Liberals vs Conservatives

[yeahmon]

Sin and laws shouldn't be the same. You surely must realize that the fear against gay marriage is mainly a religious concept, do you believe that is a separation of church and state? And do you believe that gay people are Americans like us, and have the right to pursue happiness in the same form as the rest of us?

Well then polygamist should have the same right to pursue happiness as all the rest of us.

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

Homosexual marriage is just as strange/creapy as the other weird marriages listed above. One of the primary factors of marriage is reproduction and unless something has changed a man and another man cannot reproduce.

Youre gay

 

[californiagrown]

Homosexual marriage is just as strange/creapy as the other weird marriages listed above. One of the primary factors of marriage is reproduction and unless something has changed a man and another man cannot reproduce.

its totally fine to be against gay marriage; it;s bigoted and hateful, but you are free to be so in the good ol USofA. It is not totally fine to disallow a civil union between a gay couple. that is discriminating against a a huge percentage of the population based purely upon sexual orientation. do you even know the benefits a civil union impart to a couple?

Yeah, i am going to attack you personally. largely because this is the internet and it wont cause a scene where cops get called. But when you talk shit and say hateful things about people i love and care about it sure rubs me the wrong way. If this was real life, Id treat you like any other bigot, or racist i come into contact with- id just walk away and not give you the time of day. Me in a shouting match or in jail does not help me or the people i care about.

 

[yeahmon]

its totally fine to be against gay marriage; it;s bigoted and hateful, but you are free to be so in the good ol USofA. It is not totally fine to disallow a civil union between a gay couple. that is discriminating against a a huge percentage of the population based purely upon sexual orientation. do you even know the benefits a civil union impart to a couple?

Yeah, i am going to attack you personally. largely because this is the internet and it wont cause a scene where cops get called. But when you talk shit and say hateful things about people i love and care about it sure rubs me the wrong way. If this was real life, Id treat you like any other bigot, or racist i come into contact with- id just walk away and not give you the time of day. Me in a shouting match or in jail does not help me or the people i care about.

Just because my opinion doesn't match yours I'm a bigot? Makes sense

 

[ndye]

Well then polygamist should have the same right to pursue happiness as all the rest of us.

One of the primary reasons for the push for marriage equality is providing same sex couples the benefits of one man and one woman marriage which can be allowed between two people. Polygamy would not fit in that definition. Religion has blinded you my friend, I went to catholic school for 11 years, I encourage you to seek reasoning and understanding outside the bible

 

[yeahmon]

One of the primary reasons for the push for marriage equality is providing same sex couples the benefits of one man and one woman marriage which can be allowed between two people. Polygamy would not fit in that definition. Religion has blinded you my friend, I went to catholic school for 11 years, I encourage you to seek reasoning and understanding outside the bible

i have no problem with a gay couple getting the same insurance benefits etc. as a married couple. And personally I dont think homosexual marriage is right. But it really doesn't matter what I think but marriage is a a state right. That is why the recent SCOTUS ruling is a bit disheartening.

 

[ndye]

i have no problem with a gay couple getting the same insurance benefits etc. as a married couple. And personally I dont think homosexual marriage is right. But it really doesn't matter what I think but marriage is a a state right. That is why the recent SCOTUS ruling is a bit disheartening.

Marriage is an American right* and correct me if im wrong, but the first sentence says you have no problem with gay marriage, and the second says no?

Do you have a problem with interracial marriage? That was decided by a SCOTUS ruling, because it was a human right, even though on a state to state basis, many states would not have allowed that by vote. The reason why it was a SCOTUS decision, is because it has to do with human rights. The "right" for gay people to marry.

It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, I mean

"Im guna come to your house and gay marry you, and then your sister, and then your parents"

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

I doubt many people will read this and it will get lost in the shuffle but here is an economic analysis of some of the fallacies surrounding the economic successes of Scandinavian countries.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf

 

[louie.mirags]

i have no problem with a gay couple getting the same insurance benefits etc. as a married couple. And personally I dont think homosexual marriage is right. But it really doesn't matter what I think but marriage is a a state right. That is why the recent SCOTUS ruling is a bit disheartening.

to be honest man it just sounds like you're regurgitating some bullshit you just read on facebook..

