Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_Droopy]

WTF are you talking about? The state is CALIFORNIA! The Judiciary of the STATE of California ruled on marriages in the STATE!

You exhaust me. Seriously.

OK, let me make it so clear that even you can figure it out:

Then you do not understand the California state constitution as you claim to do. Again you turn over the fate of the nation to 3, 7, or 9 black robed human beings. The point is, Moniker, that what is constitutional or unconstitutional is already in the California state constitution. Therefore, that to which the California state constitution does not speak has no standing in court as to adjudication. The California state constitution says nothing about marriage, homosexual or otherwise, let along imply any kind of "right" associated with it. Nor does it say anything about convenience abortion on demand, praying around flag poles before school, or many other such things.

Your knowledge of the constitution and its philosophical antecedents seems about at the level of your knowledge of his history, development, and nature of various ideologies that affected the world substantially in the 20th century.

Your continued infantile (and classically leftist) attempt to mischaracterize me and that which I believe (something else you clearly do not, or will not understand), is simply an attempt to buy time and posture here, and you and I both know it.

[_Droopy]

Moniker actually committed the fallacy of amphiboly above, something I never actually thought I'd see outside of a logic textbook or an old Abbott and Costello movie.

Either that, or she's playing fast and loose with my language usage in order to buy further time.

I wonder which it might be?

[_Droopy]

And therein lies your ideological bias, which you ignore because you assume it is the obviously correct and natural position.

No such assumption is needed, generally speaking. The constitution, and its philosophical antecedent, the Declaration of Independence, were all products of the the Classical Liberal tradition of the English speaking world (primarily England), while Leftism is derived from a Franco/Germanic continental intellectual tradition. The two are polar opposites and the twain shall never meet.

[_Brackite]

Brackite, what persons are suggesting that straight men who have no same-sex attraction experiment with homosexuality? They're nuts, if you ask me. They would even be nuts according to my gay sister and her partner. I support gay marriage, and think that gay or straight people who make radical and, in my opinion, incorrect suggestions like those aforementioned in your post, do a great disservice to their own cause.

I would no more suggest that a straight man attempt to be gay than that a gay man attempt to be straight!

Kimberly Ann

Hi KimberlyAnn,

It was unfortunately pretty very much suggested by a couple of Persons at a Boulder High School Sex education Meeting, over a year ago: Here we go with the following information about this:

[A Boulder High School sophomore's] mother read excerpts at a school board meeting of panelists talking about the difficulty of maintaining an erection while using condoms, the naturalness of experimenting with same-sex relationships and the benefits of legalizing drugs.

(Link: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200706010005 )


Her mother read excerpts at a school board meeting of panelists talking about the difficulty of maintaining an erection while using condoms, the naturalness of experimenting with same-sex relationships and the benefits of legalizing drugs. A female student also asked the panelists: "Would you have sex with someone you liked? But say he doesn't love you?" The unanimous consensus of the four panel members was "yes."

(Link: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/ma ... cwa-panel/ )

Heterosexuals should Not experiment with homosexuality.
As for the issue of gay marriage goes, I believe that each individual state has the right to determine if they want to recognize and perform gay marriages in their individual state. I am strongly against a Constitutional Amendment that was and has been supported by Mr. George W. Bush, banning gay marriage in all 50 states. Presidential Candidate Republican Senator John McCain is also against a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in all 50 states. Senator John McCain believes that it should be up to the States to decide, and I very much agree with Senator John McCain on this important Position. I like Senator John McCain a whole lot better than Mr. George W. Bush, and I am definitely Planning to vote for John McCain.

[_Moniker]

WTF are you talking about? The state is CALIFORNIA! The Judiciary of the STATE of California ruled on marriages in the STATE!

You exhaust me. Seriously.

OK, let me make it so clear that even you can figure it out:

Gee, Coggins. Thanks! I need you to clear up a few other things for me, too. Can you explain whether you're concerned with "original intent" of the framers and how they embraced elitism and yet, you apparently are frothing that some "elite" Judiciary goes against the will of the people.

Then can you clear up for me your knowledge of how Jefferson and Hamilton (founders) differed in the way they wanted our nation to progress?

Then can you clear up for me (I need to figure this one out - for real!) how when I state that you essentially ignore that the Judiciary is checked against the citizens wishes in the form of amendments as well as appointing new Justices why you reply with this??

