IF YOU WANT TO HELP SARAH PALIN FOR 2012

[HiWarp]

All I can say is, if you don't "buy into the fear" then you have no idea what's going on in the REAL world, like many other liberals in this country.

Once again, I never claimed to be liberal. And I also said that this fear which is being conjured up is unfounded, indicating that it is not based on facts.

Kindly explain to me the difference between a liberal, a progressive, and a statist as, imo they are interchangeable in the way that they are used today.

Fair enough. I suppose liberal and progressive could be used interchangeably--not sure about statist, though. Either way, progressives are responsible for a lot of good in America. I don't think the Revolution would have happened without progressives, and weren't the Republicans at one time considered progressive, too? Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. I'm sure there were plenty of people who looked at them as "horrid liberals" at one point. Something to think about, maybe.

Think about this. Liberals and progressives of the past actually SUPPORTED individual rights. What so-called liberals today support are far from it. That's where the statist comes in. I will not take credit for that as it was coined by Mark Levin in his book "Liberty and Tyranny". But, basically, a statist is one who supports central government planning and control, especially of economic policy, at the COST of individual rights. Don't tell me about the wonderful things that liberals have done in the past.  Tell me about the wonderful things they are doing today.

Well, I'd say that while liberals may want to look to the government for more, they also challenge it more. I think that liberals are very much in favor of an individual's rights. Freedom of choice, separation of church and state, and same-sex marriage, among others, are predominantly liberal causes. All things considered, I don't really consider Democrats to be liberals. Maybe next to staunch Conservatives, but really, any more it seems as thought the Dems and the GOP are pretty similar.

Liberals appear to be for freedom of choice when it involves a woman's choice to give birth or have an abortion; but they don't seem to favor choice so much when it comes to allowing me to choose how I spend my money. They seem to believe my individual freedom to spend the money that I earned is less important than their right to tax me excessively and spend my money the way they see fit.

Separation of church and state? This is solely an issue of not having a government sanctioned religion where people can be persecuted if they happen to be of a different faith (e.g. Iran). The U.S. already has this without any challenges from liberals. What I see liberals concerned with is things like not displaying Christmas manger scenes in public buildings or not posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Same sex marriage? How does this help the country or society? Marriage is an existing institution and I think you know what it's based on so I don't need to elaborate? Where is the benefit to society of same sex "marriage"?

As for the Democrats and Republicans being pretty similar, you won't get much of an argument from me there.  But then I don't consider Obama a Democrat.

[MasterWolf1]

I for one will be honored to support her for 2012

[RationalMinority]

All I can say is, if you don't "buy into the fear" then you have no idea what's going on in the REAL world, like many other liberals in this country.

Once again, I never claimed to be liberal. And I also said that this fear which is being conjured up is unfounded, indicating that it is not based on facts.

Kindly explain to me the difference between a liberal, a progressive, and a statist as, imo they are interchangeable in the way that they are used today.

Fair enough. I suppose liberal and progressive could be used interchangeably--not sure about statist, though. Either way, progressives are responsible for a lot of good in America. I don't think the Revolution would have happened without progressives, and weren't the Republicans at one time considered progressive, too? Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. I'm sure there were plenty of people who looked at them as "horrid liberals" at one point. Something to think about, maybe.

Think about this. Liberals and progressives of the past actually SUPPORTED individual rights. What so-called liberals today support are far from it. That's where the statist comes in. I will not take credit for that as it was coined by Mark Levin in his book "Liberty and Tyranny". But, basically, a statist is one who supports central government planning and control, especially of economic policy, at the COST of individual rights. Don't tell me about the wonderful things that liberals have done in the past.  Tell me about the wonderful things they are doing today.

Well, I'd say that while liberals may want to look to the government for more, they also challenge it more. I think that liberals are very much in favor of an individual's rights. Freedom of choice, separation of church and state, and same-sex marriage, among others, are predominantly liberal causes. All things considered, I don't really consider Democrats to be liberals. Maybe next to staunch Conservatives, but really, any more it seems as thought the Dems and the GOP are pretty similar.

