Well, of course ATS has a lot of liberal members!

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Annee

Separate, but "equal" is never OK.

If everyone had civil unions from the beginning it wouldn't be an issue. But, that is not what our government did.

Our government made marriage (the word marriage) a legal government license/contract. It must apply to everyone equally.

If anyone owns the word "marriage" it's the government.

Correct, which is what that whole thing was. Although, IMO I think had they actually made everything legal and the same between Civil Unions and Marriage the first time around it might have been good enough to not have to change it. Sure there would still be some that would argue the principle of it and all, but those who were just wanting to make sure they had equal protection under the law would have been fine with it.

It's too late now either way, but for those that didn't want it to be called marriage they would have had a better chance of keeping the word marriage the same had they not tried shorting gays with the civil union thing the first time around. They were stingy and tried to pull one over on people and it didn't work and IMO they screwed themselves on that one. Had they just done it right the first time it might have just been enough to let it slide.

You hit the nail on the head. It was pissed away the first time around. Hell, I never even knew it was an issue until the whole marriage thing came up AFTER the fact.

Edit: Compromising the first time would have saved a plethora of animosity and tension.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: mOjOm
There is no way he'd get by pulling that stuff with other world leaders that have been doing this stuff for years. He'd be a joke and nobody would take him serious.

Exactly why I won't vote for Bernie either.

Would I want Bernie in charge of my personal family? Probably.

Do I want Bernie in charge of the country? NO. He has no interest in foreign or international politics.

There is no way we or any country is going to go backwards and be an isolated country, separate from Global politics. You just don't go backwards.

Bernie lacks foreign/international interest and Trump would piss everyone off except his supporters "currently in favor".

Interesting... Do you have a favorite? I silently pegged you as a Bernie supporter.

a reply to: Annee

Bernie's not the best international foreign affairs guy but I think he's well informed enough to do it well. He's not an isolationist but he is a non-interventionist so there would be a lot less of that he'd have to deal with anyway.

But at least he wouldn't start trouble with other countries or their leaders and would pull us out of some of the crap we're in now.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: LSU0408

I'm pretty conservative myself...

Never drank, smoke, never done drugs.

Married a woman who would never abort anything, even in the first trimester.

I believe in traditional roles - I work more than my wife, she cooks more than me.

That's all my personal life, though, and how I choose to live...

Choosing how others live? I am Christian in that aspect.

Love others, accept others, don't judge others, let others choose what they do with their lives...

All christian concepts. Though they've now been called liberal.

Jesus was absolutely against just accepting and allowing people to do everything wrong and nasty.

There is a Bible that gives us the framework.

Shocking that you don't know or acknowledge these 2 things.

We're supposed to make the world a better place for everyone, not just blithely accept Sodom & Gomhorra for everyone, or the Romans and the tax collectors.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: mOjOm

I can understand why the civil union thing didn't work the first time around. It's because gay couples probably felt slighted with the whole thing like they were being seen as not really married like anyone else and not even legally given the same protections.

Separate, but "equal" is never OK.

If everyone had civil unions from the beginning it wouldn't be an issue. But, that is not what our government did.

Our government made marriage (the word marriage) a legal government license/contract. It must apply to everyone equally.

If anyone owns the word "marriage" it's the government.

Gay men have not been denied the right to marry a woman just like hetero men do.

Gay women have not been denied the right to marry a man just like hetero women do.

No unfairness or inequality whatsoever.

Equally fair, LGBT shouldn't be given control of society's institutions to celebrate their mental illnesses, any more than traditional / straight people should.

Having sex with the same gender, both genders, changing back and forth daily, animals, fruits and vegetables, harems, etc.......shouldn't take over all the social institutions any more than psycopaths, sociopaths, bipolar should.

If you can't figure out whether you're boy or girl, man or woman.....you're mentally ill. Maybe hurting only yourself....but mentally ill.

Otherwise, we'll have to change all of society's standards to cater to that gal who thinks she's a dog.

Can't celebrate one mental illness and condemn another. That's the simplest requirement of fairness that we could portray.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.

But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.

They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.

. . . if your belief . . .

Don't need to go any further.

