Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

[goose]

Benefits to allowing Gay marriage. (1) They can't reproduce. Eventually, they will become extinct.

You do realize that it is hetrosexuals making all of them, right? That is how your definition works. Gays can't make gays so heterosexuals make gays. The finger is pointing back at us breeders. It is all of our own making.

[VMI77]

Have you come with a mission to educate - not that there's anything wrong with that...

I come with a mission to discuss. I don't profess to be educating anyone else and I certainly learn things myself.

Would you describe yourself as conservative, democrat, libertarian, liberal, socialist, Marxist? (And yes, I've rather mixed and matched)

What, you're asking and not telling? That's refreshing.
I'm not a registered Republican or registered Democrat. If I want to vote in the primary for a candidate, I may change that, but I don't consider the affiliation sticky. On this forum, I'd certainly be considered more liberal than the majority. To be clear, I'm socially liberal. I have things to protect fiscally, so I'm generally fiscally conservative, with some outlandish views on paying down the debt, even if that means more taxes for a time.
Libertarian, partly - I believe in political freedom for everyone, even people that I don't agree with.
Marxist, Socialist, Communist... I'm not going to dignify that. I'd like less government handouts for those that don't need it, a system that encourages people to get back to work, but in terms of being "Socialist" - I'll admit to seeing a need to support those that absolutely are physically or mentally unable to take care of themselves.

In terms of constitutional rights, I'm very conservative. I don't think they should be given up for any reason, not even for security. I don't think there is a valid excuse for trampling on them.

I'd like to see less government. But I'm also a realist and know that it's very hard to decrease the scope of government. In that sense, I'm pragmatic.. At least in my own mind.

I vote without care to party line... With perhaps a pragmatic streak, as in if I know a 3rd party candidate doesn't have a chance, I'll make the choice between the other two. I might vote on the 3rd party under some circumstances.

As for gay marriage, it's here whether Obama places his imprimatur on it or not.

The government should get out of the marriage business. That's my political solution.
As that didn't happen, I support gay marriage. I support it not because I believe marriage can be anything we define it to be, but I support it because this country had decades to make things equal for homosexuals and chose not to do so. I think there is much more evil in allowing continued hate and discrimination than there is in regard to damaging the value of my marriage at home.
If everything else was equal for homosexuals, I'd stand with the conservatives against it.

I'm professional. Educated. Caucasian with a wife and a child. Younger than most on this forum, but well out of my stupid years.. well, mostly...

I believe in practical and truthful discussion without distorting the facts or political bickering. I respect your opinion and your morals. I may or may not agree, but my respect won't change.


Thanks for asking.

Now, if you'd had been as clear in previous posts I wouldn't have posted the response I posted about ideology. Unless we know someone personally, we can only go by what is posted here, and you seem to use a lot of the language of the left --the most striking being your reference to "the greater good." I also have no party affiliation. Believe it or not, I also would probably be considered more liberal than the majority of those on this board. In fact, I've met many conservatives who think I'm rather liberal (at least in the classic meaning of the word) and liberals who think I'm very conservative. Everything I highlighted in red we apparently agree about. Some of it, I don't really disagree with in principle, but what you'd like to do in practice --such as raise taxes. I would force drastic and immediate spending cuts if I had any power to do so.

Edited to add:

There are some topics I simply won't engage on here though, and religion is one of them.

[cb1000rider]

Are you speaking of those incapacitated thus unable to work?

Legitimately unable to work, yes. Incapacitated, legitimately mentally unfit, etc. There's a medium ground where "some" support is needed, but not 100%. No more "disability" state like we have now where it's a lifelong support ticket with no checks or balances.

No homeless should ever exist, eh?

Homeless will exist. Some people choose to be homeless. Some can choose not to work. That's a personal choice and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. We shouldn't support those that are unwilling to help themselves.

Being human doesn't make anyone automatically deserving.

I completely agree.

[cb1000rider]

Benefits to state sponsored abortion. (1) Fewer welfare babies to support. Since welfare babies beget welfare babies... we can eventually eliminate them all. I would much rather pay up front for an abortion and avoid having to pay for years of support.

Ignoring the moral implications, what you're saying about fewer welfare babies factually is true. Personally, I can't get past the moral implication.
Instead of sponsoring abortions, how about we sponsor pre-pregnancy education and family planning? Reduces the number of abortions. Reduces welfare babies. Why are we moving in the opposite direction in this state?

Benefits to allowing Gay marriage. (1) They can't reproduce. Eventually, they will become extinct.

You're right. Gay couples need to stop having gay kids. Wait? There's something fundamental that I don't understand. :-)

Benefits to legalizing all drugs. (1) We can save billions in law enforcement costs. Again, eventually, they will all die. (2) How about taxing the holy smoly out of drugs and allowing anyone over the age of 18 to buy them from special dispensaries. We can use the additional tax money to pay for special places the strung out addicts can live until they die.

How about a meeting in the middle? Legalize some drugs. The kind that don't result in physical dependency. And yes, tax the "smoly" out of it. That way you don't end up with people dying from withdraw or committing more crime to feed the addiction. It'll cut down on the associated drug crime at the border. And again, tax tax tax it...

[goose]

The problem here is not so much disagreement as it is semantics. We could write pages on what we mean by compromise but I'm guessing you think from what I wrote that I'm against all compromise. My job requires me to compromise frequently when I represent my company, but there are some things I will not compromise on, nor will my company. I asked how a "moderate" views the 2nd Amendment because drawing the lines in that discussion is pretty simple and the lines are pretty bright. The Amendment is short and the meaning is clear. If, for example, your response is that a compromise would be banning high-capacity magazines but no background checks for private sales, that tells me something about what you consider a moderate to be. If you say that some things are principles and can't be compromised, or that a compromise would be lifting the ban on suppressors in return for background checks on private sales, that tells me something different.