Liberals appear to be for freedom of choice when it involves a woman's choice to give birth or have an abortion; but they don't seem to favor choice so much when it comes to allowing me to choose how I spend my money. They seem to believe my individual freedom to spend the money that I earned is less important than their right to tax me excessively and spend my money the way they see fit.

Separation of church and state? This is solely an issue of not having a government sanctioned religion where people can be persecuted if they happen to be of a different faith (e.g. Iran). The U.S. already has this without any challenges from liberals. What I see liberals concerned with is things like not displaying Christmas manger scenes in public buildings or not posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Same sex marriage? How does this help the country or society? Marriage is an existing institution and I think you know what it's based on so I don't need to elaborate? Where is the benefit to society of same sex "marriage"?

As for the Democrats and Republicans being pretty similar, you won't get much of an argument from me there.  But then I don't consider Obama a Democrat.

So, since there is no government sanctioned religion, why would religious articles need to be displayed on state property? Liberals aren't challenging SOC&S, either. They support it.

Same sex marriage comes down to an issue of human rights. There is no reason why these rights should not be extended to homosexuals. They are not second-class citizens, and America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom. Why should freedom stop short for some?

[MasterWolf1]

All I can say is, if you don't "buy into the fear" then you have no idea what's going on in the REAL world, like many other liberals in this country.

Once again, I never claimed to be liberal. And I also said that this fear which is being conjured up is unfounded, indicating that it is not based on facts.

Kindly explain to me the difference between a liberal, a progressive, and a statist as, imo they are interchangeable in the way that they are used today.

Fair enough. I suppose liberal and progressive could be used interchangeably--not sure about statist, though. Either way, progressives are responsible for a lot of good in America. I don't think the Revolution would have happened without progressives, and weren't the Republicans at one time considered progressive, too? Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. I'm sure there were plenty of people who looked at them as "horrid liberals" at one point. Something to think about, maybe.

Think about this. Liberals and progressives of the past actually SUPPORTED individual rights. What so-called liberals today support are far from it. That's where the statist comes in. I will not take credit for that as it was coined by Mark Levin in his book "Liberty and Tyranny". But, basically, a statist is one who supports central government planning and control, especially of economic policy, at the COST of individual rights. Don't tell me about the wonderful things that liberals have done in the past.  Tell me about the wonderful things they are doing today.

Well, I'd say that while liberals may want to look to the government for more, they also challenge it more. I think that liberals are very much in favor of an individual's rights. Freedom of choice, separation of church and state, and same-sex marriage, among others, are predominantly liberal causes. All things considered, I don't really consider Democrats to be liberals. Maybe next to staunch Conservatives, but really, any more it seems as thought the Dems and the GOP are pretty similar.

Liberals appear to be for freedom of choice when it involves a woman's choice to give birth or have an abortion; but they don't seem to favor choice so much when it comes to allowing me to choose how I spend my money. They seem to believe my individual freedom to spend the money that I earned is less important than their right to tax me excessively and spend my money the way they see fit.

Separation of church and state? This is solely an issue of not having a government sanctioned religion where people can be persecuted if they happen to be of a different faith (e.g. Iran). The U.S. already has this without any challenges from liberals. What I see liberals concerned with is things like not displaying Christmas manger scenes in public buildings or not posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Same sex marriage? How does this help the country or society? Marriage is an existing institution and I think you know what it's based on so I don't need to elaborate? Where is the benefit to society of same sex "marriage"?

As for the Democrats and Republicans being pretty similar, you won't get much of an argument from me there.  But then I don't consider Obama a Democrat.

So, since there is no government sanctioned religion, why would religious articles need to be displayed on state property? Liberals aren't challenging SOC&S, either. They support it.

