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

a reply to: DBCowboy

This would be a very boring site if everyone just said "agree to disagree", don'tcha think?

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Remember, this was all about benefits and getting things that married couples get. Instead of changing definitions and all the things that belong to the joining or divorcing of a man and a woman, I would have implemented all of those benefits into civil unions.

Definition of Marriage doesn't belong to Anyone. Also, besides the definition of a word, what "all things" are you talking about that changed for Man/Woman Marriages??? Nothing changed for them. What changed was allowing for another set of couples to join that's it. It didn't change traditional marriages in any way at all.

That's fine that you would have done it using civil unions but to claim anything at all changed for traditional marriages when gay marriage was included is false. Nothing changed for them other than their illusion that they control the meaning of the word Marriage.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You never fail to miss the topic.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Yeah but the only thing comparable to alcohol is marijuana. And moonshine (the heavy hard hitting alcohol) is still prohibited.

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.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Gays wanted the same rights and benefits, under a civil union, that men and women got in a marriage. You have the worst arguments. Segregation? Really? Please stop trying to compare gay people to entire ethnic races.

At the risk of going off topic of the OP; Krazysh0t is correct, civil union’s for some and marriage for others is a form of segregation.

civil union’s for all however would not have been; and it would have side step all the nonsense we are seeing over the fall out of the Gay Marriage ruling.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

This would be a very boring site if everyone just said "agree to disagree", don'tcha think?

Yeah, I suppose.

But in real life, that's what people do.

originally posted by: deadlyhope


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.

There is no law supporting gay marriage. The SCOTUS ruling voided state laws banning gay marriage.

a reply to: mOjOm

Good question. I didn't say it changed anything with traditional marriage. I said I would have given all 250, or however many it was, rights and benefits to those united under a civil union.

a reply to: LSU0408

I'm arguing that the effect of dicriminalizing drugs would be less problems, not more. It's like.. Abstinence only people. Very ignorant of statistics. If you teach kids, teens about sex and safety and protection, there's lower std rates, and lower unwanted pregnancies.

I'd imagine the same with drugs. I can't prove my position, though. I could go study it if this position, in this thread meant a lot to me, but eh. I've seen others do so, and it's a topic that doesn't have the majority of my attention..

Can you prove drug problems would increase, or is the issue also not as important to you as to go study and prove your position?

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: deadlyhope

Yeah but the only thing comparable to alcohol is marijuana. And moonshine (the heavy hard hitting alcohol) is still prohibited.

Those aren't comparable at all actually. You can die from too much alcohol but not from MJ. Alcohol also becomes physically addictive and you can die from detox if your addiction is bad enough. Not with MJ.

They aren't even close to being comparable. Alcohol is far more dangerous and destructive than MJ.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

This would be a very boring site if everyone just said "agree to disagree", don'tcha think?

Yeah, I suppose.

But in real life, that's what people do.

That's what I do with my relatives, because I have to be with them during visits/holidays, etc - or with my work colleagues because it makes it easier to work with them. But this site is for discussion and debate - that is one of the major reasons this site exists. Just sayin'...

a reply to: LSU0408

I'd say lesser amounts of marijuana and the less powerful prescription pills.

Which "less powerful prescription pills"?

I'm not too entirely versed on drugs

I am. Trained in many ways.

There is no problem with pot. No one can overdose on pot.
They can, however, overdose on alcohol. And where you got the idea that "everclear" is illegal I really do not know.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Thanks for the correction! I didn't realize.

I think there are more socialists/democrats on ATS but right wingers tend to agree with each other more easily and they are "louder"...just like in real life. Maybe I'm not living at the right place but the loud minority and bullies that we always hear about lean right much more. In fact, I have very few right leaning friends which is good because with them, I always get in conversations that quickly cumulate into arguments. It might be coincidence but they always need to be right and they never give in...

I guess it goes with the name.
Conservatives...never change.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: mOjOm

Good question. I didn't say it changed anything with traditional marriage. I said I would have given all 250, or however many it was, rights and benefits to those united under a civil union.

This is from your post:

Instead of changing definitions and all the things that belong to the joining or divorcing of a man and a woman, I would have implemented all of those benefits into civil unions.

But there are no other things and nothing about the concepts within marriage belongs to them either. It doesn't belong to anyone. It's an idea.

Other than that I get what you're saying. But this idea that something changed for everyone's marriages past or future when gays were included is a myth. Absolutely nothing changed other than the definition for them and even that part of the definition doesn't even apply to them or their marriage if they aren't gay.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Gryphon66

You never get the full story out of twisted things like that. I don't support marriage between two men, and to some people, that qualifies me as an "anti-gay extremist." To many people, they are perverted. Why do you think Obama was against it until he was told half of his base was for it? You know that dude feels the same way.

So you agree that the Conservatives I linked to you have something against gay people? Not just gay marriage as you said?

Unless you think that words like “perverted,” “degenerate,” “spiritually darkened” and “frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally” are terms of endearment.

That was the point of my comment to you. It's utterly asinine to claim that the average American Conservative "doesn't have a problem" with gay people, gayness, etc. etc.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

There is no problem with pot. No one can overdose on pot.

Careful.

A temporary overdose of marijuana can occur and is called “greening out.” It is important to understand that a temporary overdose of marijuana will not result in permanent disability or death, but can be quite common in people who have not used the drug often. The following are the symptoms of too much marijuana in the system:

Temporary feelings of paranoia, fear and anxiety
Shortness of breath
Pupil dilation
Vomiting and/or nausea
Fast heart rate
Shaking that is hard to control, feeling cold
Disorientation or hallucinations
Hangover

Can You Overdose On Marijuana?

a reply to: LSU0408

I believe there is definitely some merit to this idea. However, I think a large part of that battle is specifically between the LGBT community and Christianity, and not without reason. I think it goes deeper than being strictly about equal rights.

All that said, pursuing civil unions instead of the battle with Christianity might have led to more seperation between the government and religion. It could open the door to much more expansive implementation of the legal union, and in some very good ways (and of course, perhaps some bad).

Pursuing it in this fashion might not only create less friction between social groups, but allow for a greater diversity in how different social groups realize the legal union. Basically allowing for the same legal underpinnings, but with a personalized overlay on how it applies to any given group. Then again, without appealing to conflict, perhaps it wouldn't have inspired as much passion.



As far as demographics on ATS, it seems pretty evenly split, though folks from the left seem to be more consistently involved in a given topic. Overall, I see a pretty close representation of the public at large. I don't necessarily buy into the idea that just because someone is on ATS, they are somehow more "awake" either. There are certainly some brilliant people, I'm just not convinced its substantially different than my experience with the general public (if at all).

I would say though, that the psy-ops that focus on the left are significantly more advanced than those used on the right. That could just be because the right almost depends on statically defined approaches though.

a reply to: mOjOm

We all know it's a control issue. It's a "we deserve the title of marriage, but you don't", or sneaky way of saying, "you are less than us". Anyone who says that it has nothing to do with intolerance of gays is being disingenuous.