I think that we agree on a lot. My biggest issue with the general "no compromise" crowd (not believing that you are) is that a lot of things are labeled as principles that aren't really. 2A stuff is a principle. Murder, rape, etc are principles. Deficits, budgets, etc, while insanely important aren't principles. For me a moderate doesn't have to view the 2A with moderation. But a moderate (like myself) can say, "I oppose all restrictions to my second ammendment rights. Even though the party I most closely associate with is against gay marriage, I think that stance is wrong." Not a moderation of principles but a moderation from anyone toting either of our two biggest party lines. I have friends that think guns are of the devil. I have friends and family that think gays are of the devil. That makes me "the moderate." The fence sitter. The wishy-washy won't stand for anything so I fall for everything. Those labels drive me nuts.

I don't disagree, but I hope my above remarks have clarified my position. However, at the same time, this country was founded on a unique coalescence of intelligent, informed, well educated, and like minded individuals who shared very similar philosophical and religious backgrounds. Even those Founders who weren't religious, like Jefferson, believed in a Creator, and the philosophical underpinnings that stem from such belief. So, not much, if anything, was compromised in the way of principle. Look at this bunch of ignorant self-serving sociopaths ruling over us today. There is no way a government could be created out of a document like our Constitution today. We've even got a Supreme Court justice who says South Africa has a better constitution than ours. Compromise also requires integrity, trust, and honesty by the parties to the compromise. Genuine compromise is impossible now because majority of those in the legislative and executive branches simply can't be trusted.

And here, I think that I agree with you completely. While not a conspiracy, I firmly believe that our elected officials are quickly taught or quickly learn that they can work for us or they can work for our votes. Those are not the same thing and they learn to work for our votes.

I hope my previous remarks clarify why I was so specific. I support the concept of live and let live, and the other planks on your platform, and also am an NRA Life member.

Absolutely, this turned into a good chat.

[chuck j]

Haven't you guy figured out that your talking to Obama alias cb1000rider ?

[cb1000rider]

Chuck,
Keep your personal insults to yourself please (Obama). If there is a point to your post other than to insult me, I sure don't see it.

[chuck j]

All your talking points sound just like Obama to me , just the truth , what kind of drugs are you wanting to legalize and actually you might want to check on how many babys the Obama project has killed . I was proud of Rick Perry when he refused to expand the program . Etc
Go figure .

[cb1000rider]

Chuck, I respect if you disagree with something I say. However, I'm willing to discuss anything further with you unless you're willing to stop with the name calling. That sound fair to you?
Name calling just tells me that you don't have a rational argument left. How about you have a little respect for your fellow man, even if we might disagree?

I'm going to refer you to one of the posts that you made when you first got here:

I have just joined the forum and am impressed with the 'lack' of mean spirited remarks and backbiting ! A very civil forum with many very informative posts .....

Let me know if your posts contribute to the same spirit that impressed you when you got here.

[chuck j]

What name did I call you ?

[The Annoyed Man]

How about a meeting in the middle? Legalize some drugs. The kind that don't result in physical dependency. And yes, tax the "smoly" out of it. That way you don't end up with people dying from withdraw or committing more crime to feed the addiction. It'll cut down on the associated drug crime at the border. And again, tax tax tax it...

I'm sorry, and not a poke at you, but that part made me laugh. Tax revenue was one of the arguments the hippies used in favor of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. Now that it's legal, the state is proposing to tax it at a rate of 35% of sale value; and the hippies...........the same ones who argued taxation as a good reason to legalize marijuana..........are all up in arms about usurious taxation. I think that is flippin' hilarious. When it's their ox getting gored, all of a sudden they're libertarians. Stupid retards.

Pretty much proves that not a single one of them is the deep thinker he or she likes to think they are. Pretty sad that they are the majority voters in that once great state. It will be interesting to see how fast it becomes another California.

[cb1000rider]

If the hippies are surprised by a huge tax rate on it, they'll get no pity from me. What did they expect?

It's my favorite kind of new revenue stream: It's a voluntary tax... You and I don't have to pay. I think it should be taxed at more than 35%!

[03Lightningrocks]

To be fair, we could tax it at the same rate as alcohol. Does alcohol have a 35% tax? I couldn't tell you the tax rate of alcohol. I bet it is high. Taxing marijuana at a higher tax rate than liquor does not make any sense what so ever. What they will accomplish with ignorance like that is not the elimination of the "evil" weed. They will instead create a criminal black market in it. Very similar to what happens with tobacco products in areas like New York.

I'm not a hippy and I would vote to legalize marijuana. Just as my distant relatives, voted to legalize alcohol. No difference.

[chuck j]

Why not just go on and sell meth ? Cut out the penny anti gateway drugs and go for 100% tax ? Already an established clientele waiting for product if your going for tax revenue ? Street grade heroine has always been a good seller from what I hear , more you sell the bigger the market gets . Designer drugs bring in the real bucks they .............no end to drugs is there .

[03Lightningrocks]

Why not just go on and sell meth ? Cut out the penny anti gateway drugs and go for 100% tax ? Already an established clientele waiting for product if your going for tax revenue ? Street grade heroine has always been a good seller from what I hear , more you sell the bigger the market gets . Designer drugs bring in the real bucks they .............no end to drugs is there .

Lol...Marijuana Does not cause a person to indulge in the ridiculous habits you speak of in your post. LOL.... That has got to be the most worn out lie since the days when they claimed marijuana would make black men assault white women.

Lets just pretend your post is not silly for a moment. If smoking marijuana leads to doing heroin or other drugs, what about alcohol? Alcohol is a drug. Wouldn't that lead to doing harder drugs?