of course. Just another example of how out of touch they are.

 

[Willy4UK]

Why would you want to ruin it with marriage?

What if you couldn't help it? What if you were born with it? Son of Selma Hayek who ends up beating off to the ugly maid because he feels too embarrassed to beat off to his own mom....

 

[Bill Cosby]

If you lack a basic understanding of logic and tax laws, yes, I can see how you'd be surprised that argument comes up. Must be terrible to be so simple minded that you find basic comparisons absurd.

 

[From-the-stands]

Your argument might play here on an anonymous message board filled with a bunch of other Republicans, but show me one political candidate running for public office who would stand behind your comments. No lawmaker is going to play the incest card to make your point. So really, what does it matter in the end?

 

[Willy4UK]

Your argument might play here on an anonymous message board filled with a bunch of other Republicans, but show me one political candidate running for public office who would stand behind your comments. No lawmaker is going to play the incest card to make your point. So really, what does it matter in the end?

Prolly not. Point is freedom. FTS, I like your posts, but obviously you draw a line. Makes you feel uncomfortable? Incest is it huh? Not even considering that the gov't makes money off your marriage? But incest causes the pit in your stomach? Shucks. Sorry, world is changing and even how much you consider your self "liberal" is getting clouded. Join the ride man. Quit worrying. ... If your bro wants to dick your sis, be happy.

 

[From-the-stands]

Prolly not. Point is freedom. FTS, I like your posts, but obviously you draw a line. Makes you feel uncomfortable? Incest is it huh? Not even considering that the gov't makes money off your marriage? But incest causes the pit in your stomach? Shucks. Sorry, world is changing and even how much you consider your self "liberal" is getting clouded. Join the ride man. Quit worrying. ... If your bro wants to dick your sis, be happy.

All I've been saying though is comparing incest and GM is absurd because while majority support in this country has tipped in favor of GM, most people are disgusted by incest. Making the argument that if you support GM then you gotta support inter-family marriage is one that would be ridiculed among the general population. That's what makes the argument laughable - it's a loser - it's not going to stop GM. It just isn't going to make a difference.

 

[Willy4UK]

All I've been saying though is comparing incest and GM is absurd because while majority support in this country has tipped in favor of GM, most people are disgusted by incest. Making the argument that if you support GM then you gotta support inter-family marriage is one that would be ridiculed among the general population. That's what makes the argument laughable - it's a loser - it's not going to stop GM. It just isn't going to make a difference.

FTS. You obviously haven't read the past posts.. No worries.

 

[KyFaninNC]

FTS. You obviously haven't read the past posts.. No worries.

They are like UNC fans. What fuzz and FTS will not process is is the fact that we are talking about freedoms for everyone, not just for gays. I don't care if gays marry, it is none of my business, but if they get the freedom to do it, then apply same freedoms to every adult human as well. Incest is just an example of trying to make a point about FREEDOM. But, they can't see the FREEDOM aspect because they are too caught up in a Liberal talking point to garner votes, and that is all it is about, VOTES.

 

[Bill Derington]

FTS, It doesn't have anything to do with fox news, or any talking points. We're simply using the exact same argument the people used for gay marriage, and put it on something that is taboo now, to point out how ridiculous and brainwashed the left is.
You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth. You're all for civil liberties and rights as long as it's something you're party wants, or thats popular. When it's something that disgusts you it's a different story.
No one in this thread has said anything about stopping gay marriage, thats where you're missing the point. Freedom and liberty has worts, people don't seem to understand that. We were simply pointing out how the left, which is so quick to call someone a bigot, can have the same opinion on something when its not mainstream.

By the way I enjoy reading your and Fuzz posts.

 

[warrior-cat]

"the left picks and chooses what and whom to call bigots"?
So, does "the right" consider anyone to be bigots or no?
YOU choose who you call a bigot.

I'm not saying anything, I'm explaining my understanding and my POV on the subject. You're free to agree or disagree.
Again, I refer you to the definition of the word bigot. It doesn't matter what I think or you think, there is a societal accepted norm and understanding of vocabulary.

In general you're probably right. The "left" is generally more accepting of people's differences than those on the right. "Progressive" means one who progresses so they are probably seeing bigotry earlier, thus labeling it earlier than those on the right. Acceptance of differences generally begins on the left and works its way right. .

You seem awfully insecure in your beliefs. If someone calls me a bigot because I dislike something that I truly dislike, it's water off a duck's back. I couldn't care less.

As I said above...If you want to call people who oppose incest as bigots, go right ahead. The label won't carry much weight.

But you hate the point made about marrying or havei

I was pretty surprised by the argument by the right-wing crowd comparing gay marriage to incest, which to me is just absurd. I should have known it's just a new talking point promoted by Fox News, of course. Just another example of how out of touch they are.

I was pretty surprised by the argument by the right-wing crowd comparing gay marriage to incest, which to me is just absurd. I should have known it's just a new talking point promoted by Fox News, of course. Just another example of how out of touch they are.

Ah, FTS blaming FOX news for other people's opinions rather than actually addressing the points made. Typical liberal bait and switch.