Only before the fact. After the fact, the change in law is, for all intents and purposes, permanent and beyond democratic control.

I'm still not certain if I can vote. Oh, please do get back to me on that, quickly, if you would. I'm so confused and I need you to help me figure these things out.

Then you do not understand the California state constitution as you claim to do. Again you turn over the fate of the nation to 3, 7, or 9 black robed human beings. The point is, Moniker, that what is constitutional or unconstitutional is already in the California state constitution. Therefore, that to which the California state constitution does not speak has no standing in court as to adjudication. The California state constitution says nothing about marriage, homosexual or otherwise, let along imply any kind of "right" associated with it. Nor does it say anything about convenience abortion on demand, praying around flag poles before school, or many other such things.

You FORGET that the Judiciary branch is part of the checks and balances within state and the federal level, Coggins! If the United States citizens wanted to ban homosexual marriages they could actually amend the Constitution of the United States of America and it would be done! Wala! Ever read about Prohibition oh wonder of all things historical and ability to connect the dots and think outside google 30 seconds ago piecing together your off the wall "arguments"?

Your knowledge of the constitution and its philosophical antecedents seems about at the level of your knowledge of his history, development, and nature of various ideologies that affected the world substantially in the 20th century.

And you're a doo doo head.

Your continued infantile (and classically leftist) attempt to mischaracterize me and that which I believe (something else you clearly do not, or will not understand), is simply an attempt to buy time and posture here, and you and I both know it.

You're the one that continually labels me, Coggins. For months I was probably the only person on the website that was kind and TRIED to be cordial to you in conversations. You label people all the time. You don't know how I vote! You only see "thems" waiting about every corner and you're foaming at the mouth at imaginary boogey men in the form of LIBS!

[_Moniker]

Moniker actually committed the fallacy of amphiboly above, something I never actually thought I'd see outside of a logic textbook or an old Abbott and Costello movie.

Either that, or she's playing fast and loose with my language usage in order to buy further time.

I wonder which it might be?

What in the world are you talking about? I don't need to buy further time to recognize that you say crap and have no idea what you're talking about.

If you can't make yourself clear that's YOUR problem, not mine.

[_Droopy]

You're the one who has actually, despite all the substantive scholarship to the contrary, still swallows the idea that Fascism, National Socialism, and Marxian Socialism are opposite ideologies arising from completely different mentalities and core assumptions.

Let's talk about who doesn't know what they're talking about.

[_Moniker]

You're the one who has actually, despite all the substantive scholarship to the contrary, still swallows the idea that Fascism, National Socialism, and Marxian Socialism are opposite ideologies arising from completely different mentalities and core assumptions.

Let's talk about who doesn't know what they're talking about.

HAHAHA! Oh, wow. You're desperate. Fascism is on the right of the political ideological spectrum and socialism is on the left. I want you to go ask your professor of some political science theory class to please explain it to you. I tried over numerous pages to do so (and I was fairly restrained while I did it!) and then get back with me on that, Coggins.

Can you respond to my earlier points or is this your way of wiggling out of it?

[Guest]

Can you respond to my earlier points or is this your way of wiggling out of it?

No, its too easy, its not challenging, and most of your points aren't even relevant to the issue at hand.

And, while I'm asking my political philosophy professor, could you ask Richard Pipes, Paul Johnson, Robert Conquest, Ludwig Von Mises, F.A.Heyek, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, George Reisman, William F. Buckley, or many other first rate conservative and libertarian scholars and thinkers? Fascism and, particularly, National Socialism, were forms of Leftism emphasizing or deemphasizing various aspects of the collectivist mind set. Modern "liberalism' is really just recycled fascism. And if you don't believe that, just ask H.G. Wells.



"Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers."

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1931)

I don't think Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Castro, Ortega, Mugabe, or any other modern leftist tyrant could disagree on that point. The details may change, but the form remains the same.

[_Trevor]

No such assumption is needed, generally speaking. The constitution, and its philosophical antecedent, the Declaration of Independence, were all products of the the Classical Liberal tradition of the English speaking world (primarily England), while Leftism is derived from a Franco/Germanic continental intellectual tradition. The two are polar opposites and the twain shall never meet.

And neoconservatism is also a child of this leftist tradition that you decry, and somehow conservatives have managed to give them support. In other words, we live in a real world, Coggy, not a museum. And, you shouldn't pretend that you are a gentry farmer of the 18th century American colonies. You simply aren't.