78
79

Then & Now... (liberallogic101.com)

chabanaisStronger than dirt. が 投稿

全 39 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Clatsopvincit omnia veritas 24ポイント25ポイント  (10子コメント)

While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

[–]MithrilTuxedoNeoprudentist[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

If we as a society are going to declare responsibility for a life before it's born, we'll have to continue being responsible for it afterward. Otherwise, we're being irresponsible parents.

I couldn't in good faith compel someone else to give birth to a child I myself couldn't take care of.

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt.[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Parents are responsible for their children, adults for themselves.

[–]raymondio -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

And when the parents fail? I'll never understand valuing a "potential life" over the 16 million children already alive living in poverty in the US right now (that's 22%). We don't want to 'give handouts' to these kids and their families, but we want to vilify anyone who takes steps to not put themselves in that situation.

Granted, I see the moral implications but then it comes back to a government 'small enough to leave people alone' (so to speak).

[–]Gingrich2016 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't speak for everyone but as a conservative I support only the best for children who "aren't wanted" - good schools, first class facilities to be raised in, and agencies that make every effort to adopt children into good homes. It would be magnificent if we spent money on that rather than long-term welfare for able-bodied adults who could work.

[–]raymondio 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

22% of children in the US live in poverty, yet it's their parents fault and the parents need to do something about that? Your ideals are so intertwined you can't see that you don't get one without the other. How can you support "only the best" for kids and not give money to their parents/guardian, who you call able-bodied adults who aren't working? (and have such a big problem with).

Simply, you can't. That's not how society works. There isn't a giant building with all these kids waiting for a handout; they are your children's friends, the boy or girl around the corner, etc.. They're all around you, and you chose to look at their parents and make a decision that they (the parents) are freeloaders/lazy/shitty people, which does absolutely nothing to help the children.

[–]Gingrich2016 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes because adults without kids cannot have any level of responsibility.

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt.[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'll never understand valuing a "potential life" over the 16 million children already alive

A fetus is alive.

And why do you think one life should be valued over another? Sounds like Logan's Run.

[–]Jormundura 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep and they never will change.

[–]nox_42 10ポイント11ポイント  (21子コメント)

Didn't the democrats and republicans basically "switch" parties, views, sides etc. etc. since then? Whereas, the democrats of the 1800s are technically the republicans of today?

Also, that's an honest question. If it's a widely known misnomer please let me know!

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt.[S] 12ポイント13ポイント  (5子コメント)

No.

[–]nox_42 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Oh wow, thanks for the link! Lots of great comments in there too.

[–]free-minded 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Definitely, which is of course why it is downvoted.

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt.[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're welcome.

[–]CavaliersLog Cabin Conservative 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Chabanais, sometimes time you're a dick. Other time its stupid funny how you wrong you prove people. I promise one day i'll get around to giving you gold. Thanks for making my day. :D

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt.[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks...I think.

[–]pumpyourstillskin 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

No. Democrats went from 'lets use the power of big central government and wealth redistribution to help out the little guy aka white men' to including minorities. Republicans stayed the same that all men are created equal.

[–]Papatrey 5ポイント6ポイント  (11子コメント)

I'm confused. If republicans support the notion that all men are created equal and therefore deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law then why were republicans so against gay marriage? Logically they would support legal equality and they didn't. Why is that?

[–]EvanMacIan 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Equality doesn't mean that every single object in the universe should be treated exactly the same. Equality means recognizing that things which are equal in a certain regard should be treated as equal in that regard. So every white, black, Jew, Slav, Japanese, Indian, etc etc are entitled to equal human rights, as they are all equally human. Not everyone is entitled to equal American rights (like voting in our elections) because not everyone is an American citizen.

Men and women are clearly different in certain ways, i.e. sexually, so sexual unions should be in accordance to that difference. The sexual function of women only properly works with men, and the sexual function of men only properly works with women.

The sexual function of a black man works just as well with a white woman as with any other woman, so there's no reason to ban interracial marriage. The sexual function of a woman does not work with another women, so there is reason marriage cannot exists between two women or two men.

