re: Off Topic: Governor's race. Walt Maddox vs. Kay Ivey

quote:

---

I'm sure you think gay people choose to be gay and aren't born that way.

---

There is no evidence otherwise. I don't have to "think" about it.

ETA: At best it is a mental defect. Nothing more. They stopped looking into that as we started to get more and more knowledgeable about genetics. The last thing the gay lobby wants is to identify a gay gene so people can start fixing the defects before they're born. Blows a hole in the "no one would choose this" argument.

quote:

---

This isn't persecuting Christians. This has nothing to do with Christians.

---

It is impossible to think this and claim to be up to date on current events.

quote:

---

As long as it's between consenting adults, there's no difference.

---

These kinds of statements are why Trump is polling over 35% with blacks. Who you choose to sleep with is not the same as being born white, black, yellow, blue, purple, man, woman, etc.

quote:

---

OK so you have a problem with racial discrimination, but discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is all good. I'm sure you think gay people choose to be gay and aren't born that way.

---

What kind of virtue signaling shite is this?

I don't care about your gay sex anymore than I care about my heterosexual neighbors having sex. Why do you gay knights think people care about your sex. Keep it to yourself and have a nice day. Get graphic and public with it and invite third party opinions that you probably won't like.

quote:

---

Nobody has said anything about sexual activity.

---

Same thing Doofus. I don't care that my neighbors are man and woman or man and man. But start broadcasting like it means something because you're gay and you're inviting opinion.

quote:

---

The Spleen

---

Try not to be so obtuse.

quote:

---

What kind of virtue signaling shite is this?

I don't care about your gay sex anymore than I care about my heterosexual neighbors having sex. Why do you gay knights think people care about your sex. Keep it to yourself and have a nice day. Get graphic and public with it and invite third party opinions that you probably won't like.

---

What? I'm not gay buddy. I just don't think they choose to be the way they are, nor do I have an issue with them being the way they are. It's actually possible to be heterosexual and not hate the gays. Crazy I know.

quote:

---

You will not find a conservative who is against laws that protect the rights of others.

---

I think you are confused, as I never suggested anything that disagreed with that. Laws are the foundation of the social contract, which we all support.

quote:

---

Easy. It is a ruling that requires everyone to accept gay marriage. You can see the authoritarianism in the rulings against Christians who do not want to participate in celebrations of actions they've deemed sinful.

---

So first, the definition of authoritarianism is

quote:

---

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability under an authoritarian regime.

---

.

The government not banning, or with not withholding bans, on things that you don't like is not authoritarian. If anything, a ban on marriage is limiting the personal freedoms of gays. No one is forcing you to marry a dude, and you are free to maintain your personal beliefs on homosexuality. The government enforcing those beliefs on a significant chunk of our population that are not christian is much more authoritarian than allowing gay individuals the freedom to marry. Additionally, marriage as a religious institution is untouched by the ruling. It only applies to the legal definition, and the rest is up to the churches themselves.

You can't just say that any law you don't like is authoritarian because it makes you "do something you don't want to do" (which the gay marriage ruling does not. Literally changes your life in zero ways, assuming that you are not gay).

quote:

---

Going a long way to redefine socialism here. You don't think forcing a purchase is a way to control the means of production?

---

No. That is the actual definition of concept. You would really benifit from spending some time studying these things that you so passionately hate.

Forcing a purchase is no more "controlling the means of production" than any other regulations on businesses. Do you think that making it illegal for toy companies to use lead paint is socialism? What about forcing people to buy car insurance? If anything, the ACA is an example of corporatism (thought it doesn't completely fit that definition.

quote:

---

Forcing purchase IS controlling exchange

---

So SEC regulations and taxes are socialist?

quote:

---

They have been unsuccessful because of Republicans, not because of a lack of effort.

---

Then why haven't they nominated a single prominent progressive?

quote:

---

Oh come on. This is clearly false. Not even worth debating.

---

Name one significant politician calling for open borders.

quote:

---

Compromise to Democrats means doing everything they want. I'm done wirh their type of compromise.

---

All the evidence shows the contrary. You just feel that way so you try to make it right in your head. Obama was a great example of this. His appeal to compromise and belief in the system was his biggest fault. The ACA is a great example. He wanted health care reform. Instead of using his bully pulpit and fighting for a progressive plan, he took a republican-created plan, and offered it up. When it met insane challenge, he conceded on the public option (a key part in the system working). Hell, even when offered a pick for Scalia's spot, he picked a very-moderate judge. All the while, Republicans in congress explicitly stated that their job was not to represent their constituents, or operate a functional government, but to oppose Obama in every way they could, which is fricked. In the same vain, Pelosi said that her job was to 'elect more democrats", which is also fricked. Both parties do it, but we need to recognize that it is partisan pandering bullshite that prevents our government from operating appropriately or effectively.
But this idea that democrats refuse to cooperate at all is unfounded. Obama tried to the point that it hurt him.
Bill Clinton balanced the budget (the last one to do so) in response to Ross Perot's base gaining so much traction, and passed welfare reform with republican support.

quote:

---

Republicans' willingness to meet in the continuously left-shifting "middle" is destroying our country.

---

Please feel free to show me examples of "republican willingness to meet the left in the middle".

Through our talks you have shown that you don't know the definition of socialism. That you don't understand authoritarianism. That you vehemently hate about half of our population despite not having a developed understanding of their beliefs. You could seriously benefit from putting in some more time and effort if you are truly as passionate as you make it seem. If there is a college around you, you can always audit classes for next to nothing.

Additionally, imagining your interaction at the pearly gates is amusing. "Hey Jesus! What up dude? I know that I disregarded the majority of your teachings about loving and understanding the people around me and instead chose to hate half my country because of political bullshite that I didn't even bother to really learn about, but I believe you exist and that God is your dad, so... we're good right?"

Maybe the fifth post saying you don't care will really prove you don't care.

are you registered to vote yet?