A question for the *************

[~AK49~]

Many ************* are against govt. My point was made because you made a difference between social and fiscal issues which I still don't know why you separate one and not the other.

You're the one who separated the issues (fiscal and social) in the op. I was just pointing out the separation, and shedding light on why the seperation. Moral laws have nothing to do with fiscal issues (the wasting of money in this case).

[MDPopescu]

Most ************* are fiscal *************. I support ********, gay marriage, and am fairly agnostic.

Why the ******* generalization that all ************* are bible thumping woman hating hate mongers?

If you are going to ask a serious question don't paint us all with such a broad brush.

Good observation.....

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

You're the one who separated the issues (fiscal and social) in the op. I was just pointing out the separation, and shedding light on why the seperation. Moral laws have nothing to do with fiscal issues (the wasting of money in this case).

Ok fine, but you still did not answer my question. I get that it's a moral issue, and polls show that people who align themselves with conservative political parties tend to be more religious.

Why though is it ok for the govt to tell you who to marry and not ok for the govt to tax you for certain social programs?

Nobody has yet to answer the question.

[~AK49~]

Ok fine, but you still did not answer my question. I get that it's a moral issue, and polls show that people who align themselves with conservative political parties tend to be more religious.

Why though is it ok for the govt to tell you who to marry and not ok for the govt to tax you for certain social programs?

Nobody has yet to answer the question.

Because the latter is full of waste (money)

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Because the latter is full of waste (money)

Again, not answering my question...LOL

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, I just really want an answer. It's the principle that is what is important. When you hear Tea Party leaders for example talk about less govt, less intrusion, personal freedoms and individual rights, why does that not extend to social issues?

If you are against gay marriage for example, that's your right. I will defend the right of people to vote against gay marriage, protest against it, do whatever they want.

I just want to know why the liberties when it comes to money, and not personal choice?

[~AK49~]

Again, not answering my question...LOL

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, I just really want an answer. It's the principle that is what is important. When you hear Tea Party leaders for example talk about less govt, less intrusion, personal freedoms and individual rights, why does that not extend to social issues

If you are against gay marriage for example, that's your right. I will defend the right of people to vote against gay marriage, protest against it, do whatever they want.

I just want to know why the liberties when it comes to money, and not personal choice?

Isnt it obvious? They want, what they think, is best for this country.

[MDPopescu]

Ok fine, but you still did not answer my question. I get that it's a moral issue, and polls show that people who align themselves with conservative political parties tend to be more religious.

Why though is it ok for the govt to tell you who to marry and not ok for the govt to tax you for certain social programs?

Nobody has yet to answer the question.

... It's not the government who tell people who to marry -- it's the "empirical experiments" deep back into ancient history, later codified in the Bible (for instance)... and confirmed by modern biology science and genetics... But eventually one could marry his own sofa -- I don't mind as long as one doesn't try to force me to formally agree upon such an act.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Isnt it obvious? They want, what they think, is best for this country.

So you throw the Constitution out the window? You force your ideals on people who don't want them enforced on them?

I mean, that's an arrogant thing to say really. I'm sure in the 20's and 60's when women and ********** didn't have equal rights and the majority of the country thought that was "best for this country" we still fought against that.

Personally, I think an issue like gay marriage shouldn't even be up for vote, it should be allowed federally because it's clearly unconstitutional.

[~AK49~]

So you throw the Constitution out the window? You force your ideals on people who don't want them enforced on them?

I mean, that's an arrogant thing to say really. I'm sure in the 20's and 60's when women and ********** didn't have equal rights and the majority of the country thought that was "best for this country" we still fought against that.

Personally, I think an issue like gay marriage shouldn't even be up for vote, it should be allowed federally because it's clearly unconstitutional.

It may be an arrogant statement, but its a largely true statement. For both sides might I add.

And what part of the constitution is being thrown out?

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

It may be an arrogant statement, but its a largely true statement. For both sides might I add.

And what part of the constitution is being thrown out?

1st ********* and the fact the constitution doesn't define marriage.

My point being that I just don't understand the contradictions.