It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal Bigotry

page: 25
45
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

What is anti-Libertarian is pushing gay marriage bans as legal. THAT is anti-Libertarian. As a Libertarian against gay marriage, your primary position from the beginning should have been to take marriage out of the hands of the state like greencmp always says. That just tells me you aren't a true Libertarian like you like to constantly accuse me of being.


And that's always been my position. Quote me from anywhere here where said otherwise. And don't use my previous post because I laid out my personal feelings, not my political ones. There is a difference. If we are talking law, then yes, the state needs to butt out because that preserves my personal feelings.


Just giving you a taste of your own medicine since you constantly like to call me not a Libertarian or question my political beliefs. You constantly conflict my position in a thread with my political beliefs. You did it indirectly when you responded to the other poster that prompted this response to you in the first place.

So how about for future reference, you don't question my political beliefs and I don't question yours?


Oh, well then I guess we can't discuss things? After all, every discussion of a political topic is more or less a questioning of one another's political beliefs.
edit on 30-6-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: beezzer

Oh dear. Well then. I guess we should all give up.



On the contrary.

We should strive to actually become compassionate instead of relegating that task to the government.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And there is the remedy to this.

Remove marriage from the license the state issues.

I mentioned it early on in this very thread and why they won't go for it - it removes their opportunity to control all of us.

It isn't about two people and their love - it's about money and power. Always has been. Their money, the money they perceive the churches to have that they think they have a right to, and, of course, the right to control everyone else's thoughts and beliefs.



So if Christians can't own the institution of marriage, lets get rid of the legal benefits of marriage for everyone?

That's just sour grapes because gay people are now considered the same under the law. If this SCOTUS ruling hadn't have happened, no one would be pushing to end government-sanctioned marriage. Let's be honest here, the idea of taking marriage licenses out of the government's hands was never an idea until gay people tried to get the right to be married.


No .... reread what I said very carefully.

What benefit does the word marriage have when it's attached to the state license? That's the contract that creates all the legal privileges the state doles out. The only way to remove that is the not issue it at all. Removing marriage from the header isn't going to suddenly revoke those legalities, especially if everyone is getting the same thing from the state.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Does that mean you can't talk to me without questioning my political leanings then? You can't just stick to the issues at hand? You ALWAYS have to drag my political affiliation into the conversation?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sigh. I don't disagree with you here. But given that we currently have to put up with the health insurance companies, I think its better than nothing. I would LOVE to do away with insurance entirely!!! I have worked for an insurance company (as a document slave) and it was appalling how they made their money off of the tragedies of life. SO, if we could do that, I would be thrilled!!

- AB



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Does that mean you can't talk to me without questioning my political leanings then? You can't just stick to the issues at hand? You ALWAYS have to drag my political affiliation into the conversation?


I have only done it when you seem to advocate positions that run counter to your stated political affiliation.

It's like a conservative suddenly advocating for socialistic policies without a good explanation as to why.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: beezzer

Oh dear. Well then. I guess we should all give up.



On the contrary.

We should strive to actually become compassionate instead of relegating that task to the government.


Government is the offspring of our humanity. It is the child of our own nature, as are corporations, etc. Who makes government? We, ultimately, do. Therefore it is possible for government to create compassionate circumstances through social structures that are an outflow of our individual human desire to be compassionate.

I am a compassionate person, as much as I am humanly able to be, and I would like my government to become that "city on a hill" with "liberty and justice for all." I would like it to be compassionate.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I guess... Though I can see just as many good things for the previous system we had. They both have their stupid flaws that are ripe for their detractors to pick at. It's all about perspective really with this issue.

We just had open enrollment at work this past month and for the first time they offered the ACA plan. The plan was a gutted travesty that only existed to say to the IRS that, "Yes I have insurance" so you don't get the fine. Even the presenter pitched it as such. You pretty much pay for everything except preventative care. Meanwhile, our regular insurance costs for the plans that are actually GOOD went up again.

To me, personally, no issues were fixed with ACA outside of the preexisting conditions issue, while making a bunch of stuff worse.

I'm not one of those crazies that wants to completely repeal this stupid law though. That would put us in the worst position possible (even worse than where we were before). Really the only option at this point is to fix the law, but I can't see a solution involving getting rid of the health insurance industry being one of those fixes. It just doesn't seem tenable with the ACA without first completely rewriting the way the bill works.
edit on 30-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If Christians don't "own" the institution of marriage, why have a problem if gay people want to use it?

It never belonged exclusively to Christians in the first place.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: beezzer

Oh dear. Well then. I guess we should all give up.



On the contrary.

We should strive to actually become compassionate instead of relegating that task to the government.


Government is the offspring of our humanity. It is the child of our own nature, as are corporations, etc. Who makes government? We, ultimately, do. Therefore it is possible for government to create compassionate circumstances through social structures that are an outflow of our individual human desire to be compassionate.

I am a compassionate person, as much as I am humanly able to be, and I would like my government to become that "city on a hill" with "liberty and justice for all." I would like it to be compassionate.



Government may have been the offspring of our humanity, but it has grown into a bastard-child with an insatiable appetite for what we have and an ever-growing desire for power and growth.

Asking compassion from government is about as futile as getting chocolate mousse from scorpion blood.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Does that mean you can't talk to me without questioning my political leanings then? You can't just stick to the issues at hand? You ALWAYS have to drag my political affiliation into the conversation?


I have only done it when you seem to advocate positions that run counter to your stated political affiliation.


How about you just don't do it at all? Why does my political affiliation matter to any discussions I am having? How do you know I'm not just running the opposition to deflate some of the rhetoric being said?


It's like a conservative suddenly advocating for socialistic policies without a good explanation as to why.