The majority of anti-abortionist are so because of religious BELIEF. Not science, not statistics, etc.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. Legislating my body because someone else BELIEVES it's morally wrong in God's eyes ---- not OK.

And don't pull the victim argument. The fetus is not a viable human, no matter how much some BELIEVE it is.

Your God does not legislate my body, nor any pregnancy I might have, nor the results of that pregnancy.

As you, I do have personal experience.

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Liberal.

Honestly, I think the majority of people are politically mixed. On ATS, there are a few stand outs that definitely lean one way or the other. But, I think most look at issues independently.

Your “Belief’ is that a “fetus is not a viable human”

That is not a belief.

That is a fact.

Let's get this straight.

Your beliefs are facts.

Others' beliefs are something less.

Got it.

Belief or lack there of has noting to do with a fetus not being a viable human.

Until you can live and breath on your own without the host --- you are not a viable human.

That is plain fact.

um, a fetus of a certain age can certainly survive by itself. What exactly are you talking about ?

So let's kill all the people hooked up to iron lungs, ventilators, and so on.

The concept fails for all lives.

Definition: Fetus -- UNBORN offspring.

Once born, no longer a fetus.

The point was viability at various points of development. A fetus can be induced to birth long before normal birth times, and can survive as a sentient being. Thus, it's not a piece of garbage anytime before 9 months.

You know this. Stop pretending obtuse.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Annee

A lot of people argue that ethics and laws based on religious belief is not the same as a state sponsored religion. In a way, they are correct and I personally wish they would change the language of the amendment to include that legislation cannot be based on religious belief, but must have other proof, statistics, etc to back it.

I wouldn't even be bothered if legislation began from a religious view, but then had merit on its own and was found to benefit society.

That's not typically the case, though.

I've been watching the change, religion losing its "tight fisted control" all my life (that's near 70 years). They are not giving up control quietly or easily. But, they are on the losing side most of the time.

And I do understand both sides, as I was still Christian when Madalyn Murray O'Hair took her atheism to court, and won. It's only about the last 10 years I claim atheist.

There are very good people who believe in a God or higher power. IMO the majority have become more liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

The "Christian Taliban" who want to turn this country into a theocracy through legislation --- yeah, well . . . .unprintable.

As a "woman of age" who lived prior to the Woman's Rights movement, anyone trying to legislate my body is going to bring the claws out.

------------------

In trying to stay closer to topic.

I think the majority of people in America (and on ATS) are socially liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

1. There is no Christian Taliban.

Hence, it is in quotes.

Never said there was a theocracy in America. Did say some want America to be a theocracy. And that is fact.

Try reading comprehension.

I read quite well. Very likely better than yourself.

The point was to stop throwing those cute little inflammatory terms around just to be annoying and derail conversations.

If you know they aren't accurate, why repeat them ?

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: mOjOm
There is no way he'd get by pulling that stuff with other world leaders that have been doing this stuff for years. He'd be a joke and nobody would take him serious.

Exactly why I won't vote for Bernie either.

Would I want Bernie in charge of my personal family? Probably.

Do I want Bernie in charge of the country? NO. He has no interest in foreign or international politics.

There is no way we or any country is going to go backwards and be an isolated country, separate from Global politics. You just don't go backwards.

Bernie lacks foreign/international interest and Trump would piss everyone off except his supporters "currently in favor".

Interesting... Do you have a favorite? I silently pegged you as a Bernie supporter.

Favorite or only available?

I am an Equal Rights/Equality Liberal. And I support what I call a "Progressive Layered Social Structure". Plenty of desert for tent cities, for the uninspired loafer. In other words I support every ones BASIC (and I do mean basic) needs are met (food/shelter/healthcare). However, I know "That which is not earned has no value". For something to have value, you have to do something to get it.

But, this thread is not about my political belief. So, I won't go further with that.

I am definitely a Globalist (not the conspiracy NWO). It is the only natural progression, living in the past is not an option. As I say when/if is not the question. The question is how and who. How to make a global power work and who will be part of it.

originally posted by: stevieray
Gay men have not been denied the right to marry a woman just like hetero men do.

Gay women have not been denied the right to marry a man just like hetero women do.