 

[warrior-cat]

Your argument might play here on an anonymous message board filled with a bunch of other Republicans, but show me one political candidate running for public office who would stand behind your comments. No lawmaker is going to play the incest card to make your point. So really, what does it matter in the end?

Figures you did not get it or you are just trying to deflect the point of hypocrisy from you and the far left bigots who are being shown in the light of how they really are.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Has FTS read any of the posts in the thread? Or is his reading comprehension really just that poor?

 

[fuzz77]

FTS, It doesn't have anything to do with fox news, or any talking points. We're simply using the exact same argument the people used for gay marriage, and put it on something that is taboo now, to point out how ridiculous and brainwashed the left is.
You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth. You're all for civil liberties and rights as long as it's something you're party wants, or thats popular. When it's something that disgusts you it's a different story.
No one in this thread has said anything about stopping gay marriage, thats where you're missing the point. Freedom and liberty has worts, people don't seem to understand that. We were simply pointing out how the left, which is so quick to call someone a bigot, can have the same opinion on something when its not mainstream.

By the way I enjoy reading your and Fuzz posts.

Bill, your argument was lost before it began. Nobody thinks that you or anyone is actually serious about the incest question. Also, "the right" is as responsible, if not more so for putting limits on behaviors. Why is it statutory rape if the girl is 17 but not if she's 18? I mean I've known some 13, 14 yr old girls who were "real women" if you know what I mean. Why can we not drink until we are 21? Isn't that discriminating against minors? Not vote until we are 18? What about the children??? Why can we only drive 70 mph when my car is capable of doing 160?
To hell with laws, anarchy rules!

Society as a whole decides where to draw lines and those lines usually end up as a compromised position. Over time those lines usually get moved to become more or less restrictive.

Of course freedom and liberty has warts..however lefties, rightist and centrist do agree on some things. Bigot is a relative term to the norm. If we are all in agreement against some group or behavior then in our context, we aren't bigots. To make the argument that the line should be drawn where I want it or else there shouldn't be a line is an exercise in absurdity. If you want no lines then you must remove yourself from society. To choose to live in society is to accept those lines, warts and all.

I really doubt that you disagree with much of what FTS or myself have written but that doesn't mean that you won't attempt to continue the argument.

 

[wkycatfan]

I will always believe that marriage is a Godly union between a man and a woman. We need another name for a union between gay persons. Make taxation the same, allow hospital visitation, wills, etc. But it's not a marriage IMO.

This is also not the same as racial discrimination IMO, and it's been portrayed as such.

Also, leave pastors alone who don't want to perform these ceremonies between gay persons. Go find somebody else who is okay with it.

 

[fuzz77]

I will always believe that marriage is a Godly union between a man and a woman. We need another name for a union between gay persons. Make taxation the same, allow hospital visitation, wills, etc. But it's not a marriage IMO.

This is also not the same as racial discrimination IMO, and it's been portrayed as such.

Also, leave pastors alone who don't want to perform these ceremonies between gay persons. Go find somebody else who is okay with it.

The only problem with your argument is that many marriages are performed outside of religious boundaries. Go down to the court house, beach or banquet room somewhere and get the local justice of the peace to perform the ceremony. Do they get the same designation as gay marriages? Also, what if the gay ceremony is performed in a church, with clergy? You know that some denominations now accept and will now perform gay weddings.

Regardless, I agree pretty much with your premis but the bottom line is that the only reason it's an issue at all is because of the legal bindings that marriage affords. Were you to call it something else then every state or local ordinance that mentioned marriage or married people would have to be updated to meet the new standard.

I agree that no pastor, baker or candlestick maker should be compelled to take part in ANY wedding regardless of circumstances.

I disagree that it isn't akin to racial descrimination. At least on some level. People for the most part don't chose to be gay. Homosexual tendencies can be identified in young children. I mentioned I have two cousins who are gay. I could have told you at five years old that they were definitely different than most five yr olds including one of the two's twin brother.

 

[wkycatfan]

Some good points fuzz.

I'm guessing that the government hasn't always been involved in marriage as it is today. I suppose at some point, politicians started making laws (tax) that promoted marriage, were good for society, and/or got them votes. I'm not really sure.

Skin color is not the same as behavior IMHO. (I have to wonder if people of color are offended by this comparison). We are all predisposed to sinful behaviors of some sort. Gay people just sin differently than I do. I have my issues, they have theirs. For me, its the same as saying I was born a liar and I can't be held responsible.

I'm bothered by this, not so much because of bigotry , but because it attempts to stand my worldview as a Christian on its head. Christians believe we were created male and female, were designed for marriage, to become one flesh, and that union is a 'great mystery' and is comparable to the relationship between Christ and the church.

 

[Bill Derington]

My point is many people think homosexuality is absurd and disgusting, exactly the same way they feel about incest. Why is one different than the other? Popularity doesn't determine whats bigotry.
I think its a dangerous direction we're headed in when popularity determines whats right and wrong, or who's labeled under certain criteria.

