Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:55 pm**

Addendum: I'm not suggesting that kids are screwed up today because of ghey marriage. I'm suggesting that instead of throwing every tradition and historic morality to the wind in the name of freedom and political correctness and 'things change,' we stop and consider the consequences, and even worse completely ignore the consequences, and at the very worst blame something else entirely for the consequences.

Yeah, God forbid we get more freedom, whatever would we do with it?

I'd write more, but I'm tired today.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:28 pm**

Well, that's social liberalism for you. Full speed ahead, and never mind the rocks ahead. We're sure making good time!

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:14 pm**

Well, that's social liberalism for you. Full speed ahead, and never mind the rocks ahead. We're sure making good time!

Yeah, let's have slaves again.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:23 pm**

Because there's obviously no position in between.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:51 pm**

Maybe there would be no adverse cultural ramifications what-so-ever with having gay marriages.
Curtailing someone's freedom should be akin to what jury's do. You should have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that curtailing that freedom is a necessity for the good of society. If there is a "maybe" in the arguement, then IMO you have to err on the side of more freedom, not less.
I would go back to the incest example. Using your argument it should be allowed.

I disagree. The odds of genetic screwups goes way up with incest. I consdier that to be an issue, and a good enough reason to curtail such unions.

However, if you don't consider deformed children to be a problem...

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:00 pm**

Lastly, gays all say it's genetic. It's not a choice, it's who/what they are.
Not exactly. Some gays say it's genetic, and they've even found a "gay gene." But then some gays disagree witht he whole idea that gayness is something that is a genetic defect and might someday be cured.

I'm sure there are a few people out there who were raped by priests as a kid and came to their gayness through psychological trauma. However I have no doubt that for the majority of "normal" homosexuals, it's a genetic thing. Or maybe it's a hormonal thing. But it's some sort of thing where they don't have a choice who they find attractive.

For comparison, think back to when you first noticed girls... well, that presumes you prefer girls, but I figure that's a fairly safe assumption, your odd "relationship" with Paul notwithstanding... but I digress...

As I was saying, think back to your first chubby. Do you remember making a choice about who you found attractive? Weighed the pros and cons and decided girls would be the thing to pump your stump? Rejected homosexuality after careful consideration?

The idea of it being a choice sounds pretty stupid to me when you put it that way. I don't know about you, but I don't have much control over who it is that gets me excited. I can't but imagine that for some dude who feels this way about guys it must feel just as natural for him, and trying to legislate it away is about ignorant.

If you hate fags, don't descriminate against them - because descrimination is wrong - just go kill you one. It'll make you feel better.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:36 pm**

No! No! We must drop all that we consider to be morailty because there used to be slaves!

Edited By GORDON on 1150249111

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:44 pm**

But let's try to stay on topic: where the slaves gay? Should slaves then not have been allowed to marry?

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:13 pm**

And what about Hitler?

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:15 am**

Lastly, gays all say it's genetic. It's not a choice, it's who/what they are.
Not exactly. Some gays say it's genetic, and they've even found a "gay gene." But then some gays disagree witht he whole idea that gayness is something that is a genetic defect and might someday be cured.

See: X-Men 3.

But seriously, what I said is true.

But all in all, an evolutionary dead-end seems like a defect to me. Gay peeps couldn't have genetic offspring... and pass on this genetic mutation... without either biting the bullet and banging the opposite sex, or using modern science.

I personally don't think it's always genetic. I'm sure many gays are gay for personal reasons (attention, just don't know any better, desenatized and therfore try it, etc), and therfore by choice. Hell, if it was genetic only, what the hell is going on in Ann Heche's body?

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:46 am**

Don't drop your morality, Gordon, just keep in your own damned house. The government should have as little do with with public morality as possible.

Never realized what a fan of government you were. Maybe it's the kid... "It's for the children"

Edited By TheCatt on 1150289236

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:10 am**

But I've never said there should be more laws. I'm slamming the social liberal mindset in general. Where are you getting this?

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:35 am**

It wasn't solely the decadent behaviour that killed Rome, either. There's a dumptruck load of reasons why.
Absolutely, but many historians saw the break down of discipline in their army as being attributed at least partly to that.