Same sex marriage comes down to an issue of human rights. There is no reason why these rights should not be extended to homosexuals. They are not second-class citizens, and America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom. Why should freedom stop short for some?

You support homo marriage? there is no such thing as homo marriage.  What human rights it goes against everything logical. I think you are a leftist loon

[HiWarp]

All I can say is, if you don't "buy into the fear" then you have no idea what's going on in the REAL world, like many other liberals in this country.

Once again, I never claimed to be liberal. And I also said that this fear which is being conjured up is unfounded, indicating that it is not based on facts.

Kindly explain to me the difference between a liberal, a progressive, and a statist as, imo they are interchangeable in the way that they are used today.

Fair enough. I suppose liberal and progressive could be used interchangeably--not sure about statist, though. Either way, progressives are responsible for a lot of good in America. I don't think the Revolution would have happened without progressives, and weren't the Republicans at one time considered progressive, too? Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. I'm sure there were plenty of people who looked at them as "horrid liberals" at one point. Something to think about, maybe.

Think about this. Liberals and progressives of the past actually SUPPORTED individual rights. What so-called liberals today support are far from it. That's where the statist comes in. I will not take credit for that as it was coined by Mark Levin in his book "Liberty and Tyranny". But, basically, a statist is one who supports central government planning and control, especially of economic policy, at the COST of individual rights. Don't tell me about the wonderful things that liberals have done in the past.  Tell me about the wonderful things they are doing today.

Well, I'd say that while liberals may want to look to the government for more, they also challenge it more. I think that liberals are very much in favor of an individual's rights. Freedom of choice, separation of church and state, and same-sex marriage, among others, are predominantly liberal causes. All things considered, I don't really consider Democrats to be liberals. Maybe next to staunch Conservatives, but really, any more it seems as thought the Dems and the GOP are pretty similar.

Liberals appear to be for freedom of choice when it involves a woman's choice to give birth or have an abortion; but they don't seem to favor choice so much when it comes to allowing me to choose how I spend my money. They seem to believe my individual freedom to spend the money that I earned is less important than their right to tax me excessively and spend my money the way they see fit.

Separation of church and state? This is solely an issue of not having a government sanctioned religion where people can be persecuted if they happen to be of a different faith (e.g. Iran). The U.S. already has this without any challenges from liberals. What I see liberals concerned with is things like not displaying Christmas manger scenes in public buildings or not posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Same sex marriage? How does this help the country or society? Marriage is an existing institution and I think you know what it's based on so I don't need to elaborate? Where is the benefit to society of same sex "marriage"?

As for the Democrats and Republicans being pretty similar, you won't get much of an argument from me there.  But then I don't consider Obama a Democrat.

So, since there is no government sanctioned religion, why would religious articles need to be displayed on state property? Liberals aren't challenging SOC&S, either. They support it.

Same sex marriage comes down to an issue of human rights. There is no reason why these rights should not be extended to homosexuals. They are not second-class citizens, and America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom. Why should freedom stop short for some?

You miss my point.  I did not mean that liberals challenge SOC&S, I meant that the U.S. has never had a government sanctioned religion; it did not take a liberal challenge to bring that about. And since the display of a religious item, which many times has been there for many decades, does not equate to mandatory sanctioning of a state religion (i.e. displaying the Ten Commandments at a state courthouse does not equate to Judaism being the official state religion) what difference does it make?

What rights would be afforded to homosexuals by government sanctioned same-sex marriage? What freedoms are they currently being denied? There is no law preventing them from carrying on an exclusive relationship with one individual.

[RationalMinority]

All I can say is, if you don't "buy into the fear" then you have no idea what's going on in the REAL world, like many other liberals in this country.

Once again, I never claimed to be liberal. And I also said that this fear which is being conjured up is unfounded, indicating that it is not based on facts.

Kindly explain to me the difference between a liberal, a progressive, and a statist as, imo they are interchangeable in the way that they are used today.