 

[S.J.W]

i have no problem with a gay couple getting the same insurance benefits etc. as a married couple. And personally I dont think homosexual marriage is right. But it really doesn't matter what I think but marriage is a a state right. That is why the recent SCOTUS ruling is a bit disheartening.

You know what also is a right? Not being discriminated against. You know that 14th amendment in your constitution. Until 1967 inter-racial marriage was illegal. And the same bullshit arguments arose back then, are happening now. And guess what, inter-racial marriage has been legal for nearly 40 years and still no one is marrying their dog, or their sister, or their 5 girlfriends.

 

[ndye]

I doubt many people will read this and it will get lost in the shuffle but here is an economic analysis of some of the fallacies surrounding the economic successes of Scandinavian countries.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sanandajinima-interactive.pdf

Tom Palmer is an aggressive and very open libertarian, and it would only make sense that he writes a paper against the democratic-socialist success of Scandinavian countries.

 

[louie.mirags]

Homosexual marriage is just as strange/creapy as the other weird marriages listed above. One of the primary factors of marriage is reproduction and unless something has changed a man and another man cannot reproduce.

When I was your age I had similar thoughts and I can explain why. Young men and boys have a hard time with accepting gays because you're trying to figure life out. You're confused about fitting in, finding out who you are, figuring out what you want to do in life and also trying to figure out sex and everything that goes with it. Once you mature, go to college and become confident in your own sexuality, then you can finally accept homosexuals.

And the people who mature and never wind up accepting gays are the ones who constantly have to fight the gay thoughts out of their minds....

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

Tom Palmer is an aggressive and very open libertarian, and it would only make sense that he writes a paper against the democratic-socialist success of Scandinavian countries.

He did not write it, he wrote the forward, it was written by Nima Sanandaji, an Iranian living in Sweden. So before bashing it, try reading it carefully. It is a very interesting argument.

 

[yeahmon]

You know what also is a right? Not being discriminated against. You know that 14th amendment in your constitution. Until 1967 inter-racial marriage was illegal. And the same bullshit arguments arose back then, are happening now. And guess what, inter-racial marriage has been legal for nearly 40 years and still no one is marrying their dog, or their sister, or their 5 girlfriends.

That was still one man one woman

 

[ndye]

He did not write it, he wrote the forward, it was written by Nima Sanandaji, an Iranian living in Sweden. So before bashing it, try reading it carefully. It is a very interesting argument.

Well Im not going to read it, as it is way too long for me right now, however I did look up some of his shorter pieces regarding Sweden which I would assume is similar in his basic beliefs about the region.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a-false-utopia?page=2

He fails to look at a large set of socio-economic issues which we find in the US and we do not find in Sweden. He cites that Swedes who move to the US are typically more successful than Americans, well no shit, they come from a highly educated region, with a lot of money, so they would be successful. The issue in America is upward mobility, the issue is not the rich getting richer (people with money and ideas who immigrate to the US from Sweden).

He talks of Sweeds entering debt as a major issue despite the confidence that Swedes express in repayment of their debt, citing a week middle class, and uses a Gini coefficient which is just completely wrong.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

The issue is not one of simple one side vs the other politics, I support and do not support a lot of the things done in Sweden, however their wealth, income mobility, and strength on an international level is something to be admired although not necessarily replicated to a T.

 

[yeahmon]

Marriage is an American right* and correct me if im wrong, but the first sentence says you have no problem with gay marriage, and the second says no?

Do you have a problem with interracial marriage? That was decided by a SCOTUS ruling, because it was a human right, even though on a state to state basis, many states would not have allowed that by vote. The reason why it was a SCOTUS decision, is because it has to do with human rights. The "right" for gay people to marry.

It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, I mean

"Im guna come to your house and gay marry you, and then your sister, and then your parents"

It can infringe on other people's rights because many people preachers for example would not be comfortable performing a gay marriage, many bakers may not be comfortable writing "Steve loves garry" on a gay wedding cake, many wedding photographers would not feel comfortable taking photos for a gay wedding, wedding planners etc.

 

[yeahmon]

to be honest man it just sounds like you're regurgitating some bullshit you just read on facebook..