 

[warrior-cat]

Bill, your argument was lost before it began. Nobody thinks that you or anyone is actually serious about the incest question. Also, "the right" is as responsible, if not more so for putting limits on behaviors. Why is it statutory rape if the girl is 17 but not if she's 18? I mean I've known some 13, 14 yr old girls who were "real women" if you know what I mean. Why can we not drink until we are 21? Isn't that discriminating against minors? Not vote until we are 18? What about the children??? Why can we only drive 70 mph when my car is capable of doing 160?
To hell with laws, anarchy rules!

Society as a whole decides where to draw lines and those lines usually end up as a compromised position. Over time those lines usually get moved to become more or less restrictive.

Of course freedom and liberty has warts..however lefties, rightist and centrist do agree on some things. Bigot is a relative term to the norm. If we are all in agreement against some group or behavior then in our context, we aren't bigots. To make the argument that the line should be drawn where I want it or else there shouldn't be a line is an exercise in absurdity. If you want no lines then you must remove yourself from society. To choose to live in society is to accept those lines, warts and all.

I really doubt that you disagree with much of what FTS or myself have written but that doesn't mean that you won't attempt to continue the argument.

I agree with most of it but, the point being made is about hypocrisy. The left is quick with the Bigot/racist/hater/ labels and is therefore subject to the ridicule you see here.

 

[warrior-cat]

"I disagree that it isn't akin to racial descrimination. At least on some level. People for the most part don't chose to be gay. Homosexual tendencies can be identified in young children. I mentioned I have two cousins who are gay. I could have told you at five years old that they were definitely different than most five yr olds including one of the two's twin brother."

This leads me to think that you believe they are born that way. No gay gene has ever been found. So, yes to me it is a choice.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

"I disagree that it isn't akin to racial descrimination. At least on some level. People for the most part don't chose to be gay. Homosexual tendencies can be identified in young children. I mentioned I have two cousins who are gay. I could have told you at five years old that they were definitely different than most five yr olds including one of the two's twin brother."

This leads me to think that you believe they are born that way. No gay gene has ever been found. So, yes to me it is a choice.

I agree with Fuzz's bolded sentence...have seen a kid a couple year younger than me grow up...knew he was gay before he knew what gay was.

The one thing I will say is that the overly flamboyance of some is over the top and exaggerated (definitely played up and unnatural)...but I have seen the same scenarios fuzz described.

 

[warrior-cat]

I agree with Fuzz's bolded sentence...have seen a kid a couple year younger than me grow up...knew he was gay before he knew what gay was.

The one thing I will say is that the overly flamboyance of some is over the top and exaggerated (definitely played up and unnatural)...but I have seen the same scenarios fuzz described.

Does not mean they were born that way. I have seen straight guys act that way. I could have sworn they were gay only to find out not. I have seen men who were just as manly as you could imagine only to turn out to be gay. I went out to a pizza hut in Nashville back in the 80's with a group where all of the men were gay (and yes I knew they were gay before we went out). You could not tell with half of them that they were gay. One of them was a former defensive lineman for the Vaderbilt Commodores.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

If you haven't seen them grow up not sure it matters.

I am a pretty conservative dude, but I believe what I see.

 

[warrior-cat]

If you haven't seen them grow up not sure it matters.

I am a pretty conservative dude, but I believe what I see.

So do I

 

[jamo0001]

I can't fathom the mentality of "they're straight, they're just choosing to get ****ed in the ***".

Some of you guys must define "straight" differently than the rest of us do.

 

[Willy4UK]

I can't fathom the mentality of "they're straight, they're just choosing to get ****ed in the ***".

Some of you guys must define "straight" differently than the rest of us do.

Like I exhausted the topic about whether it's a choice. And I never get an answer.

If it is a choice, and if you firmly believe that. At what point did you choose to be straight?

There are millions of species that engage in gay sex. It is overwhelming the comparison. Then someone always throws "Well, the red eared deer meets it's mate for life" Shut up. Just shut up.

 

[Bill Derington]

I think environment has a lot to do with it. Again as I said previously, what we choose to accept as normal determines a lot.
Why would anyone choose to be bulimic or anorexic? We're they born that way or is it a mental disorder? I'm a recovering alcoholic, was I born an alcoholic or did I become because I liked the way I felt when I got drunk?

In the end it doesn't matter, we don't have to agree with lifestyles.

 

[jamo0001]

I think environment has a lot to do with it. Again as I said previously, what we choose to accept as normal determines a lot.
Why would anyone choose to be bulimic or anorexic? We're they born that way or is it a mental disorder? I'm a recovering alcoholic, was I born an alcoholic or did I become because I liked the way I felt when I got drunk?

In the end it doesn't matter, we don't have to agree with lifestyles.

Do you see the hypocrisy in the opposition to such a "choice" (or "environment", "conditioning", etc) coming almost exclusively from religious groups when religion itself is a protected class, unlike sexuality?

If homosexuality is a "choice" that is allowed to be treated prejudiciously, then why in the world can't religion be treated that way? Surely religious affiliation is at least as much (if not way, way more of) a "choice" than sexuality.