Fair enough. I suppose liberal and progressive could be used interchangeably--not sure about statist, though. Either way, progressives are responsible for a lot of good in America. I don't think the Revolution would have happened without progressives, and weren't the Republicans at one time considered progressive, too? Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. I'm sure there were plenty of people who looked at them as "horrid liberals" at one point. Something to think about, maybe.

Think about this. Liberals and progressives of the past actually SUPPORTED individual rights. What so-called liberals today support are far from it. That's where the statist comes in. I will not take credit for that as it was coined by Mark Levin in his book "Liberty and Tyranny". But, basically, a statist is one who supports central government planning and control, especially of economic policy, at the COST of individual rights. Don't tell me about the wonderful things that liberals have done in the past.  Tell me about the wonderful things they are doing today.

Well, I'd say that while liberals may want to look to the government for more, they also challenge it more. I think that liberals are very much in favor of an individual's rights. Freedom of choice, separation of church and state, and same-sex marriage, among others, are predominantly liberal causes. All things considered, I don't really consider Democrats to be liberals. Maybe next to staunch Conservatives, but really, any more it seems as thought the Dems and the GOP are pretty similar.

Liberals appear to be for freedom of choice when it involves a woman's choice to give birth or have an abortion; but they don't seem to favor choice so much when it comes to allowing me to choose how I spend my money. They seem to believe my individual freedom to spend the money that I earned is less important than their right to tax me excessively and spend my money the way they see fit.

Separation of church and state? This is solely an issue of not having a government sanctioned religion where people can be persecuted if they happen to be of a different faith (e.g. Iran). The U.S. already has this without any challenges from liberals. What I see liberals concerned with is things like not displaying Christmas manger scenes in public buildings or not posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Same sex marriage? How does this help the country or society? Marriage is an existing institution and I think you know what it's based on so I don't need to elaborate? Where is the benefit to society of same sex "marriage"?

As for the Democrats and Republicans being pretty similar, you won't get much of an argument from me there.  But then I don't consider Obama a Democrat.

So, since there is no government sanctioned religion, why would religious articles need to be displayed on state property? Liberals aren't challenging SOC&S, either. They support it.

Same sex marriage comes down to an issue of human rights. There is no reason why these rights should not be extended to homosexuals. They are not second-class citizens, and America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom. Why should freedom stop short for some?

You miss my point.  I did not mean that liberals challenge SOC&S, I meant that the U.S. has never had a government sanctioned religion; it did not take a liberal challenge to bring that about. And since the display of a religious item, which many times has been there for many decades, does not equate to mandatory sanctioning of a state religion (i.e. displaying the Ten Commandments at a state courthouse does not equate to Judaism being the official state religion) what difference does it make?

What rights would be afforded to homosexuals by government sanctioned same-sex marriage? What freedoms are they currently being denied? There is no law preventing them from carrying on an exclusive relationship with one individual.

It's not just about government sanctioned religion, though. It's about keeping the two establishments separate, so that government does not interfere with religious practice, and religion does not interfere with the practices of the government.

Regarding same-sex marriage, here are some benefits currently being denied:

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

It's not just that, though. How would you feel if you were told that, by law, you could not marry the person whom you love? So much garbage comes from the right on this issue, especially talking about "preserving family values". Why is it, then, that so many proponents of this preservation are seemingly content to destroy their own marriages and take their families for granted? Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

[HiWarp]

It's not just about government sanctioned religion, though. It's about keeping the two establishments separate, so that government does not interfere with religious practice, and religion does not interfere with the practices of the government.

Regarding same-sex marriage, here are some benefits currently being denied:

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

It's not just that, though. How would you feel if you were told that, by law, you could not marry the person whom you love? So much garbage comes from the right on this issue, especially talking about "preserving family values". Why is it, then, that so many proponents of this preservation are seemingly content to destroy their own marriages and take their families for granted? Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Again I ask, what difference does it make?  How does the display of a religious item in a public building that was built in 1900 and has been there for over 100 years interfere with the practice of government?