Don't have Facebook...

 

[ndye]

It can infringe on other people's rights because many people preachers for example would not be comfortable performing a gay marriage, many bakers may not be comfortable writing "Steve loves garry" on a gay wedding cake, many wedding photographers would not feel comfortable taking photos for a gay wedding, wedding planners etc.

This is where I am a bit torn, because indeed, I feel for the people whos religious beliefs do make it uncomfortable for them to do these things. However you must know that there are a large number of bakers, photographers, planners etc who would love to take money from a gay couple getting married. Most of them in fact I would assume. And trust me, most gay couples wont be getting married by preachers. There are a lot of people who can marry you who aren't preachers.

I personally think its weird that businesses would refuse a service and money from these couples, but I may think it their right to do so...

This decision had nothing to do with that issue, it simply gave gay people the right to marry. Which in itself infringes on no other people's rights.

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

Well Im not going to read it, as it is way too long for me right now, however I did look up some of his shorter pieces regarding Sweden which I would assume is similar in his basic beliefs about the region.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a-false-utopia?page=2

He fails to look at a large set of socio-economic issues which we find in the US and we do not find in Sweden. He cites that Swedes who move to the US are typically more successful than Americans, well no shit, they come from a highly educated region, with a lot of money, so they would be successful. The issue in America is upward mobility, the issue is not the rich getting richer (people with money and ideas who immigrate to the US from Sweden).

He talks of Sweeds entering debt as a major issue despite the confidence that Swedes express in repayment of their debt, citing a week middle class, and uses a Gini coefficient which is just completely wrong.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

The issue is not one of simple one side vs the other politics, I support and do not support a lot of the things done in Sweden, however their wealth, income mobility, and strength on an international level is something to be admired although not necessarily replicated to a T.

You must not have gotten too far into reading the piece. While that short article discussed part of his argument (the part I find rather lacking), it goes much more into the basic economic factors that led to the prosperity of those countries that people attribute to the policies they have in place now.

The basic tl;dr is that these countries are not as socialist as people believe they are and that their economic success currently arose from their early economic form which was much more conservative than it is now.

The normal economic rules apply: incentives, economic freedom, culture and a regime of good governance all matter when it comes to economic success. The effects of policy in the three eras roughly defined by the periods 1900–60, 1960–90 and 1990 to the present, have been more or less as economists would have predicted. The question that remains is whether Scandinavian countries will continue their return to the free-market roots that have historically served them so well.

 

[S.J.W]

It can infringe on other people's rights because many people preachers for example would not be comfortable performing a gay marriage, many bakers may not be comfortable writing "Steve loves garry" on a gay wedding cake, many wedding photographers would not feel comfortable taking photos for a gay wedding, wedding planners etc.

And that's where you have freedom of religion to allow you deny baking a cake for someone. No one is going to force you to write "yeahmon loves cock" on a wedding cake. No one is forcing a perform a gay marriage ceremony. Seriously, all of your arguments against gay marriage are straight from republican party 101 and hold no logic or consistency.

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

Well Im not going to read it, as it is way too long for me right now, however I did look up some of his shorter pieces regarding Sweden which I would assume is similar in his basic beliefs about the region.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a-false-utopia?page=2

He fails to look at a large set of socio-economic issues which we find in the US and we do not find in Sweden. He cites that Swedes who move to the US are typically more successful than Americans, well no shit, they come from a highly educated region, with a lot of money, so they would be successful. The issue in America is upward mobility, the issue is not the rich getting richer (people with money and ideas who immigrate to the US from Sweden).

He talks of Sweeds entering debt as a major issue despite the confidence that Swedes express in repayment of their debt, citing a week middle class, and uses a Gini coefficient which is just completely wrong.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

The issue is not one of simple one side vs the other politics, I support and do not support a lot of the things done in Sweden, however their wealth, income mobility, and strength on an international level is something to be admired although not necessarily replicated to a T.

And your Gini coefficient is the wrong one. It is from 2005, that one from Brandolini et al. was taken in 2008 and updated. Anyways I agree it is not a simple one side vs. the other politics but there are some fallacies about their wealth and strength on an international level that the paper addresses quite well. I figured some economics enthusiasts or majors would enjoy it.

