Reply #47: It's all good dude

[RedCon1]

<You are biased, I am biased. Everybody is biased.>

Perhaps, but I don't think my bias has caused me to misinterpret your statements. You, on the other hand, seem to think that I'm advocating throwing people to the wolves when, in reality, all I'm saying is that we need to reach out to the middle, not push them away. You seem to think I'm talking about death camps or something.


<How DO you want the party to respond to the issue? Your last post
appeared to suggest that you wanted us to support the GMA and any
state measures to restrict the rights of gays to marry or form any
other sort of contracts.>

The individual states are granted, via the U.S. Constitution, the right to police themselves in matters of safety, public welfare, and morality. This is the way it was meant to be and this is the way it should be. There is no reason for the Federal government to have an opinion on this matter in way shape or form. It is a state issue. At the same time, the individual states should not be able to use the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution to impose their moral will on other states. Therefore, I would consider an amendment to the FF and C clause an acceptable compromise. In this way, individual states have the right to allow homosexuals to get married but, they can not force other states to recognize that contract, thereby imposing their moral will on the majority. It seems fair enough to me and a much more sound position than the "all or nothing" that you are proposing.


<I know a lot of people hate gay people. To what extent should we pander to hate?>

I don't think we should pander to hate anymore than we should to pander to homosexuals. It doesn't have to be one or the other. As I stated previously, it is not within the scope of the Federal governments rights to dictate the moral standards of the states. A Presidential candidate should not have a position on this issue unless the Constitution is am mended to allow it.

<Increased taxes may be unattractive, but have you looked at the
deficit lately?>

Increasing taxes is not a winning solution to the deficit problem. Increasing the number of tax payers sounds like a better solution to me.

<But after they have carried off the gays, who will they come for next? Can you really not see where this is going?>

Yes, it's going to a paranoid delusion. I know plenty of gay people and they're some of the more successful people that I know. LOL! I suspect it is, among other things, because they have no children to tie them down. Regardless, I'm not seeing ANYBODY carried off and fed to the lions (except for those who freaked out a little too much maybe). Please feel free to elaborate on this idea of oppression of yours.

<"We must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately.">

We should just get a candidate that gets a better rating from the NRA than the Republican counterpart. Assault weapons are a wonderfully balancing thing. When everybody is equally armed, everybody is equal. Our forefathers knew this too well.


BTW, I'm curious about your moniker. Do you actually Tie Dye? Is it possible that I'm communicating with the Dead here? :hippie:
Peace.