Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

All for 3%

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: All for 3%

    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
    I'm not sure the existence of those "sins" stipulates either that they SHOULD have been codified or that codifying them makes them any less sin.

    Neither am I sure those codified sins leave the barn door open to get any others codified...

    Do you?
    *shrug* You have the freedom to do such but that does not mean you have to do it. Our system works in a way where you do not have to codify something into law to make it legal. If it's not codified to make it illegal then it is automatically legal. So, in the case of homosexual marriage you're not codifying it into law, you're simply not prohibiting it.

    ---------DOUBLE POST-----------

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    And if those sins were illegal, we would live like the muslims live, in a theocracy, with the religious leaders running the show. Judge, jury and excecutioner, all rolled into one.
    Or the era of the domination of the RCC, which wasn't a good time period for Christianity.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Re: All for 3%

      Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
      Like what, though? I can't really think of anything that I do which is being "flipped on its head" (or prevented or interfered with) by the legality of gay marriage. Not one thing. And I don't think I'm unique in this regard, which is why I think this is a poor argument against gay marriage. Perhaps a new tradition is being created, but the old ones doesn't seem to be altered or threatened.

      As to adultery, pedophilia...etc. Would you add drunkenness, lying, divorce, taking God's name in vain, and disrespecting your parents to that list? They are, by the same reasoning, equally sinful. And, admittedly, I'm loath to accept them as "normal"...but I'd also be loath to make them illegal.

      "It's a sin" is plain and simply not a good enough reason to make something illegal. Putting aside the obvious Constitutional violations inherent in such a policy, it would create a Puritanical (in the worst sense of the word) and authoritarian society rife with lawlessness, oppression, and chaos.
      I didn't use "it's a sin" as the reasoning, though; and I also gave you two instances of things we should be able to rely on being "turned on its head" by this pro-gay marriage agenda.

      What I said was, effectively, sin alters our culture, specifically how we view morality. Sure other sins (as Joel pointed out) have been codified but that doesn't mean we have to bend or break every time some special interest harpies start shouting at us. Further, I'm not suggesting we make homosexuality illegal. I, frankly, do not care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own being. But now we are being forced to accept their own personal sin as normal and I have to draw a line somewhere. I'm being told, in California, the law no longer reads anything about "husband" or "wife."

      Also in California, the Attorney General's JOB is to protect and defend the constitution of that state ... of which Proposition 8 became a part based on the outcome of a legal vote... but that apparently only applies to the laws the AG agrees with. And, again, those are just two examples. Examples of how the rest of the nation is forced to bow down to the will of just 3% of the population (or, actually, only a portion of that 3%) who are not content to leave their bedroom behavior in their bedrooms.

      Again, as I also stated, I am not favorably disposed towards ratifying other sinful behavior, either: I don't want my kids schools teaching them adultery is O.K., or "why did Johnny's daddy leave his mommy?" I don't want the schools to take a holiday for National Bestiality Day or anything else that might come up that only a small portion of the population indulges.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Re: All for 3%

        Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
        *shrug* You have the freedom to do such but that does not mean you have to do it. Our system works in a way where you do not have to codify something into law to make it legal. If it's not codified to make it illegal then it is automatically legal. So, in the case of homosexual marriage you're not codifying it into law, you're simply not prohibiting it.
        Except, in this instance, the law reads differently so in order to allow homosexual marriage, you HAVE to re-write the law (which has the same effect as codifying a behavior)... which is what I'm objecting to.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Re: All for 3%

          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
          Wasn't it the self proclaimed apostle Paul, who talked about it? I think Paul was a liar, and corrupted what Christ actually came here to do. Which was to tell man how to get into the kingdom, and that those that follow him would also be sons of god.
          Paul was accepted as an apostle by Peter et al so I'm not sure where you are going here. Additionally, you have 1 Timothy 1:9-10 so that particular line of thought is dead in the water as well. Maybe you want to throw out the entire New Testament and just do a mix and match of what you approve of based upon how you personally feel about the subject? I'll tell you that I, personally, don't have any issue with homosexuality. If I were an atheist I'd be all on board here. However, I'm a Christian and a Christian that is fairly educated on theology and that education tells me that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, I accept it as a sin. Now, due to my lack of personal angst against homosexuality I feel no need to boycott, hate, attack, or any other thing homosexuals anymore than I do those who get divorced or lie.