As for your same-sex marriage argument, you began by speaking of rights and freedoms but you list nothing more than benefits. The government can pass or revoke any law it wants affording someone benefits or taking them away. It can't do than with a person's freedom or rights.

But you evade my original question.  You have made this a debate on the merits of separation of church & state and same-sex marriage. Where are all the other individual liberties that liberals fight for?

[AsheDina]

Oh good G-d!! GIMME A BREAK!!!
The poor HOMOSEXUALS now, the ones that are FORCING their ABOMINATIONS on kids in schools with their HOMOSEXUAL agenda, this is PATHETIC.

this SICK world is going to have to take things up with G-d:

Homosexuality and bestiality

Lev 18:22-29 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

You DO know that there IS a place called SODOM AND GOMORRAH? You also know that there IS a disease that wiped out MUCH of the homosexual populace, it is called AIDS/HIV.

And SPARE me that G-d didn't DO that. G-d HATES things that would DEFILE the BODY.

G-d ALWAYS has to take a BAD rap from his moral high-grounders:

THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.

the ones who think they are G-D, and are his LAST say!

[RationalMinority]

It's not just about government sanctioned religion, though. It's about keeping the two establishments separate, so that government does not interfere with religious practice, and religion does not interfere with the practices of the government.

Regarding same-sex marriage, here are some benefits currently being denied:

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

It's not just that, though. How would you feel if you were told that, by law, you could not marry the person whom you love? So much garbage comes from the right on this issue, especially talking about "preserving family values". Why is it, then, that so many proponents of this preservation are seemingly content to destroy their own marriages and take their families for granted? Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Again I ask, what difference does it make?  How does the display of a religious item in a public building that was built in 1900 and has been there for over 100 years interfere with the practice of government?

As for your same-sex marriage argument, you began by speaking of rights and freedoms but you list nothing more than benefits. The government can pass or revoke any law it wants affording someone benefits or taking them away. It can't do than with a person's freedom or rights.

But you evade my original question.  You have made this a debate on the merits of separation of church & state and same-sex marriage. Where are all the other individual liberties that liberals fight for?

The displaying of religious items does not directly interfere with any actions, but it goes against the principle of SOC&S.

That is indeed a list of benefits...that married couples have a right to. Same sex couples are denied the right to those benefits.

I thought I answered your original question, but how about the individual libery to express oneself? The concept of freedom from excessive security?

[RationalMinority]

Oh good G-d!! GIMME A BREAK!!!
The poor HOMOSEXUALS now, the ones that are FORCING their ABOMINATIONS on kids in schools with their HOMOSEXUAL agenda, this is PATHETIC.

this SICK world is going to have to take things up with G-d:

Homosexuality and bestiality

Lev 18:22-29 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

You DO know that there IS a place called SODOM AND GOMORRAH? You also know that there IS a disease that wiped out MUCH of the homosexual populace, it is called AIDS/HIV.

And SPARE me that G-d didn't DO that. G-d HATES things that would DEFILE the BODY.

G-d ALWAYS has to take a BAD rap from his moral high-grounders:

THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.

the ones who think they are G-D, and are his LAST say!

It was an abomination according to those who wrote it.

[AsheDina]

Oh good G-d!! GIMME A BREAK!!!
The poor HOMOSEXUALS now, the ones that are FORCING their ABOMINATIONS on kids in schools with their HOMOSEXUAL agenda, this is PATHETIC.

this SICK world is going to have to take things up with G-d:

Homosexuality and bestiality

Lev 18:22-29 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

You DO know that there IS a place called SODOM AND GOMORRAH? You also know that there IS a disease that wiped out MUCH of the homosexual populace, it is called AIDS/HIV.

And SPARE me that G-d didn't DO that. G-d HATES things that would DEFILE the BODY.