 

[ndye]

And your Gini coefficient is the wrong one. It is from 2005, that one from Brandolini et al. was taken in 2008 and updated. Anyways I agree it is not a simple one side vs. the other politics but there are some fallacies about their wealth and strength on an international level that the paper addresses quite well. I figured some economics enthusiasts or majors would enjoy it.

I would like to see a source for his Gini coefficients, I dont believe those numbers he used in the slightest, that is a major part of the issue I have with our system currently. I can gurantee the numbers he used are wrong.

 

[louie.mirags]

It can infringe on other people's rights because many people preachers for example would not be comfortable performing a gay marriage, many bakers may not be comfortable writing "Steve loves garry" on a gay wedding cake, many wedding photographers would not feel comfortable taking photos for a gay wedding, wedding planners etc.

You're on the wrong side of history currently. In a few decades anti-gay folk are going to be looked at similar to racist. There is a reason for that. Drop what you think is normal and be more accepting of other types of people. It makes life more pleasant

 

[yeahmon]

And that's where you have freedom of religion to allow you deny baking a cake for someone. No one is going to force you to write "yeahmon loves cock" on a wedding cake. No one is forcing a perform a gay marriage ceremony. Seriously, all of your arguments against gay marriage are straight from republican party 101 and hold no logic or consistency.

Well then why in Indiana have bakery's been getting sued for not wanting to cater a gay wedding

 

[yeahmon]

You're on the wrong side of history currently. In a few decades anti-gay folk are going to be looked at similar to racist. There is a reason for that. Drop what you think is normal and be more accepting of other types of people. It makes life more pleasant

The issue of homosexuality being right or wrong will never go away. Did Roe v Wade stop the arguments over abortion?

 

[ndye]

Well then why in Indiana have bakery's been getting sued for not wanting to cater a gay wedding

I find that in some ways wrong to not be allowed to refuse service, but that is a seperate issue from allowing gay marriage in general. Surely you must see that.

 

[louie.mirags]

The issue of homosexuality being right or wrong will never go away. Did Roe v Wade stop the arguments over abortion?

It is not a matter of right and wrong though. People are born gay whether you want to believe it or not. You're on the wrong side of history for not being accepting...

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

I would like to see a source for his Gini coefficients, I dont believe those numbers he used in the slightest, that is a major part of the issue I have with our system currently. I can gurantee the numbers he used are wrong.

In the paper I linked he took his Gini Coefficients from this paper.

Brandolini, A., Smeeding, T. M. and Sierminska, E.Comparing wealth distribution across rich countries: first results from the Luxembourg wealth study. Bank of Italy Research Paper A7.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=750066083101069099070068089112103076007056010023061049023084012108095111006125002111041119107107108043037095095119125100114091060086008008061126026082115093025075090084003017083071004080084027007080120121064019027001093069116074002107026029098001&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2

 

[S.J.W]

Well then why in Indiana have bakery's been getting sued for not wanting to cater a gay wedding

Because a business does not have religious exceptions. A bakery can't deny you service based on your sexual orientation. If you can't tell the difference between religious freedoms for a person and a business then you're dumber than I thought.

 

[yeahmon]

It is not a matter of right and wrong though. People are born gay whether you want to believe it or not. You're on the wrong side of history for not being accepting...

Don't give me that bullshit people are not born gay homosexuality is a choice just as heterosexuality is

 

[ndye]

In the paper I linked he took his Gini Coefficients from this paper.

The Gini coefficients here clearly show the numbers coming from between 2001-2003? Also I do not agree with those numbers, they don't make sense to me, as every other Gini coefficient I have ever seen has painted a VERY different picture from a variety of years

 

[yeahmon]

Because a business does not have religious exceptions. A bakery can't deny you service based on your sexual orientation. If you can't tell the difference between religious freedoms for a person and a business then you're dumber than I thought.

The bakery does not deny service if a a couple came it to set down and have a piece of cake, yeah there is nothing they can do about that. But if they don't want to cater the gay wedding and write "man loves man" on a cake then they shouldn't have to.

