TEA Party losses

[Regolith]

Ah, nice strawman. It's not like we've hashed out these issues in the past. It's clearly just bigotry on the part of those of us who oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships because you've never heard any other argument.

Yes, it is. I've heard every damn argument there is. Boiled away, they all come down to gag reflex. Nothing more.

All of the "detrimental to the family" stuff is absolute crap, and there are absolutely no studies or data that actually backs that up. The biggest threat to the family unit has been government interference, in the form of welfare and various other subsidies that make it easier to not be involved in one, not gay *expletive deleted* marriage, which hasn't even been a thing for most of the time that the family unit has been going down hill, and which you seem to assume a priori, without any proof or reason, can't form a stable family unit. So yeah, it is bigotry. Sorry to call it out like that, but that's what it is.

Edit: Oh, and I also have no problem with polygamy, either. So you're attempt to justify gay marriage ban because we might also have to allow polygamy doesn't work. Generally speaking, there are all sorts of different marriage arrangements that can work out given consenting adults, and I see absolutely no reason to put a stop to any of them other than pearl clutching.

[TommyGunn]

You're either delusional, or deliberately being obtuse. I'm not sure which, but its expected behavior

What an uplifting and cheerful retort.
You REALLY see a whole slew of conservative republicans just waiting in the wings to be elected and save this country from fiscal collapse?

[Perd Hapley]

Regolith, you've got it all backward. You begin your thinking with the notion that homosexual relationships are included by default, and then anyone who says otherwise needs to disqualify them.

No one need explain why homosexual relationships cannot be marriages. Rather, it falls to such as yourself to explain how they can be. This is what ought to happen before the law recognizes them as such. We (humans; not just Christians or right-wingers) have known for thousands of years (i.e., all of recorded history) that marriage is a union between two (or sometimes more) people of the opposite sex. The relationship between the sexes is that on which marriage has always been based. To begin including relationships that lack that element is, frankly, nonsense. It is nonsense, because no sense, no reason, has been given for including them. The specious "reason" presented is that men and women are interchangeable; therefore gender is a non-issue. This is, of course, absurd.

To put it another way, we should need more than just your approval, before we add homosexual couples to those that get government recognition. But in typical leftist fashion, you want government to just get involved in everything.

[Fitz]

What an uplifting and cheerful retort.
You REALLY see a whole slew of conservative republicans just waiting in the wings to be elected and save this country from fiscal collapse?

No, I see a slew of them not making it past primaries. And if you don't see it, then see my previous comment.

I'm not cheerful, particularly about this. The GOP and conservatives have blinders on.


Or , we see them get torpedoed and marginalized, and their supporters blamed when they lose.

[onions!]

When did "Civil union" get replaced by marriage for the non-hetero folks.I seem to remember civil union was the buzzword a few years ago.
I too believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.I was fine with different terminology for a different set of circumstances.Still am.
Maybe it seems a bit pedantic but my offense is taken because of the corruption of the word marriage.

[Regolith]

We (humans; not just Christians or right-wingers) have known for thousands of years (i.e., all of recorded history) that marriage is a union between two (or sometimes more) people of the opposite sex. The relationship between the sexes is that on which marriage has always been based. To begin including relationships that lack that element is, frankly, nonsense. It is nonsense, because no sense, no reason, has been given for including them. The specious "reason" presented is that men and women are interchangeable; therefore gender is a non-issue. This is, of course, absurd.

Except, of course, all those times in human history, including ancient history, where same-sex marriages have been recognized.

To put it another way, we should need more than just your approval, before we add homosexual couples to those that get government recognition. But in typical leftist fashion, you want government to just get involved in everything.

That's downright Orwellian. Government regulates who can get hitched by excluding some consenting adults, people get upset about it, and then you turn it around claim that stopping the government from regulating who can get hitched is getting the government INVOLVED. 

It was already involved. This is weakening it's involvement.

It would be nice to get the government out of the marriage business completely, but I don't see any big push on that any time soon. In the mean time, government needs to stop interfering with the relationships of consenting adults.

[Fitz]

When did "Civil union" get replaced by marriage for the non-hetero folks.I seem to remember civil union was the buzzword a few years ago.
I too believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.I was fine with different terminology for a different set of circumstances.Still am.
Maybe it seems a bit pedantic but my offense is taken because of the corruption of the word marriage.

in a lot of places, civil unions were gaining steam.

The homosexual lobby objected fairly strongly to the different terms, and promptly didn't get the recognition they wanted as a result.

Shot themselves in the foot, IMHO.

[onions!]

in a lot of places, civil unions were gaining steam.

The homosexual lobby objected fairly strongly to the different terms, and promptly didn't get the recognition they wanted as a result.

Shot themselves in the foot, IMHO.

I can understand that.Seperate but equal,isn't.Too bad though,a little flexibility and we could all be happy.

[Fitz]

I can understand that.Seperate but equal,isn't.Too bad though,a little flexibility and we could all be happy.