          So in short, if Christ, who was Complete, didn't teach us something, then ignore what other men taught. Afterall, if Christ was god, he would have been sure to give us everything that we needed. It was man who turned him into a magic blood sacrifice. And corrupted the message.
          Again, if you want to throw out the New Testament and pick and choose based on your own faulty understanding, you're free to do so. Just remember that your basis for your beliefs is weaker than those based upon the most authoritative source of Christian doctrine, which is known as the Bible. The only way you could trump that is if you claim to be a living prophet.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Re: All for 3%

            Originally posted by Good1 View Post
            Except, in this instance, the law reads differently so in order to allow homosexual marriage, you HAVE to re-write the law (which has the same effect as codifying a behavior)... which is what I'm objecting to.
            You rewrite the law to remove a prohibition. The law can would say absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Zero. As far as the Constitution, it says nothing about marriage so you're left with what the states decide. The states are the ones that have had to rewrite laws that specifically prohibit homosexual marriage by further defining who can participate in marriage.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Re: All for 3%

              Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
              If you're talking about prohibition of marriage then you're correct. If you're talking about a bakery not wanting to make a cake for a homosexual wedding and being allowed to make that decision, you're making a strawman.
              Given recent events, no I am not. It is exactly what social conservatism has to offer.

              This could have all been avoided if we did not get government into the marriage business.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Re: All for 3%

                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                No, we should give them special rights we give no one else.
                That's right. We should give them the right to marry, because no one else has that right. We should give them the right to adopt children, because no one else has that right. We should also give them the right to pay no tax, because no one else ... oh wait, that's right, churches and religious groups have tax exemptions; so it would seem that religious groups do get privileges that ordinary citizens don't.

                Do you just make this stuff up, or do you honestly believe that gays are seeking special rights, rather than the same rights that you enjoy?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Re: All for 3%

                  Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                  Paul was accepted as an apostle by Peter et al so I'm not sure where you are going here. Additionally, you have 1 Timothy 1:9-10 so that particular line of thought is dead in the water as well. Maybe you want to throw out the entire New Testament and just do a mix and match of what you approve of based upon how you personally feel about the subject? I'll tell you that I, personally, don't have any issue with homosexuality. If I were an atheist I'd be all on board here. However, I'm a Christian and a Christian that is fairly educated on theology and that education tells me that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, I accept it as a sin. Now, due to my lack of personal angst against homosexuality I feel no need to boycott, hate, attack, or any other thing homosexuals anymore than I do those who get divorced or lie.



                  Again, if you want to throw out the New Testament and pick and choose based on your own faulty understanding, you're free to do so. Just remember that your basis for your beliefs is weaker than those based upon the most authoritative source of Christian doctrine, which is known as the Bible. The only way you could trump that is if you claim to be a living prophet.
                  I would toss out the entire NT except the Teachings, and perhaps the limited biography of J.C. For I think there is an incoherence between the Teachings, the Gospel, and what MAN added. I think it was contrived, driven by an agenda, which sent Christianity on the wrong path. The wrongness of that path manifests itself as bad fruit, by the killing and torture in the name of god, the spread of Christianity as a state religion by the edge of the sword.

                  Christ told us about the good fruit and the bad fruit. A genuine Christianity, that was grounded in the Gospel, would have been a peaceful, loving religion with no acts of violence, no killing done on the behalf of God. Or the tree would have produced good fruit. Yet we have almost 2000 years of the rottenness fruit. SO, that tree should have been cut down and thrown into the fire long ago.

                  To be a Christian as we know it, requires that much of what Christ taught, to be ignored, or just as bad, to be interpreted through the self appointed apostle Paul. Afterall, he makes up more of the NT, more than anyone else, and orthodox Christianity is in actuality Pauline Christianity.

                  To be a follower of Christ one only needs the teachings that came forth from the mouth of god, through a human form called Christ. For that was sufficient, in fact more than sufficient. And if it isn't that is "shorting" God. Yet instead of a religion being based upon the teachings from the horses mouth, instead, it is filled with Paul, his views. Paul was a fake, a corrupter, and because of him Christianity doesn't match the Teachings.

                  God gave us a brain so that we could discern the incoherence, but the problem is, we are taught this crap, and then told never to question it. How convenient!

