Refreshing - DU

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is an issue of credibility, when elected officials, who definitely characterize a party, are radical in one way, while some party member claims that the officials don't represent their views. One would have to ask the question why one stays with a party that does not actively represent them.
Click to expand...
You mean, like people who support repubs in spite of their repeated and blatant violations of the 4th Amendment?

Not everyone who supports the RKBA is a conservative. Not all conservatives support the RKBA (the father of the original "assault weapons ban" now codified into 18 USC 922(r) was non other than arch-conservative William J. Bennett, and Sarah Brady is by all accounts a conservative in the Reagan mold, except for her gun-banning views), and conservatives have in general been the loudest voices supporting infringments of the First and Fourth Amendments.

Those who criticize the current Democratic party leadership for falling hook, line, and sinker for the ban-more-guns agenda are 100% correct. But there is a grassroots swell within the Democratic party against that crap, that is slowly and gradually changing some minds. Will Feinstein become pro-gun? Not in this lifetime. But in the country's heartland, starting at the local and state level, things are IMHO changing for the better, and the gun-haters at the DLC and elsewhere have lost a lot of their influence. It's a work in progress, and who knows how deeply it runs, but I believe it is real.
 
Should core values change just because time goes by?
Click to expand...
When they're shown to be in error, yes, they should. Jim Crow used to be a core value. Not letting women vote used to be a core value.

Same goes for the environment, stem cells, the drug war, etc. in my book. The "core values" behind the positions of many pols, Dem and Repub, on these issues tend to be based on the way the world used to be, not the way it is. The "old way" of doing things sometimes needs to be changed because it's just not ethical anymore. It's not ethical to pretend that we don't need to protect our environment. It's not ethical to let just about every form of medical research EXCEPT stem cell research get public funds. If that's your "core value", then I'd argue you need to have a heart to heart with yourself about said values.
 
Thanks.

I was curious what your response would be. Those aren't core values in my book. Core values to me are things such as honesty, integrity, honor, courage, commitment, etc. The things you listed are more beliefs and/or policies than core values.
 
Ah, I stand corrected. You're right, the things I was talking about are more policy changes than core values. I misunderstood. :eek: :)
 
But in the country's heartland, starting at the local and state level, things are IMHO changing for the better, and the gun-haters at the DLC and elsewhere have lost a lot of their influence. It's a work in progress, and who knows how deeply it runs, but I believe it is real.
Click to expand...

Democrats "in the country's heartland" are the ones most steadfastly clinging to failed gun control policies. In Wisconsin, we'd have had CCW years ago if it weren't for the prevalent pro-gun-control attitude of the state Democrats. Likewise, in Illinois, the Democrats are the ones pushing for tighter controls, not looser.
 
Helmet, when talking about stem cells, please be specific and state that you are talking about fetal stem cells. That is the research that is not funded by the Federal Government. Adult stem cell research, by far the most productive, is funded. Fetal stem cell research continues to this day. It is not banned, it is just not funded by the Federal Government.
 
You mean embryonic, not fetal, right?

The point remains--cherry picking one particular type of promising research at the behest of a religious movement, and doing so for some rather misguided reasons (the whole "it's murder" thing is such nonsense my blood pressure goes up every time that Tony Snow goober says it) is simply bad policy. There's not enough pearls out there for swine like that.
 
Sorry, OT, but I couldn't let this go by.
... we shouldn't tell gay people they can't enjoy the financial benefits of monogamous relationships that we afford straight folk...
Click to expand...
We don't tell them that.

Homosexuals of the same sex have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals of the same sex.

Homosexuals of opposite sexes, likewise.

The financial benefits apply only to people of opposite sexes. No one ever asks if you're homo- or hetero- at the license bureau.
 
Helmetcase
Distinction without a difference. But point taken anyway...
Click to expand...
There IS a difference. Opposite-sex unions are privileged because of their perceived value to society; procreation & continuation of the human race. Same-sex unions have no comparable value, and are therefore not privileged. Official government/social recognition of a union is NOT a right; it is a privilege conditioned on meeting certain socially-desired criteria. Just as plumbers are "denied" the "right" to perform heart surgery, which is granted to licensed physicians.

Hang in there. :) When it is not necessary to malign a Democrat, it is necessary not to malign a Democrat. Only a fool makes enemies unnecessarily.
 
Well, not to restart this debate again, but I'd simply argue that A) your standard for why we recognize and reward marriage is wrongheaded and not the real reason--we reward marriages financially to make it easier to keep families together, gender isn't important in that regard, and B) would argue that in this day and age, monogamous relationships of any kind should be encouraged and are valuable in and of themselves.
 
Helmetcase wrote:
Well, not to restart this debate again, but I'd simply argue that A) your standard for why we recognize and reward marriage is wrongheaded and not the real reason--we reward marriages financially to make it easier to keep families together, gender isn't important in that regard, and B) would argue that in this day and age, monogamous relationships of any kind should be encouraged and are valuable in and of themselves.
Click to expand...

Helmetcase, let me help you become familiar with the reasons for marriage.

Let me start by saying it is one of the seven Sacraments instituted directly by Jesus, using almost the same words of the first book of the Bible, with a small addition: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Mr.10:6-9, Mt.19:4-6).


There is a triple purpose of Marriage in the Bible: Generation and bringing-up children, mutual help, and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.