I can understand it too. But I also know a few people who vehemently opposed civil unions and now are lamenting the lack of benefits/protections afforded to married couples which would have applied to them.


Bed made, etc.

[cordex]

Personally I don't really care if the government expands the legal definition of marriage except inasmuch as it is used as a weapon against people who have a moral objection to gay marriage.

Except, of course, all those times in human history, including ancient history, where same-sex marriages have been recognized.

The listed examples were - with very few exceptions - not the same thing as legal same sex marriage.  They were almost all legal same sex relationships (not even necessarily sexual), but distinct and separate from man/woman marriage.

It was already involved. This is weakening it's involvement.

I don't understand how this is weakening its involvement.  Broadening, yes, but not weakening in any regard.

[Regolith]

I don't understand how this is weakening its involvement.  Broadening, yes, but not weakening in any regard.

It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.

After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that, loosening and weakening the government's ability to control.

[Balog]

No.
Its a red herring issue at best.
There are many states that have passed gay marriage bans by popular vote or referendum, these bans tend to be wildly poipular at state levels. The only major pushback is coming from appointed activist federal judges.

That, right there.

Hyper liberal California passed a gay marriage ban by popular vote.

[Balog]

No, I see a slew of them not making it past primaries. And if you don't see it, then see my previous comment.

I'm not cheerful, particularly about this. The GOP and conservatives have blinders on.


Or , we see them get torpedoed and marginalized, and their supporters blamed when they lose.

Most peoe who are in favor of limited government are not vile, amoral, sociopathic shitweasels and thus are bad at being politicians. There's nothing inherintly unelectable about their positions, they just suck as politicians.

[cordex]

It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.

After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that, loosening and weakening the government's ability to control.

You said: "This is weakening it's involvement."  Allowing same sex marriages gives a few percent more people a chance to register their marriage with the government.  That is mission creep, not weakening government's involvement in marriage.

[Balog]

It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.

After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that, loosening and weakening the government's ability to control.

 

It's greatly increasing the state's ability to force people to violate their most fundamental beliefs. If the state recognizes marriage at all, it should do so only to incentivize it as a positive behavior in child rearing. There is nothing about the marriage contract that cannot be duplicated with a couple of other legal documents, except for the state's ability to force people to recognize homosexual relationships as no different than heterosexual ones.

I love the libertarians who, in the name of saving gay folks the horror and indignation of filing slightly different legal paperwork than hetero couples, are more the happy to vastly expand the state's power, engage in state sponsored social engineering at gunpoint, and violate the most fundamental of human rights.

[makattak]

It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.

After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that, loosening and weakening the government's ability to control.

Can you tell me what happened to a mixed race couple at that time and what happens to a homosexual couple right now?

One is "the government dictating who can be married" and one is "the government doesn't give you extra stuff for your relationship."

[Perd Hapley]

Except, of course, all those times in human history, including ancient history, where same-sex marriages have been recognized.

  Yes, I recall going through that list before. As I recall, it's ridiculously small, and includes very few instances in which a homosexual relationship was regarded as equal to a marriage. So, billions of humans, over thousands of years, thousands of cultures and religions, and they all but unanimously thought of marriage as something that happened between opposite sex partners. Why, it's almost as if marriage makes sense that way, and not the other [homosexual] way.  It's almost as if gender were something that simply exists, not just something enforced by culture or religion. You may have heard the phrase "exception that proves the rule." Besides, dude, I never told you there weren't exceptions.

That's downright Orwellian. Government regulates who can get hitched by excluding some consenting adults, people get upset about it, and then you turn it around claim that stopping the government from regulating who can get hitched is getting the government INVOLVED. 

Orwellian? You're asking government to call things marriages, when they clearly, as a matter of plain fact, are not. Then you have the nerve to call us bigots, when we point this out.

You're asking for a new class of relationships to be added to those which the government already recognizes. I say "recognize," because our government can't be said to actually regulate marriage, except maybe in the case of minors. Would government stop a man from being married to his mother? Or stop a man from having six wives? I don't see it doing anything but withholding recognition.

The point being, you want government to do something it wasn't already doing. You should have to explain why. I need not offer an explanation, except in the sense that it falls to the non-delusional to help the delusional (you) see reality.

It was already involved. This is weakening it's involvement. getting it in involved in the previously (since Lawrence v Texas) unregulated.

Fixed.

It would be nice to get the government out of the marriage business completely, but I don't see any big push on that any time soon. In the mean time, government needs to stop interfering with the relationships of consenting adults.

And demanding that government get involved in homosexual relationships is so totally the way to make that happen. 

I hear a lot more public support for the total deregulation of marriage than I've ever heard for same-sex marriage. There was never a "big push" for same-sex marriages until people starting telling bizarre tales, twisting truth, and calling people bigots when they wouldn't fall for it. The same could have been done for deregulation, but that wouldn't serve the left's agenda. And let's be clear that this is the left's agenda. Homosexuals, like any of their other victim classes, are but useful tools.