No unfairness or inequality whatsoever.

But they don't want to marry the opposite sex now do they. That is why they're gay. So no, it's not fair or equal.

What if you were told you could only marry a certain person or choose from a specific group of people, would you be fine with that??? There is this thing called Freedom and Liberty where we get to have choices which we make for ourselves. You should check in to it.

Equally fair, LGBT shouldn't be given control of society's institutions to celebrate their mental illnesses, any more than traditional / straight people should.

Straight people trying to control those institutions is why it's an issue. Just like you're trying to control it now. Allowing gays to marry isn't giving them control over anything either. They don't control your marriage any more than you control theirs now. That is equal.

Having sex with the same gender, both genders, changing back and forth daily, animals, fruits and vegetables, harems, etc.......shouldn't take over all the social institutions any more than psycopaths, sociopaths, bipolar should.

Those are your values. Let others decide their own like they let you decide you own.

BTW, who or what you have sex with doesn't define Marriage so there is no need to bring it up actually.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: deadlyhope

Great post! S&F!

I think people who are conservative see ATS as a hotbed of liberalism (or Democrats or progressives) and people who are liberal see ATS as a hotbed of conservatives (or Neocons or Republicans). LOL!

Truth is, if you (or anyone) really look objectively, it's probably a mix of both with every color in between.

I think it's more important to judge each other as individuals, rather than try to see everyone as fitting nicely into a labelled box, which most of us simply don't fit into.

I think it is just that the political fringes on ATS are..
Very, very, vocal..

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Annee

A lot of people argue that ethics and laws based on religious belief is not the same as a state sponsored religion. In a way, they are correct and I personally wish they would change the language of the amendment to include that legislation cannot be based on religious belief, but must have other proof, statistics, etc to back it.

I wouldn't even be bothered if legislation began from a religious view, but then had merit on its own and was found to benefit society.

That's not typically the case, though.

I've been watching the change, religion losing its "tight fisted control" all my life (that's near 70 years). They are not giving up control quietly or easily. But, they are on the losing side most of the time.

And I do understand both sides, as I was still Christian when Madalyn Murray O'Hair took her atheism to court, and won. It's only about the last 10 years I claim atheist.

There are very good people who believe in a God or higher power. IMO the majority have become more liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

The "Christian Taliban" who want to turn this country into a theocracy through legislation --- yeah, well . . . .unprintable.

As a "woman of age" who lived prior to the Woman's Rights movement, anyone trying to legislate my body is going to bring the claws out.

------------------

In trying to stay closer to topic.

I think the majority of people in America (and on ATS) are socially liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

1. There is no Christian Taliban.

Hence, it is in quotes.

Never said there was a theocracy in America. Did say some want America to be a theocracy. And that is fact.

Try reading comprehension.

I read quite well. Very likely better than yourself.

The point was to stop throwing those cute little inflammatory terms around just to be annoying and derail conversations.

If you know they aren't accurate, why repeat them ?

You seem offended.

I find the "Christian Taliban" offensive (notice the quote marks).

Fact: there is a political faction in the USA that would force a Fundamental Christian theocracy if possible.

I don't find it cute at all.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

Bernie's not the best international foreign affairs guy but I think he's well informed enough to do it well. He's not an isolationist but he is a non-interventionist so there would be a lot less of that he'd have to deal with anyway.

But at least he wouldn't start trouble with other countries or their leaders and would pull us out of some of the crap we're in now.

I am a Globalist.

Lack of interest in foreign/international politics is a NO for me.

For me Libertarian ideas are out dated. I think in "how to move forward" not "how things used to be".

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: stevieray
Gay men have not been denied the right to marry a woman just like hetero men do.

Gay women have not been denied the right to marry a man just like hetero women do.

No unfairness or inequality whatsoever.

But they don't want to marry the opposite sex now do they. That is why they're gay. So no, it's not fair or equal.

What if you were told you could only marry a certain person or choose from a specific group of people, would you be fine with that??? There is this thing called Freedom and Liberty where we get to have choices which we make for ourselves. You should check in to it.

