Republicans Kind of Suck … Which Is Why They Will Win Huge in November

[Leatherneck]

Talk about thread drift...we were talking about how how stupid the GOP leadership is and how they'll probably screw up the landslide they're about to be given. How do we rid ourselves of the "Republican Leadership"?

TC

[White Horseradish]

Oh, I can argue forever, and have in the past. In reviewing the time spent in those arguments, I realized that I wasted significant amounts of my life with nothing to show.

Weren't you even entertained?

I'm not going to change your mind, and you'll likely not change mine. I've worked very hard today, and don't feel up to it.

If it will make you feel better, I'll even say you won. How's that?

Meh. Still disappointing. What makes you think I was looking to "win" or to change your mind?  What I really wanted was to see if I could come up with some coherent answers to these questions I have.

[AZRedhawk44]

Oh, I can argue forever, and have in the past. In reviewing the time spent in those arguments, I realized that I wasted significant amounts of my life with nothing to show.

I'm not going to change your mind, and you'll likely not change mine. I've worked very hard today, and don't feel up to it.

If it will make you feel better, I'll even say you won. How's that?

lol.

Talk about thread drift...we were talking about how how stupid the GOP leadership is and how they'll probably screw up the landslide they're about to be given. How do we rid ourselves of the "Republican Leadership"?

TC

Indeed.  I'm waiting for HTG to specifically tell us how we can decapitate the GOP good old boy network from the inside.

[Monkeyleg]

Weren't you even entertained?

Sure. Was it good for you?

[Strings]

*sigh*

I can solve the "gay marriage issue" real quick.

The government no longer issues "marriage licenses". From this point forward, they're "civil unions", which confer all the same rights and privledges of marriage as currently accepted to any two or more consenting adults, as signed and notarized on the document.

"Marriage", as a legal term, no longer applies.

There, all fixed.





As for the Republican leadership: I see no quick fix...

[White Horseradish]

Sure. Was it good for you?

Hmmm... What would Mabs do? 

As for the Republican leadership: I see no quick fix...

Detcord?

[Ron]

*sigh*

I can solve the "gay marriage issue" real quick.

The government no longer issues "marriage licenses". From this point forward, they're "civil unions", which confer all the same rights and privledges of marriage as currently accepted to any two or more consenting adults, as signed and notarized on the document.

"Marriage", as a legal term, no longer applies.

There, all fixed.

I'm on the same page with you on this one.

Get government out of the marriage business.

Do we really need a bureaucrats permission to become "man and wife"?

[Strings]

The legitimate issue i can see is the granting of certain legal protections to gay (or what have you) relationships as are enjoyed by heterosexual "man and woman" unions.

Where it gets illegitimate is when we start arguing that we want "same sex marriage". That is a very specific word, with very specific connotations.

For the legal benefits (inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decisions, etc), EVERY "family*" should have to get a civil union contract, via the government. It is kinda a government function.

Want to be "married"? That's up to the church you belong to. If they don't accept the relationship you're in, tough for you. But wy would you be part of a church that doesn't accept you sexual choices?




*"family" here defined (for contract terms) as "any 2 or more consenting adults". Which eliminates the question of folks entering civil unions with children, animals, or inanimate objects...

[Monkeyleg]

"family" here defined (for contract terms) as "any 2 or more consenting adults". Which eliminates the question of folks entering civil unions with children, animals...

Blast it all. I was so looking forward to marrying my horse.

[roo_ster]

Hey, did anyone hear?  Republicans suck!  But not, like, as bad as Democrats.

Or something.

Personally, I have retrenched over time from mild pro-"civil union" position to opposing ceding even that much space.  

Nowadays, I would insist that we pass legislation that those wishing to be same-sex-married(1) be broken on the wheel(2) and their bodies quartered after death to be displayed in public as an example to all worthless PITA keening trouble makers.  

Heck, if I'm going to be accused of violating human rights or some such nonsense, I might as well get some satisfaction and advocate for some real human rights violations.  







(1) While maintaining a live & let live policy for even the flamiest and outrageous homosexuals who have no intention of partaking in same sex marriage.  The "Homer Simpson Doctrine."