[TommyGunn]

No, I see a slew of them not making it past primaries. And if you don't see it, then see my previous comment.

I'm not cheerful, particularly about this. The GOP and conservatives have blinders on.


Or , we see them get torpedoed and marginalized, and their supporters blamed when they lose.

I think we're talking past each other.
I see you don't think that the conservatives are going to win -- I actually agree with this.
(INSERT HOMER SIMPSON D'OH! HERE)
...Dang. It's been a long week ....

[TommyGunn]

You may have heard the phrase "exception that proves the rule." Besides, dude, I never told you there weren't exceptions.

A point of clarification.  The reference quote is old and meanings of words often change over time even in small ways.  The phrase "the exception that proves the rule," if rendered in today's parlance would read more like "a rule must pass a test to be proved true."  In other words the word "exception" really ought to be changed to "the test." 
This old saying bothered me for a long time until I found out what the true original meaning was.
Just my 2 cents. 

[Nick1911]

Conjecture:
What I hear some saying is that the Republican party is simply too dumb to actually put forth candidates which are as conservative as the voting public really wants.  That the weak centrist RINO's they field get weak votes, but a strong conservative would get a stronger vote.

This is wrong.

The Republican party studies their market carefully, just like any sensible business does.  And they have determined the opposite - that strong conservative candidates are less electable then weak willed centrists.  Their leadership aren't idiots - they field candidates who have the best chance of being elected.  Consider it a reflection of the state of the modern American voting public.

[Perd Hapley]

It's chipping away at the state's power to decide who can and can't get married, weakening their control. Simple.

The state (via judicial activism) is the one deciding that homosexual couples can "get married." The only way it has gained any popular support is through people getting tired of leftists whining about the issue, and calling everyone bigots.

And yes, it is most certainly judicial activism, when courts blatantly change the meanings of words and institutions. It is the most judicially activist of judicial activism.

After all, it used to be that a white person and a black person couldn't get married. This is part and parcel with that...

This parallel is false, and should be mocked wherever it shows its stupid face. Marriage has not, for millennia, been limited to same-race partners. It's a limitation that has popped up here and there, but it has never defined marriage in the way that a union of opposite-sex partners defines marriage.

As someone once pointed out, just because one person's check bounced when the $5,000 was improperly missing from his account, that doesn't mean that everybody can write rubber checks and have them honored. I.e., maybe black people were at one time not given their due. That doesn't mean that white homosexuals in 2014 get the same thing. Or, rather, they do get the same thing - the same right to marry folk of the opposite sex that everyone else gets. That's what the right to be married means - the right to be married to someone of the opposite sex. Just like the right to bear arms means the right to bear arms, not the right to balance a rifle on your noggin, by it's little bird cage flash hider, and have it never fall off. That would be impossible. Much like "gay marriage."

[Fitz]

I think we're talking past each other.
I see you don't think that the conservatives are going to win -- I actually agree with this.
(INSERT HOMER SIMPSON D'OH! HERE)
...Dang. It's been a long week ....

Yeah. But they DO exist, which is what I was getting at

[Fitz]

Conjecture:
What I hear some saying is that the Republican party is simply too dumb to actually put forth candidates which are as conservative as the voting public really wants.  That the weak centrist RINO's they field get weak votes, but a strong conservative would get a stronger vote.

This is wrong.

The Republican party studies their market carefully, just like any sensible business does.  And they have determined the opposite - that strong conservative candidates are less electable then weak willed centrists.  Their leadership aren't idiots - they field candidates who have the best chance of being elected.  Consider it a reflection of the state of the modern American voting public.

I'm not so sure. After all, wasn't Ron doing better in the preference pools against Obama than any other GOP choice?

[Perd Hapley]

A point of clarification.  The reference quote is old and meanings of words often change over time even in small ways.  The phrase "the exception that proves the rule," if rendered in today's parlance would read more like "a rule must pass a test to be proved true."  In other words the word "exception" really ought to be changed to "the test." 
This old saying bothered me for a long time until I found out what the true original meaning was.
Just my 2 cents. 

I was not using it in the most exact sense, no.

But it does prove my point that people like Regolith can only find such a tiny number of examples, when people have been getting married for thousands of years, worshiping millions of gods, in all manner of social, economic, religious and political situations. But marriage keeps coming up heterosexual.

How amazing!

[Balog]

Conjecture:
What I hear some saying is that the Republican party is simply too dumb to actually put forth candidates which are as conservative as the voting public really wants.  That the weak centrist RINO's they field get weak votes, but a strong conservative would get a stronger vote.

This is wrong.

The Republican party studies their market carefully, just like any sensible business does.  And they have determined the opposite - that strong conservative candidates are less electable then weak willed centrists.  Their leadership aren't idiots - they field candidates who have the best chance of being elected.  Consider it a reflection of the state of the modern American voting public.

And yet they keep failing miserably. Plenty of sensible businesses fail badly.

That said, I agree that demography and cultural decline away from personal responsibility (among other problems) doom America as a free nation.