Equally fair, LGBT shouldn't be given control of society's institutions to celebrate their mental illnesses, any more than traditional / straight people should.

Straight people trying to control those institutions is why it's an issue. Just like you're trying to control it now. Allowing gays to marry isn't giving them control over anything either. They don't control your marriage any more than you control theirs now. That is equal.

Having sex with the same gender, both genders, changing back and forth daily, animals, fruits and vegetables, harems, etc.......shouldn't take over all the social institutions any more than psycopaths, sociopaths, bipolar should.

Those are your values. Let others decide their own like they let you decide you own.

BTW, who or what you have sex with doesn't define Marriage so there is no need to bring it up actually.

Society has always had to draw a line between normal and good for society.....and abnormal and bad for society.

It's why murder falls on one side, and self defense falls on another. Free speech on one side, "fire /theater" on the other. No society can survive by giving in to the people who scream that it's unfair that they can't do whatever they can dream up, 24/7.

LGBTQQXYZ123 is a conglomeration of aberrations and mental illnesses, that takes society down the drain to anarchy and decay. Pedophilia and bestiality are in that overall collection, and I hope you aren't advocating for their freedom to do whatever pleases them. So the line gets drawn somewhere. Somebody's bad and destructive behaviors will lose out. And of course they will scream like banshees.

That's why they were all mental illnesses at one time, before the most ill among us threatened the AMA into saying they aren't.

Not a great moment in self-aware, mature society.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Annee

A lot of people argue that ethics and laws based on religious belief is not the same as a state sponsored religion. In a way, they are correct and I personally wish they would change the language of the amendment to include that legislation cannot be based on religious belief, but must have other proof, statistics, etc to back it.

I wouldn't even be bothered if legislation began from a religious view, but then had merit on its own and was found to benefit society.

That's not typically the case, though.

I've been watching the change, religion losing its "tight fisted control" all my life (that's near 70 years). They are not giving up control quietly or easily. But, they are on the losing side most of the time.

And I do understand both sides, as I was still Christian when Madalyn Murray O'Hair took her atheism to court, and won. It's only about the last 10 years I claim atheist.

There are very good people who believe in a God or higher power. IMO the majority have become more liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

The "Christian Taliban" who want to turn this country into a theocracy through legislation --- yeah, well . . . .unprintable.

As a "woman of age" who lived prior to the Woman's Rights movement, anyone trying to legislate my body is going to bring the claws out.

------------------

In trying to stay closer to topic.

I think the majority of people in America (and on ATS) are socially liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

1. There is no Christian Taliban.

Hence, it is in quotes.

Never said there was a theocracy in America. Did say some want America to be a theocracy. And that is fact.

Try reading comprehension.

I read quite well. Very likely better than yourself.

The point was to stop throwing those cute little inflammatory terms around just to be annoying and derail conversations.

If you know they aren't accurate, why repeat them ?

You seem offended.

I find the "Christian Taliban" offensive (notice the quote marks).

Fact: there is a political faction in the USA that would force a Fundamental Christian theocracy if possible.

I don't find it cute at all.

Fact - No there is not.

See how easy that is ! Shazam ! I win, in my mind !

Offended, not at all. Logical and honest....yes.

originally posted by: Annee

I am a Globalist.

Lack of interest in foreign/international politics is a NO for me.

For me Libertarian ideas are out dated. I think in "how to move forward" not "how things used to be".

I didn't say he's not interested. He just thinks taking care of ones own nation and people come first. To me that makes more sense. If you can't do good by your own people then you shouldn't be messing around with others until you can.

You can't move forward without first being capable of moving. Nobody says you have to go back. But you need to address issues in the here and now first otherwise moving forward with them just means you move your problems with you. That's carrying extra baggage you don't need and need to rid yourself of first.

If your car is having trouble do you fix it or just hammer on the gas and hope it fixes itself on the way??? If it's the latter then you're going to find yourself broke down and stranded in the middle of nowhere real soon.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Annee

I am a Globalist.

Lack of interest in foreign/international politics is a NO for me.

For me Libertarian ideas are out dated. I think in "how to move forward" not "how things used to be".