[–]pumpyourstillskin 11ポイント12ポイント  (8子コメント)

Marriage is and always has been one man and one woman not closely related. Everyone, gay straight or whatever, has always had equal access to that.

Whether the definition of the word marriage should be changed to include small sexual minorities like homosexuals or polygamists or incest isn't a question of equality.

[–]hreigle 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

So marriage has nothing to do with forming a lasting bond with the one you love?

[–]stoutcarrot 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're shifting the goal posts. Your original argument was that gays were not being treated equally under the law which /u/pumpyourstillskin refuted. Your second argument, about love, is a philosophical concept that isn't legally defined and therefore not even remotely relevant to this discussion.

[–]hreigle 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I never made the original argument. I mostly wanted to him to clarify his view on the purpose the of marriage, which appears to be quite clinical and not the answer I think you'd hear if you asked the average man on the street.

[–]stoutcarrot 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I never made the original argument

Ah my mistake. I don't quite agree with him, but I think the "everyone should be allowed to marry someone they love" argument is weak. Philosophically, yes marriage should be a lasting bond with someone you love, but legally that is irrelevant. It's pretty obvious that the drastic change in popular opinion wasn't exactly based on reason.

[–]pumpyourstillskin 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Love takes a backseat to procreating and raising children.

If it were about love between two people, incest marriage would be fine.

[–]Sandvichincarnate -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's a shame, I guess all marriages between heterosexual couples that have fertility issues aren't fine. Maybe we shouldn't have been granting them marriage licenses either.

[–]EvanMacIan 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Infertile couples are not infertile because of their nature, but because of a defect in their nature. Meaning, if you fixed their bodies they would be able to have children. Two men or two women who have absolutely nothing wrong with their bodies can never have children. There is no defect preventing them from having children, they are working exactly the way they are supposed to.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Marriage was recognized by the government and its definition of "a union between a man and a woman" predates Western Civilization completely. Many things changed on marriage over time and culture the Who, Where, When, Why, and How of marriage all changed. What marriage is has not.

Words have meaning. And if you want to live in a 1984 environment where political groups dictate to you that words mean the opposite of what they actually are feel free to support liberals on this.

Governments discriminate on a whole host of issues. Are you disabled? Well if you are California provides special parking for you. You can also get payments from the state in the form of "disability payments". All government offices tailor their buildings to make certain you can access them. If you're not disabled you do not get the special parking, you do not get the extra money, and you do not get any special treatment. Is this equality? No. But the people of California decided to help those people out. They also decided to fine people who drink and drive. Encouraging and discouraging behaviors is not a violation of equal protection.

So governments recognized marriage. They decided that marriage was a healthy institution and decided to provide tax benefits to encourage it (there are tax penalties and benefits for thousands of behaviors, this is not special). California decided that same couples should be encouraged as well and in 2005 made certain Civil Unions had all the same rights and benefits as married couples. Same sex couples were free to call their relationship "marriage", they were free to have weddings, and they enjoyed all the same rights and benefits. Liberals decided they wanted to co-opt the meaning of marriage and took it to court anyways (which is why you had the proposition 8 battle of 2008, 3 years after same sex couples had nothing to complain about in terms of the State of California).

You do not have a right to dictate language and force others to recognize your new definition that contradicts the old. Language changes from natural processes over decades/centuries of time. It does not change because a political group wants it to.

[–]CaptainGlobal 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This would make an excellent billboard advertisement. Unfortunately the sjw's and their enablers would put any company out of business that allowed this message to be put on it's billboards.

[–]PatriotsFTWLibertarian 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

The Democratic Party, has been, is, and always will be, the party of hate.

[–]chabanaisStronger than dirt.[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Their hate simply takes different forms.

[–]Irishfafnir 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Northern democrats voted against the slave expansion platform in the 1860 Charleston convention, and then refused to seat the slave-expansion delegates at the Baltimore convention splitting the party and directly contributing to the civil war. Southerners from every political creed be it Democrats, Whigs, or all manner of Union parties continued to defend slavery. The political policy differences in 1860 were far more defined by geography than by political party association.