The denial of equal rights is a perversion.
Gay marriage, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. are not equal rights. Neither is terminating the life of a child a woman’s right.
Yes, marriage really needs to be restricted to one man and one woman of the same blood type and Rh-factor. AB+ and O- getting hitched? Not in a sane society! It’s a sickness and a perversion when spouses are incompatible at a cellular level.
To make this work, we’ll need a good way to mark people so we know what kind we’re dealing with. I suggest tattoos.
I’m sorry, the complex nature and techno-babble of this post is somewhat above the limits of my vocabulary. Regardless, I was about talking people who were first cousins and closer when I said “incest.” I wasn’t implying that we need to investigate every couple’s family trees to make sure that they’re not tenth cousins eleven times removed.
Can you demonstrate how gay marriage, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and a portion of the et cetera are in any way equal at all? There is no connection apparent in these terms, and no equivalency.
I can, as a straight man, get married. It is my right, as it were. But the guy down the street that likes other guys, or gal to gal as the case may be, you feel these persons should not be allowed to marry within their respective genders. Essentially they lack that right. I, conversely, can elect to be with whomever I please in marriage, so long as we don’t share a gender, because I’m attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Now someone will surely come along and tell me what fallacy I just committed, but from where I’m sitting, marriage is a right, and those rights aren’t equal.
Then let me cut through the techno-babble and explain it to you: he was mocking you.
He’s against all of them.
To some people that’s all it takes. “I don’t like Nazism and I don’t like grapefruit. Therefore, I equate Nazism and grapefruit in my mind.”
Although I wasn’t born at the time, from my understanding, there was a time in American history when the set of morals were very simple. More than just film was black and white. Children who misbehaved were struck on the buttocks with a leather belt, switch, cane, paddle, or hand. There was no talk of “abuse” unless the parent was actually hitting the child anywhere other than the bottom. Children grew up just fine. Everyone knew the country they were from, and were proud to be Americans. They knew their country was built on capitalism and the free market, and they wouldn’t give the time of day to someone who was pro-communism or pro-socialism. That person would be dismissed as a crazy radical. These people were proud of their country’s defeat of Hideki Tojo in WW2, and were not made to feel guilty about bombing the bad guys. And, more than anything, they didn’t even entertain the thought of sexually perverted marriages being legalized or normalized in the media, with the exception of, perhaps, cousin marriage in some areas. Now, several people in the US are married to their first cousin. A man and woman in Brazil who are shacked up together with offspring just found out they are brother and sister. They are staying together anyway. A woman in India recently married a dog. The reason I equate all these things today is because they were all equally gasp-inducing in the past. One thing has led to another, until now, gay marriage is on the brink of being legalized and “socialist” is no longer considered an insult.
You do not have any understanding. What you’re describing is a childish version of an imaginary past. Real life is never that good or that simple, and when people romanticize history that way you should never ever take them at their word.
Pretty much none of this is true. The past always looks simpler because the issues of the past have been resolved. Society embraces one side of a question and collectively forgets the other side existed.
Fifty years ago, it was still illegal for a black person to marry a white person in many places in this country. This was a law that was widely supported and when it was ruled unconstitutional, many people were appalled that tradition was being ignored. But who do you see nowadays arguing against interracial marriage?
Fifty years from now, same-sex marriages will seem as mainstream as interracial marriages seem now. And nobody will remember how controversial the issue was.
I have to say, you didn’t actually demonstrate the equivalence I asked for, or at least suggested wasn’t there. Instead you demonstrated an apparently warped perspective based largely on a two-dimensional misrepresentation of The Way Things Were.
I suppose that by stating unequivocally that same sex marriage is based on sexual perversion, you are in fact equating gay marriage with the Brazilian siblings, the lady canophile in India, and socialism. But I don’t believe you’ve established an actual equivalency beyond personal bias.
I then have to say, I’m not ever gonna vote for your political party.
In his defense, he can’t. By not trying at all, he avoided failing. To take this back to the broader thread topic, ILikeForeignLanguages, you’re a paleoconservative. Your party doesn’t have a lot of major differences from today’s Republican Party. Item #6 is the closest thing to a significant difference, but even then you’d find Republicans who agree with it.
So thoughts on my platform?
Most people still believe spanking should be legally permitted even if they don’t practice it themselves. And the “simple” morality of your bygone America also approved of at various times the owning of slaves, the disposession of Indian lands, lynching of blacks, the exclusion of the Chinese, and shooting at strikers. I daresay, overall, our morals have greatly improved since 1850.
I’m sure that’s why there were no nationwide waves of strikes in 1877 and 1893 that ended up being crushed with brutal force. I’m sure that’s why the Socialist Party did not receive 6 percent of the vote in 1920 and even sent representatives to Congress.
Besides a few annoying self-righteous anarcho-capitalists and Marxists, I know of nobody who thinks that way either on the right or the left.
So random shock news stories?
If anything its the reverse. Socialism was far more respectable in 1914 than it is now.
Well handled, Qin Shi Huangdi.
Nothing results in worse cherry-picking than ignorant nostalgia for the past.
He’s mellowed. A WHOLE lot!
First thought is it would give an overwhelming amount of authority to the national gov’t. What purpose would the states even serve?
(Note that I correctly said “national” instead of “Federal” gov’t 
)
Without pot I might add.
Actually, while I certainly do support a certain amount of local autonomy, I’m not sure if the state governments at least based on their current boundaries are the best vehicles for local rule since many state boundaries don’t reflect reality (ie a resident of New York City’s Connecticut suburbs have much more in common with a Manhattanite than someone living in Utica or Rochester).
Well, I agree with about 50% of the things you listed, and radically disagree with the other 50%. I am especially attracted to your ideas of national pride and adopting a more singable national anthem. How about the short, but sweet “God Bless America?” Anyway, I digress. Some of the other stuff if too liberal for me.
This is a very very simplistic view of history. Societies have proven themselves capable of regression in many obvious ways. Slavery has come, gone, returned again, left again. Religious zealotry is impossible to predict 50 years from now. Consider that progressives have built an enormous government in the US. The mechanisms for serious tyranny have been installed in the name of progressive ideology, but tides of religious insanity have been known to sweep the land. There is very real danger of zealots gaining control of the government and using it’s tools for more oppressive means.