G-d ALWAYS has to take a BAD rap from his moral high-grounders:

THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.

the ones who think they are G-D, and are his LAST say!

It was an abomination according to those who wrote it.

Refute AIDS and HIV, and that OVERWHELMING majority is DEAD for doing these ABOMINATIONS against G-d.

[Debbie Shafer]

Just remember, Conservatives need to represent values and policies.  What kind of policies will Sarah institute?  We will see more from her in which to make our judgements in the future.   I will not settle for someone who is moderate, or in the middle ever again.  I want someone who stands up for democracy, freedom, and Capitalism, and who is against these dam muslims!

[AsheDina]

I will push for Sarah as a talk show host, NOT a president.  Matter of fact, I dont even think there will be another presidency. Im probably wrong, but the way things are going, I see G-d DESTROYING this place.

[RanterMaximus]

I do not believe that Mrs. Palin will run in 2012.  The ghouls at MSNBC are on a 24/7 jihad against her, as is the media as a whole.  Her strength is a campaigner and a fund raiser.

[AsheDina]

I do not believe that Mrs. Palin will run in 2012.  The ghouls at MSNBC are on a 24/7 jihad against her, as is the media as a whole.  Her strength is a campaigner and a fund raiser.

If she is pushing for the GOP to be PURGED, then I am with her 100%, but until then, the FRAUD GOP can RIP for all I care.

[Saxon Marauder]

I will push for Sarah as a talk show host, NOT a president.  Matter of fact, I dont even think there will be another presidency. Im probably wrong, but the way things are going, I see G-d DESTROYING this place.

That thought's been on my mind a lot lately. Gd can't remain silent forever and, sooner or later, it'll be like the day when Noah sealed himself up inside of the ark.

[AsheDina]

I will push for Sarah as a talk show host, NOT a president.  Matter of fact, I dont even think there will be another presidency. Im probably wrong, but the way things are going, I see G-d DESTROYING this place.

That thought's been on my mind a lot lately. Gd can't remain silent forever and, sooner or later, it'll be like the day when Noah sealed himself up inside of the ark.

Saxon, as much as I have loved my country, I agree, sadly.

[Saxon Marauder]

Saxon, as much as I have loved my country, I agree, sadly.

The U.S. was a great country, the greatest ever, but like all good things it had to come to an end. Gd will have his way; something better will come along when Moshiach appears.

[HiWarp]

It's not just about government sanctioned religion, though. It's about keeping the two establishments separate, so that government does not interfere with religious practice, and religion does not interfere with the practices of the government.

Regarding same-sex marriage, here are some benefits currently being denied:

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

It's not just that, though. How would you feel if you were told that, by law, you could not marry the person whom you love? So much garbage comes from the right on this issue, especially talking about "preserving family values". Why is it, then, that so many proponents of this preservation are seemingly content to destroy their own marriages and take their families for granted? Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Again I ask, what difference does it make?  How does the display of a religious item in a public building that was built in 1900 and has been there for over 100 years interfere with the practice of government?

As for your same-sex marriage argument, you began by speaking of rights and freedoms but you list nothing more than benefits. The government can pass or revoke any law it wants affording someone benefits or taking them away. It can't do than with a person's freedom or rights.

But you evade my original question.  You have made this a debate on the merits of separation of church & state and same-sex marriage. Where are all the other individual liberties that liberals fight for?

The displaying of religious items does not directly interfere with any actions, but it goes against the principle of SOC&S.

That is indeed a list of benefits...that married couples have a right to. Same sex couples are denied the right to those benefits.

I thought I answered your original question, but how about the individual libery to express oneself? The concept of freedom from excessive security?

Actually I asked you to list all the freedoms that liberals fight for and you have persisted in talking about separation of church and state, and same-sex marriage, neither of which are guaranteed in the Constitution. Additionally, you call a list of benefits, that have been legislated by the state, rights.