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

The Gini coefficients here clearly show the numbers coming from between 2001-2003? Also I do not agree with those numbers, they don't make sense to me, as every other Gini coefficient I have ever seen has painted a VERY different picture from a variety of years

This Gini coefficient may be different because he took the data from the Luxembourg Wealth Study, a study done by the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) which is a data center that attempts to look at cross-national analysis.

I am not advocating his study as right or wrong, but rather that it provides a different picture than the normal one that advocates of the Scandinavian style of economies like to portray.

 

[louie.mirags]

Don't give me that bullshit people are not born gay homosexuality is a choice just as heterosexuality is

You're wrong, man. People are born gay. The people who don't think people are born gay are the ones who are constantly fighting the gay thoughts in their head. That is why you think it is a choice.

 

[ndye]

Don't give me that bullshit people are not born gay homosexuality is a choice just as heterosexuality is

Sorry man but here you are wrong. Very wrong indeed.

 

[yeahmon]

You're wrong, man. People are born gay. The people who don't think people are born gay are the ones who are constantly fighting the gay thoughts in their head. That is why you think it is a choice.

Dude you are not born gay. I am on mobile right now once, I get home I will post multiple articles on he topic.

 

[miroz]

Don't give me that bullshit people are not born gay homosexuality is a choice just as heterosexuality is

HAHAHAHA, you have got to be fucking kidding me.

 

[louie.mirags]

Dude you are not born gay. I am on mobile right now once, I get home I will post multiple articles on he topic.

until then ponder what I said. People who think it is a choice think that because they are fighting their own gay thoughts. Since you choose daily to ignore the gay and be straight, then others must be in the same boat..... right?

Most people who are gay knew they were from an early age. So, I will be looking forward to these articles that dispute actual gay people's personal experiences...

 

[onenerdykid]

Dude you are not born gay. I am on mobile right now once, I get home I will post multiple articles on he topic.

When was it that you decided to be straight? ...Or was it something that you always knew/felt?

 

[onenerdykid]

The bakery does not deny service if a a couple came it to set down and have a piece of cake, yeah there is nothing they can do about that. But if they don't want to cater the gay wedding and write "man loves man" on a cake then they shouldn't have to.

This was the same exact logic that white people used to use about not wanting to offer their services/products to black people. It's blatant discrimination.

 

[yeahmon]

This was the same exact logic that white people used to use about not wanting to offer their services/products to black people. It's blatant discrimination.

Yeah but that is not on a religious basis that is just hatred, if a preacher doesn't want to officiate a gay wedding he shouldn't have to.

 

[Arabian]

:')

 

[californiagrown]

Just because my opinion doesn't match yours I'm a bigot? Makes sense

No. You're a bigot because you treat gay people as lesser than hetero folks when you don't believe they should have equal civil rights.

 

[spliff.Life]

There are more than two options despite what CNN and Foxnews want us to think.

wait what?!

 

[yeahmon]

No. You're a bigot because you treat gay people as lesser than hetero folks when you don't believe they should have equal civil rights.

I don't treat them as lesser, and I could turn this around on you and say your a bigot for treating me a Christian as lesser. Why is everyone always looking to be offended?

 

[plyswthsqrrls]

Because no god has ever existed. God will never exist and religion is one of the biggest factors holding back our society progressing into a greater age.

just don't force it down peoples face

you are the king of forcing your views upon newschoolers, follow your own advice.

 

[ndye]

I don't treat them as lesser, and I could turn this around on you and say your a bigot for treating me a Christian as lesser. Why is everyone always looking to be offended?

Because those in favor of gay marriage dont want to take away your rights, gay marriage will NOT affect you in ANY way.

 

[yeahmon]

Because those in favor of gay marriage dont want to take away your rights, gay marriage will NOT affect you in ANY way.

But just in general everybody really wants to be offended? Our society needs to chill out people say shit to me all the time do I get offended, NO. So why does everybody have to get offended over everything?

 

[ndye]

But just in general everybody really wants to be offended? Our society needs to chill out people say shit to me all the time do I get offended, NO. So why does everybody have to get offended over everything?

In general there is no logical response other than not liking gay people, to be against gay marriage.

 

[yeahmon]

In general there is no logical response other than not liking gay people, to be against gay marriage.

Or you have religious objections