By-Tor.com

There is no more unanimity among Christians then there is in any other huge group. We are a diverse bunch.

I do agree that the GOP has changed quite a bit as a result of the Religious Right. Whether that's good or bad depends on your point of view.

Example: earlier, gay rights was listed as a "socialist position". True philosophical conservativism, I believe, would state it's none of the government's business what two adults do in their own home. They would see the anti-sodomy laws as another example of big brother using the power of the government to force it's will on individuals. I think they would argue that the state has no authority to regulate private behavior such as this (this position has been basically assumed by the Libertarians these days).

The Republicans used to say they wanted to get government "off your backs". What they now seem to want is to abandon the regulation of business, environment, and so forth, and shift the resources of the government into monitoring your home and your bedroom. That is a big reason why I don't vote Republican.

EndlesslyRocking wrote:True philosophical conservativism, I believe, would state it's none of the government's business what two adults do in their own home. They would see the anti-sodomy laws as another example of big brother using the power of the government to force it's will on individuals. I think they would argue that the state has no authority to regulate private behavior such as this

Cool... you just described my view on it.

Though, of course, there are certain lines that must be drawn on what privately goes on in one's home. An easy example would be child abuse.

Though I'm not sure where you get this thing about republicans wanting to "shift the resources of the government into monitoring your home and your bedroom"...

Well... I know where you get it... moveon.org is full of that stuff... but I haven't seen it happening or seen legislation being proposed to back up the claim.

By the way, ER, how do you like the idea of being my cell mate? "We'd be the original odd couple!"

ElfDude wrote:By the way, ER, how do you like the idea of being my cell mate? "We'd be the original odd couple!"

You frighten me in ways I cannot describe...

ElfDude wrote:
Though I'm not sure where you get this thing about republicans wanting to "shift the resources of the government into monitoring your home and your bedroom"...

Well... I know where you get it... moveon.org is full of that stuff... but I haven't seen it happening or seen legislation being proposed to back up the claim.

The Defense of Marriage movement is a perfect example.

Anti-Sodomy laws are another.

Well, this is going strong, eh?

D.A.: The Socialist Party has more than three policies, which is part of why I gave the link and suggested he go there. I only mentioned the ones he brought up directly. If he had mentioned more, I would have too.

I would like him to point out how I am violating the constitution. He does not know me, nor does he know the majority of people he speaks of. How can he just relegate us all to prison without any knowledge of our lives?

Dweeb: history proves it again and again!

I agree with Francisco that I should not be forced by the government to pay for your healthcare. I think it should be done by private individuals and private organizations, not by the government taking my monies.

I think ER and Elfie as cell mates would start a riot. Too bad I would be in the women's ward and miss out on all the fun watching it start. LOL

EndlesslyRocking wrote:

ElfDude wrote:
Though I'm not sure where you get this thing about republicans wanting to "shift the resources of the government into monitoring your home and your bedroom"...

Well... I know where you get it... moveon.org is full of that stuff... but I haven't seen it happening or seen legislation being proposed to back up the claim.

The Defense of Marriage movement is a perfect example.

Anti-Sodomy laws are another.

Hmmm... that was an answer I didn't expect. I must confess, this isn't an issue to which I've been paying a whole lot of attention so I may be completely out of touch. If that's the case, please correct me.

The only anti-sodomy laws of which I am aware are anywhere from 70 to 200 years old and are basically ignored. I've heard that in my town if you're a black man there's still a law on the books that makes it illegal for you to be on the streets after dark. Nobody has bothered to go through the hassle of removing the law, but no one enforces it either. Are there new anti-sodomy laws or are we talking about archaic ones? I personally wouldn't have a problem with those old things being removed.

Again, I haven't really studied it, but where in the defense in marriage movement do we see government resources being diverted to monitoring the bedroom? All I've heard from conservative politicians on the issue is stuff along the lines of "We have no problem with some sort of a legal civil union being created, but we believe that gay marriage is an affront to the family."

I haven't heard any of them saying that two gay boys shouldn't be allowed to go into the bedroon and do that thing they do.

The reason you haven't heard that, is because that is not what the legislation is about. The legislation is to keep the term and institution of marriage as meaning between a man and a woman.

ElfDude wrote: The only anti-sodomy laws of which I am aware are anywhere from 70 to 200 years old and are basically ignored. I've heard that in my town if you're a black man there's still a law on the books that makes it illegal for you to be on the streets after dark. Nobody has bothered to go through the hassle of removing the law, but no one enforces it either. Are there new anti-sodomy laws or are we talking about archaic ones? I personally wouldn't have a problem with those old things being removed.

The laws aren't new, but there is opposition to repealing them currently, mostly from the Conservative Right. I'll bet if you polled 100 conservative Christians, 90 would favor keeping those laws. It supports their explicitly stated world view. They were only ruled as unconstitutional in 2003, hardly ancient history. At the time, 14 states had anti-sodomy laws on the books.

Again, I think the non-Christian, philosophical conservative would see these laws as intrusive violations of civil rights. That's just my opinion, based on what I've read and heard over the years.

Again, I haven't really studied it, but where in the defense in marriage movement do we see government resources being diverted to monitoring the bedroom? All I've heard from conservative politicians on the issue is stuff along the lines of "We have no problem with some sort of a legal civil union being created, but we believe that gay marriage is an affront to the family."

The sentence "gay marriage is an affront to the family" is a problem (to me anyway). That's not for the government to decide (IMHO) and more importantly, two gay people getting married has nothing to do with my marriage, and does not "affront" me in any way.

And last I checked, gay people have families too.

If one accepts the separation of church and state, then the role of the government in any marriage is to monitor and enforce a contract. Saying that two consenting adults cannot enter a contract because of their sexual orientation is by definition, unlawful discrimination.

Given what a dismal failure heterosexual marriage has been, I'm not even sure what we're defending, or why gays would want to emulate it.

To be honest, I've long wondered why government thinks they should have ANYTHING to do with marriage. Why do I have to go to a court house and buy a license to get married, for crying out loud? Because they want my money, plain and simple.

If the laws were deemd unconstitutional last year, then what are we upset about? If the archaic laws (in 14 out of the 50 states) are now deemed unenforcable by the supreme court, what difference does it make if they remain on the books or not? I'm assuming the opposition you mention must be a kook fringe thing, since I've never heard anything about it.

Anyway, what you did in that post was make a case for the legalization of gay marriage (though your final paragraph kind of took the teeth out of it). But you pretty much confirmed my point which was that I don't see any major movements out there who are trying to deny two gay boys their right to get a room and do that thing that they do. Apparently you don't see one either, or you would have pointed it out.

I'm glad we now agree that conservatives are not trying to divert government resources to monitoring the bedroom.

Thanks for backing me up.

ElfDude wrote:
I'm glad we now agree that conservatives are not trying to divert government resources to monitoring the bedroom.

Thanks for backing me up.

I'm definitely done talking to you.

I want to join the controversy so i'll add m say on gay marriage (sorry augie) i'm still angry with our governemnt,for being far to liberal in their choosing, not only passing laws for gay marriage but also working on legalizing marijuana and the like or trying to. I beleive gay marriage to be extremely wrong for god's law mentions it in both sets of his books, the old and the new, when you think of homosexuals, think of sodom and gamorah. .. I am greatly opposed to it, i guess i could be one of those. evil Christians too, the world should do sometrhing about us

DELETED

DELETED

DELETED