The first purpose, was established in the first commandment that God gave to the male and female just after their creation in the first chapter of the Bible, "be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth" (Gn.1:28).

The second, in Gn.2:18, "let us make him a help like unto himself": So the purpose of marriage is the mutual completion and personal perfection of the marriage partners, or their mutual love and unity. St. Thomas Aquinas mentions this purpose as the "primary one", so a marriage without children can be also a perfect marriage.

The third, is taught by Paul in 1Cor.7:2, "For fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband".

Marriage is a "Sacrament", a sacred or holy thing, perceptible to the senses, which on the ground of Divine institution possesses the power both of effecting and signifying sanctity and righteousness… a visible sign of Divinity on earth!.
 
Well, some of us don't rely on religious texts only when considering these things. Especially when considering the fiscal and tax implications of marriage. Essentially I'm looking at the financial, IRS side of the issue, and I don't religion can or should speak to that, and vice versa. From a pragmatic standpoint, if you believe monogamy should be encouraged and rewarded, there's no reason to care about the gender of the participants. The church shouldn't be forced to marry those it doesn't want to marry, but the church shouldn't get to tell the state who it can or cannot offer the benefits of recognized monogamous relationship.

I guess, as a married man, I do find it funny that people want to tell me the "reason" for my marriage. I think I know. And no, honey, it's not to subsidize your shoe and makeup and jewelry fund. :)

It's to make sure my laundry is done. :D

Kidding...of course ;)
 
From a pragmatic standpoint, if you believe monogamy should be encouraged and rewarded, there's no reason to care about the gender of the participants.
Click to expand...

Unless of course the bible matters to you, then there is plenty of reason. But it's clear to me, the bible doesn't matter to those that say gender doesn't matter. If that's you, that's your choice, but please don't try to make a case for the biblical reasons and teachings and how things have been on this earth since the beginning of time as "wrongheaded". That's about as bassackwards as it gets.
 
Getting marriage without religion is like getting a sandwich without bread. Marriage is a religious institution- just because governments have meddled in it doesnt make it any less of one.

I personally dont understand why gay people dont just form limited partnerships or one of the countless other forms of union that straight couples are trying out these days. The power of contract can probably give you 90 percent of what you want. You can already settle inheritance issues with trusts and wills. The only real benefit to traditional marriage is that you get a slightly easier time with health insurance if the spouse isnt working. But this raises the question- why would gay people be staying at home and not working? It isnt like they have children to raise. I also dont see why one gay person couldnt claim his partner as a dependant. If he is really supporting him financially, isnt that good enough? The IRS only cares if you both try to take a deduction.

What many gay people seem to want is societal acceptance. Newsflash: society doesnt want to cooperate. The best we can guarantee is that you be left alone.
 
Unless of course the bible matters to you, then there is plenty of reason. But it's clear to me, the bible doesn't matter to those that say gender doesn't matter. If that's you, that's your choice, but please don't try to make a case for the biblical reasons and teachings and how things have been on this earth since the beginning of time as "wrongheaded". That's about as bassackwards as it gets.
Click to expand...

So Marshall, are you sure to wear clothing made from only one type of material?
 
A very substantial part of the reason I've not spent much time here recently is that it gets pretty tiresome listening to the same stupid **** from people who look gift horses in the mouth constantly. You should simply accept the fact that at least some substantial portion of people who don't share your right wing beliefs do accept and embrace gladly the RKBA. You should be glad that some of us are around, as it makes protecting the RKBA that much easier for all us.
Click to expand...

Great! So why don't you all use your "substantial" numbers to influence the leftists in the Senate to support the RKBA? :rolleyes:
 
I personally dont understand why gay people dont just form limited partnerships or one of the countless other forms of union that straight couples are trying out these days. The power of contract can probably give you 90 percent of what you want.
Click to expand...

First off I'll say that I think "limited partnerships" or civil whatevers are probably the right answer to meet my concerns of "equal treatment under the law".

That said, how would you like it if someone suggested you only had 90% of the right to a firearm?
 
Great! So why don't you all use your "substantial" numbers to influence the leftists in the Senate to support the RKBA?
Click to expand...

Maybe because being "socially liberal" and "communist/leftist" aren't necessarily the same thing?

Oh yeah, the right wants everything to be binary; black and white, right or wrong, Democrat or Republican.
 
Great! So why don't you all use your "substantial" numbers to influence the leftists in the Senate to support the RKBA?
Click to expand...
Why don't you work to make the RKBA community a broader, more inviting, and friendlier place for all RKBA activists instead of rolling your eyes at a guy who took a day off work to confront Sarah Brady? :banghead:
 
Why don't you work to make the RKBA community a broader, more inviting, and friendlier place for all RKBA activists instead of rolling your eyes at a guy who took a day off work to confront Sarah Brady?
Click to expand...

You mean you stopped doing the job that G-d selected for you and expect the rest of us to take up the load? You communist!

;)
 
Oh, how clever--you both must be proud of your English composition skills.

However, my question still stands unanswered: if your numbers are so "substantial," why does the makeup of Democrat politicians not reflect it in the least?
 
However, my question still stands unanswered: if your numbers are so "substantial," why does the makeup of Democrat politicians not reflect it in the least?
Click to expand...

Because "not republican" does not equal "Democrat". It's not really that difficult of a concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top