(2) I think I may have read too many books on medieval and renaissance history, lately.  Every other chapter someone is being flayed to death, burned at the stake, having red-hot crowns nailed to their heads, and such.  The lucky ones merely have their eyes gouged out with hot pokers and sent to live out the remainder of their days in a monastery.  And that whiny Clinton lawyer called Washington politics "blood sport."

Blast it all. I was so looking forward to marrying my horse.

Of course, of course.

[Perd Hapley]

Get government out of the marriage business.

Do we really need a bureaucrats permission to become "man and wife"?

That's "solving" a problem that doesn't exist. As someone (White Horseradish, I think) said earlier, legally-recognized marriage simplifies a lot of things. Why make things harder for married people?

The actual problem is that leftist nonsense, as usual, is hurting the people it claims to help. If those concerned about homosexual couples really wanted to make things easier for them, they should have suggested legislation to make things easier for all people (not just homosexuals) who live together, or depend on close friends, rather than family members. If you want non-family to have hospital visitation rights, or you want to leave your stuff to someone who's not related to you by blood or marriage, fine with me. But make that available to everyone with a non-traditional family, not just homosexuals. That would make more sense, and be more inclusive and less divisive.

[Strings]

Did Fistful just give a synopsis of what I was describing?

And, Gawds forbid, is he being TOLERANT?



Ok bub... who are you and what did you do with our forum scapegoat?!?


 

[RoadKingLarry]

In a probably lame attempt to get back on topic...

I predict voter fraud/election irregularities on a scale that would make Castro blush.
That will be coordinated with legal challenges that will make Florida 2000 look like a minor tiff between friends.
Variou state races will be tied up in the courts till well into 2011 giving the lameduck congress plenty of time to really screw things up.

I am not optomistic.

[MicroBalrog]

So effectively extend the same legal privileges available to married couples to all of those groups of people, and let people call 'marriage' what they think is 'marriage'? That's actually the best idea in the whole thread.

But I sort of always viewed gay marriage as a walk-before-you-run step towards that, just like how CCW permits are supposed to be a step towards repealing the NFA.

[Perd Hapley]

Did Fistful just give a synopsis of what I was describing?

I don't think so. This is something I've said before. I'll try to break it down a bit.

1. Leave marriage laws alone. "Getting government out of marriage" is a radical "solution" that will cause more problems than the alleged problem it seeks to solve.

2. If those in non-traditional arrangements (people living together, or depending on one another, regardless of any sexual relationship) need special arrangements from hospitals or governments, let them lobby for the appropriate legislation. Not because homosexual relationships need government recognition, but because everybody hates red tape, even non-doing-it heterosexuals who live together for whatever reason.

3. If item 2 had been pursued by homosexuals and their sympathizers, on behalf of everyone, they could have gotten much further on this agenda by now. (Dare I call it an agenda?  )


Obviously, those who argue that homosexual couples have to be treated exactly like heterosexual couples won't be satisfied with this.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

2. If those in non-traditional arrangements (people living together, or depending on one another, regardless of any sexual relationship) need special arrangements from hospitals or governments, let them lobby for the appropriate legislation. Not because homosexual relationships need government recognition, but because everybody hates red tape, even non-doing-it heterosexuals who live together for whatever reason.

This.

In fact, I'd narrow it even further.  Let them lobby in the private sector for what they want, leave legislative force out of it.

I have an old friend form college, Kathy, a lesbian, who I used to debate this with endlessly.  She said that it wasn't fair that I could marry a woman and my wife would be covered by my insurance and similar suchlike, but she couldn't marry a woman and confer the same benefits to her partner.  She thought it was appropriate to use the power of government to force these private companies to behave in the way she wanted, whereas I thought that forcing priivate businesses to offer specific products or services wasn't right at all.

A coupla years ago I was filling out beneficiary paperwork for some insurance.  Alongside the checkbox for naming a spouse as a beneficiary, there was now a new "Life Partner" option for specifying a non-married, non-family member as beneficiary.  It seems that the insurance company wanted business from unmarried couples and now was willing to offer that coverage. 

This is the way Kathy and the gay community should have handled such things.  Rather than use force of government to compel companies to provide you their services on your unilateral terms, choose to do business with those willing to offer the services you want voluntarily, and avoid those who don't.  It won't take long for companies to adapt to the marketplace.