I didn't say he's not interested. He just thinks taking care of ones own nation and people come first. To me that makes more sense. If you can't do good by your own people then you shouldn't be messing around with others until you can.

You can't move forward without first being capable of moving. Nobody says you have to go back. But you need to address issues in the here and now first otherwise moving forward with them just means you move your problems with you. That's carrying extra baggage you don't need and need to rid yourself of first.

If your car is having trouble do you fix it or just hammer on the gas and hope it fixes itself on the way??? If it's the latter then you're going to find yourself broke down and stranded in the middle of nowhere real soon.

Just telling you my position.

I'm not going to argue it.

originally posted by: stevieray

Society has always had to draw a line between normal and good for society.....and abnormal and bad for society.

They aren't hurting society though. They are trying to be a part of it without being made in to a victim or enemy at the same time. They already have been and are a part of our society and have given many things to our society as well. Yet they are still having to defend themselves from some of society for who they are in their personal lives.

It's why murder falls on one side, and self defense falls on another. Free speech on one side, "fire /theater" on the other. No society can survive by giving in to the people who scream that it's unfair that they can't do whatever they can dream up, 24/7.

Nobody is suggesting to give anyone whatever they want whenever they want it. All they want is to be who they are which doesn't effect anyone else any more than others being who they are so what's the big deal. They aren't asking for anything more than anyone else get's. They're asking for equal treatment. But you and others don't want to give it to them because of your Religion. To me that makes you and those like you in to the ones who want to be treated special, not them.

LGBTQQXYZ123 is a conglomeration of aberrations and mental illnesses, that takes society down the drain to anarchy and decay. Pedophilia and bestiality are in that overall collection, and I hope you aren't advocating for their freedom to do whatever pleases them. So the line gets drawn somewhere. Somebody's bad and destructive behaviors will lose out. And of course they will scream like banshees.

Yeah, we've all heard that stupid argument about pedophiles before but it's false and makes you look ignorant bring it up again as if it's valid. Nobody is legalizing child sex or animal sex or anything else you're trying to toss in. If you're not gay or participating in a personal lifestyle with gays then what they do with their personal lives doesn't effect you, period. But since you refuse to stay out of their personal lives you continue to be effected by it. That's your problem not theirs.

a reply to: Annee

Oh really?? Well I disagree. Get out you're arguing shoes girl cause we're gonna dance!!


Just kidding....

I get what you're saying. I'm just putting my rebuttal out there too.

I didn't realize you were such a pro globalist actually. Although I think your version is one I'd be in favor of as well. What it means right now is a bit different though and I don't think the world is capable of your version just yet. Too many groups and cultures still at odds with no middle ground possible right now IMO. Maybe someday that will change though. Until then I think we just have to wait for some groups to grow up and figure some stuff out for themselves.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

Oh really?? Well I disagree. Get out you're arguing shoes girl cause we're gonna dance!!


Just kidding....

I get what you're saying. I'm just putting my rebuttal out there too.

I didn't realize you were such a pro globalist actually. Although I think your version is one I'd be in favor of as well. What it means right now is a bit different though and I don't think the world is capable of your version just yet. Too many groups and cultures still at odds with no middle ground possible right now IMO. Maybe someday that will change though. Until then I think we just have to wait for some groups to grow up and figure some stuff out for themselves.

Yes, I am definitely a Globalist. A legit one, not a conspiracy NWO one.

Everyone should watch Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" before leaving their home every day.

John Kennedy: "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Do we need big green lawns to impress the neighbors? How about we grow low maintenance food and plant trees instead? Why are there city ordinances against growing food in your front yard?

Is there any real reason to drive large vehicles? Unless, you have too many kids or need it for work? Why has the electric car industry not been successful?

Show me the people who sincerely want change and are willing to personally do something about it. Before you talk to me about a politician who's going to do it for them.

I'd rather save the planet and its resources.

originally posted by: Annee

Show me the people who sincerely want change and are willing to personally do something about it. Before you talk to me about a politician who's going to do it for them.

I'd rather save the planet and its resources.

That is the exact reason I say the world isn't ready. There are still too many people fearing change of any kind without understanding that like it or not things are going to change even if if it means taking them along kicking and screaming the entire time.