                  But here is the deal. If one experiences salvation, can walk into that inner kingdom, while having the orthodox traditional Christian beliefs, it is my opinion that this happens in spite of church doctrine and dogma. You have to move far beyond the beliefs inherit in organized religion. The beliefs actually are a great burden that inhibits the travel involved in that inner Kingdom. You have to travel very light, throwing your tradition, your religious beliefs taught to you by mortal man to the side so that the NEW can be seen. For the NEW is not in memory, not in tradition, nor in religious belief, for you already know those things. And until you leave them to the side, leaving all that is man behind, it is so hard to see completely, to see totally the NEW. For the New is the Kingdom, and is not a product of past experience or knowledge, regardless of the kind of knowledge it is. The logic involved is irrefutable, IMO.
                  Last edited by Blue Doggy; 07-15-2014, 08:45 PM.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Re: All for 3%

                    Why is there so much resistance in regards to homosexual rights? Would it really affect in some negative fashion, traditional marriage? I know some think it would open the door for other sorts of marriages, like polygamy, polyandry. But should these ancient, alternative forms of marriage be illegal? This sort of marriage was common in ancient Israel, and in other parts of the cradle of civilization. God didn't seem to mind Solomon's harem.

                    Marriage as we know it, provides something positive for a society, as it yields a little more order, and it protects each party, and the children if there are any. Does it matter in so far as order, what sort of marriage it is? Isn't it better for society if gay people can marry, for marriage is socially positive. And if they do, shouldn't they be given the protection and rights of other married people.?

                    For me, the acceptance of these people is greater today than at any other time, and it will only increase as my generation dies out. And IMO that is a society that is moving towards the GOOD, for it is bad to discriminate against any human, whether it is race, religion, ethnicity or even homosexuality. None of these people had a choice, as even most religious people are practicing the religion they were conditioned with.

                    I wish we would hurry and get some sanity and allow intelligence to work, and get to the point that it doesn't seem unacceptable. Then as I said before, perhaps these arrogant vulgar gay parades would stop, and those gays stop making themselves look like fools. Arrogant, bratty 5 year olds. Then like the heterosexuals, they will not parade around displaying their sexuality, with all of that "affected" theatrics.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Re: All for 3%

                      1613907_10152416145476060_1711955262201173924_n.jpg

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Re: All for 3%

                        Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                        Given recent events, no I am not. It is exactly what social conservatism has to offer.
                        In regards to the prohibition of homosexual marriage, yes. In regards to a bakery being free to make their own business decisions, no, that is a strawman to your statement of "using the government" and it has nothing to do with social conservatives. It has everything to do with liberty. With having strong private property rights and freedom of association. You don't have to make a law to enable a business to decline service to whomever they choose, you just have to remove all laws that limit that choice. That is how our government is designed.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Re: All for 3%

                          Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                          In regards to the prohibition of homosexual marriage, yes. In regards to a bakery being free to make their own business decisions, no, that is a strawman to your statement of "using the government" and it has nothing to do with social conservatives. It has everything to do with liberty. With having strong private property rights and freedom of association. You don't have to make a law to enable a business to decline service to whomever they choose, you just have to remove all laws that limit that choice. That is how our government is designed.
                          Color it up any way you need to. You end up needing a government just as much as you claim of your opposition.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Re: All for 3%

                            Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                            Color it up any way you need to. You end up needing a government just as much as you claim of your opposition.
                            What a BS response, probably due to a lack of validity in position. And, no, it is not needing the government as it's actually the absence of government intrusion. It's the exact opposite of needing the government.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Re: All for 3%

                              Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                              What a BS response, probably due to a lack of validity in position. And, no, it is not needing the government as it's actually the absence of government intrusion. It's the exact opposite of needing the government.
                              Look in the mirror, you conclusion here is as ridiculous as your tag line about Keynes. I have all the evidence I need in all the historical and current legislation related to social matters. Law about control, with little to do about harm to another.

                              As for this subject, it is expressly true. You need a government to ensure the "sanctity" of marriage. It could have all been avoided without those calls for the government to be in the mix. And here we are... legislated inequality.

                              Go re-read Post #22 by noahath above.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Re: All for 3%

                                Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                                What special rights?
                                The right to marry someone of the same sex. The right to special consideration for a job. The right to not be refused for service. If a bakery refused to sell me a wedding cake, I would have no recourse but now gays do.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X