Partly. They also overextending their borders & spent themselves out of existence. The gov't overspent on the PEOPLE. Bread & circuses & all that shit.

& again, there's an assload of reasons why Rome died. Acceptance of lavish lifestyles is hardly enough by itself to kill an empire.

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:39 am**

Well, that's social liberalism for you. Full speed ahead, and never mind the rocks ahead. We're sure making good time!

More freedom -> more chances to fuck up -> gov't more than likely bails your ass out.

Take away that last thing & you'll see some people start to wake the fuck up. & when did liberalism become telling the gov't to back the fuck off?

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:42 am**

But I've never said there should be more laws. I'm slamming the social liberal mindset in general. Where are you getting this?

The current issue is a law about marriage.

You're saying, or I'm understanding, "we shouldn't just give people freedom, we need to stop, think, consider."

Currently, the courts are giving that freedom. You appear opposed to that trend, the alternative of which is passing a law to restrict gay marriage.

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:43 am**

Well, that's social liberalism for you. Full speed ahead, and never mind the rocks ahead. We're sure making good time!
More freedom -> more chances to fuck up -> gov't more than likely bails your ass out.

Take away that last thing & you'll see some people start to wake the fuck up. & when did liberalism become telling the gov't to back the fuck off?

Well, he said "social" liberalism, not liberalism.

Social liberalism appear to mean people do what they want. Social conservatism is "there is a right way for people to behave, and we should enforce that."

Liberalism still means big government.

Of course, so does conservatism these days. Ugh.

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:44 am**

Well, that's social liberalism for you. Full speed ahead, and never mind the rocks ahead. We're sure making good time!
More freedom -> more chances to fuck up -> gov't more than likely bails your ass out.

Take away that last thing & you'll see some people start to wake the fuck up. & when did liberalism become telling the gov't to back the fuck off?

I agree with Malcolm. Remove the 3rd part, and things get a lot better.

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:27 am**

But I've never said there should be more laws. I'm slamming the social liberal mindset in general. Where are you getting this?
The current issue is a law about marriage.

You're saying, or I'm understanding, "we shouldn't just give people freedom, we need to stop, think, consider."

Currently, the courts are giving that freedom. You appear opposed to that trend, the alternative of which is passing a law to restrict gay marriage.

That isn't really what I'm saying.

I was serious when I said that I don't think the gov't should recognize ANY marriage for special taxbreaks/etc, hetero or otherwise.

But mainly I was just being flippant through this thread until you started calling people "retarded."

I am absolutely for less gov't, but I'm also absolutely against the hippy mindset that anything goes, no need to raise the kids in a manner that suits a million years of biology and evolution, and yahoo. We've already established that shame and peer pressure are powerful motivators. Let's kill this "complete tolerance" bullshit and start admitting when fucked up shit is fucked up.

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:15 pm**

OK, so we agree on the marriage thing, I thought you were just being flippant.

I only called one person retarded.

So what are the alternatives to "complete tolerance"? Laws? Social castigation? I have no problem with people judging others through free speech, etc. But passing laws to outlaw their behavior simply because someone finds it offensive, wrong, etc should not be done.

Posted: **Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:53 pm**

So what are the alternatives to "complete tolerance"? Laws? Social castigation? I have no problem with people judging others through free speech, etc. But passing laws to outlaw their behavior simply because someone finds it offensive, wrong, etc should not be done.

I think we're on the same page. The government shouldn't be in the morailty business, but "the people" better start taking care of themselves at the same time.

Problem is, we have "hate speech" laws that say you aren't allowed to vocally disapprove of things you may not agree with, such as the gay lifestyle, 7th century cultures imposing on the present day, etc. And where there aren't laws against the wrong kinds of thoughts we still have "society" (sorry Thib... I don't know how else to put it) that hands out the shame for being so-called intolerant. To me this is ass backwards. Any more the only thing "the village" teaches a child is how to be a shitty person... just like everyone else.

When I think of my kid going to school, the foremost thought in my mind is, "He is now in the hands of the enemy."

Well let me tell ya... I'm god damned intolerant against some things. There are those who would have me silenced by the government. Those people, it seems to me, also have a bigger chunk of the population's attention than I and those like me have (talking about hollywood and TV, here).

Welcome to Thunderdome

My priorities.