Also, you did not explain to me how the modern day liberal is differentiated from the statist.

[Saxon Marauder]

Given that buggery and sodomy were outlawed in England in the 16th century, I doubt that the Founding Fathers had same-sex "marriage" on their minds when they drafted the U.S. Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act

[RationalMinority]

It's not just about government sanctioned religion, though. It's about keeping the two establishments separate, so that government does not interfere with religious practice, and religion does not interfere with the practices of the government.

Regarding same-sex marriage, here are some benefits currently being denied:

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

It's not just that, though. How would you feel if you were told that, by law, you could not marry the person whom you love? So much garbage comes from the right on this issue, especially talking about "preserving family values". Why is it, then, that so many proponents of this preservation are seemingly content to destroy their own marriages and take their families for granted? Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Again I ask, what difference does it make?  How does the display of a religious item in a public building that was built in 1900 and has been there for over 100 years interfere with the practice of government?

As for your same-sex marriage argument, you began by speaking of rights and freedoms but you list nothing more than benefits. The government can pass or revoke any law it wants affording someone benefits or taking them away. It can't do than with a person's freedom or rights.

But you evade my original question.  You have made this a debate on the merits of separation of church & state and same-sex marriage. Where are all the other individual liberties that liberals fight for?

The displaying of religious items does not directly interfere with any actions, but it goes against the principle of SOC&S.

That is indeed a list of benefits...that married couples have a right to. Same sex couples are denied the right to those benefits.

I thought I answered your original question, but how about the individual libery to express oneself? The concept of freedom from excessive security?

Actually I asked you to list all the freedoms that liberals fight for and you have persisted in talking about separation of church and state, and same-sex marriage, neither of which are guaranteed in the Constitution. Additionally, you call a list of benefits, that have been legislated by the state, rights.

Also, you did not explain to me how the modern day liberal is differentiated from the statist.

Those are two large issues, and you have been willing to harp on them just as much as I have. Furthermore, just because you don't think them important does not make them issues that should be simply written off. And how would you suggest I go about listing all of the freedoms that liberals fight for? I talked on major subjects about which I know; I don't presume to have every cause committed to memory. I will concede the point that a large group of the most recognized liberals nowadays seem to be open to the government being more in control of certain aspects, and I do disagree with that. I cannot honestly defend 'all liberals'. Upon looking into statism, I see where you were coming from. The ways in which I am a liberal do not fully align with those groups.

On the same sex marriage issue: whether they are benefits or rights, they are readily given to one group of people, and denied to another. If we are going to be a nation that promotes equality, we must all first be equals.

[AsheDina]

RationalMinority-  And how would you suggest I go about listing all of the freedoms that liberals fight for?



----
RM, that was in the PAST, like the 1960's, they are SICK now- the ONLY people that are fighting for OUR rights are the Tea Party protesters, and the right wing. Liberals are fascists and want total CONTROL.

Why don't you GO BACK and READ everything I put up here, I 100% GUARANTEE that everything I posted WILL come to pass, it usually always does, UNFORTUNATELY.

[Americanhero1]

I'm not backing her anymore

[RationalMinority]

Why don't you GO BACK and READ everything I put up here, I 100% GUARANTEE that everything I posted WILL come to pass, it usually always does, UNFORTUNATELY.

What are you referring to? What will come to pass?

[AsheDina]

Why don't you GO BACK and READ everything I put up here, I 100% GUARANTEE that everything I posted WILL come to pass, it usually always does, UNFORTUNATELY.

What are you referring to? What will come to pass?

If you look at things the way they are going, and look at my posts, we ARE going to come under a terrible dictatorship. I am not a 'soothe-sayer' etc.. but watching the USA turn over to evil, its just a matter of time, before USA gives over to dictatorship. Its happening now- the govt. owns EVERYTHING that is VITAL; car cos., banks, taking over healthcare. This is Communist Russia and Germany here in USA.