This site's motto is Deny Ignorance is it not? Should that mean I only deny the ignorance coming from the side of the political spectrum that I disagree with?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

If Christians don't "own" the institution of marriage, why have a problem if gay people want to use it?

It never belonged exclusively to Christians in the first place.


I only have a problem when the state says "this is marriage" and redefines it for everyone. This opens the door for a gay couple to walk into a church/mosque/synagogue that preaches one man and one woman - demand to be married and sue when they are turned away because they have had their new civil right denied.

I know ... I know. It will NEVER happen, but the possibility exists, and you can't deny that. Can you really promise that out of 350 million people and groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation and LBGT activists won't try it in order to further break down freedom of religion? And given the way things are going, can you, with any certainty, tell those of us with faith that we have NO reason to worry about the outcome?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Does that mean you can't talk to me without questioning my political leanings then? You can't just stick to the issues at hand? You ALWAYS have to drag my political affiliation into the conversation?


I have only done it when you seem to advocate positions that run counter to your stated political affiliation.


How about you just don't do it at all? Why does my political affiliation matter to any discussions I am having? How do you know I'm not just running the opposition to deflate some of the rhetoric being said?


It's like a conservative suddenly advocating for socialistic policies without a good explanation as to why.


This site's motto is Deny Ignorance is it not? Should that mean I only deny the ignorance coming from the side of the political spectrum that I disagree with?


So, I can't call out inconsistency when I see it?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


Hm. I don't think government is separate from people, ultimately; we are its creator and if it appears as Frankenstein's Monster, well, then we need to look in the mirror, collectively, and deal with it.

I want to create a compassionate government that reflects that human quality, while allowing people the freedoms given in the Constitution. Is our government anywhere near that state of enlightenment now? No. I will agree with that. I would also say that it used to be worse - and we don't know in this generation or even in this country just how bad it could be.

We are a warring country that does more than defend itself. We are power seeking and corrupt, true. We are the United States of America, and we can't throw that baby out with the bathwater, so I'd like to transform it into something worthy of our higher nature, as defined by compassion, and as able to be expressed through our Constitution. No denying, however, we are sitting in some nasty bathwater. We can't even agree on what in that bathwater IS nasty, half the time, which is why there are threads like this one.

I wish you peace and compassion and all the best, beezzer. I really do.

- AB



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Does that mean you can't talk to me without questioning my political leanings then? You can't just stick to the issues at hand? You ALWAYS have to drag my political affiliation into the conversation?


I have only done it when you seem to advocate positions that run counter to your stated political affiliation.

It's like a conservative suddenly advocating for socialistic policies without a good explanation as to why.

You bring up a good point that I think everyone should think about. How you vote...which party (or label) you place yourself into isn't always (or maybe even usually) representative of your beliefs. As posted earlier, I consider myself conservative/republican because there are only a few categories to choose from. My wife calls me a libertarian belief wise. So maybe I'm neither, but something in between.

Just like the rest of society, smart people who consider labels a bad system still place themselves in those neat little boxes. Our views don't always match the label...entirely. I guess others here have a point when they don't subscribe to a political affiliation. Why label yourself incorrectly? All we end up doing is supporting a group or party we don't fully agree with.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
so after 30 years of being married to my husband, I should just change my wording because it's a common law marriage to please yous and others with your view?? Why???



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So your solution is to have the government legislate YOUR version of morality by not allowing same-sex marriage?

All the ruling is saying is that THE GOVERNMENT will be unbiased on the subject of same-sex marriage. The ruling is saying that THE GOVERNMENT cannot discriminate against someone who wants to marry someone of the same gender.

I don't know why you keep bringing churches into this, when the ruling says nothing about what any other entity other than THE GOVERNMENT is obliged to do.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

If Christians don't "own" the institution of marriage, why have a problem if gay people want to use it?

It never belonged exclusively to Christians in the first place.


I only have a problem when the state says "this is marriage" and redefines it for everyone. This opens the door for a gay couple to walk into a church/mosque/synagogue that preaches one man and one woman - demand to be married and sue when they are turned away because they have had their new civil right denied.

I know ... I know. It will NEVER happen, but the possibility exists, and you can't deny that. Can you really promise that out of 350 million people and groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation and LBGT activists won't try it in order to further break down freedom of religion? And given the way things are going, can you, with any certainty, tell those of us with faith that we have NO reason to worry about the outcome?




If that is what you are afraid of, then, Constitutionally speaking, they might sue, but they would fail. The Church is not subject to the law, and that is protected. I guarantee that there are plenty of "liberally minded" folk who would join you against such an intrusion of the rights to hold your religious values.

People may WANT churches to validate their weddings, to share in their joy and to show them equal respect and love, but that doesn't happen for many reasons: churches are not required to marry anyone against their will, including formerly divorced people, people of other faiths, people who are in disfavor of the church, people who have not met requirements that the church puts forth (classes, a year of mission service, etc.), even interracial marriages can be refused without repercussions.

I understand the worry, but I don't think you really need to worry.

peace,
AB



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not when it involves making an ad hominem attack on the person you are talking to. If you want to call out inconsistency in my argument, fine, but again leave me out of it. Pointing out inconsistencies in my beliefs is almost ALWAYS irrelevant to the topic at hand and is an ad hominem attack. I fail to understand how you can't see the difference here.

Ad Hominem - Circumstantial


Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[7]

The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[8]



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv



I don't know why you keep bringing churches into this, when the ruling says nothing about what any other entity other than THE GOVERNMENT is obliged to do.


Haven't you heard? The church argument has been the talking point used for quite some time now.

When it became obvious that gay marriage was going to happen despite the objections of certain groups of people, the narrative changed to the next stage.

It's quite entertaining to watch the evolution of opinion and speech based on the propaganda that is released.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join