• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

GOP calls for broader gun rights, unlimited clips

cekim said:
"Marriage" is a religious term. It is one shared by multiple religions, but government has nothing to say about the issue any more than they should have anything to say about what Chrismas or Hanukkah or Ramadan mean.

The problem was getting government involved in this arrangement at all.

So, people should stop reaching down each others pants and demanding they cough the right way and start demanding that government get out of the business of giving a !@#$ing !@#$ what people call their union, when it starts and when it stops.
Click to expand...

This.

I can't believe this thread is still open.
 
FreeWillie said:
Because this has been a part of our heritage for centuries. For centuries marriage has been between a man and a woman. Now we have a very vocal 1.2% of the population that wants to change that definition. Why? Do you feel they are right and the definition should be changed after centuries? I'm sorry they sound like special little cupcakes that are stomping their foot to get the "toy" that they want. They are acting like children. They want the Adult to bend to their whims. It's OK to say NO to children. This is one of those cases where the child needs to be told NO! You don't get the "toy". Learn to live with it.

Again, I will reiterate. I fully support CIVIL UNIONS that CARRY ALL THE RIGHTS OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. I always have and always will. But it will never be marriage to me.

If you don't like my position, don't worry I'll be dead in a few years and it won't matter anymore.
Click to expand...

For centuries marriage has been about a man owning a woman (sometimes 'women') and sometimes little girls. Sometimes it was about love but more often it was for power and wealth. Heck, in some middle eastern countries it's okay to beat your wives or to mutilate them if they talk back. Heck other religions say it's okay to cheat on your wives. There is nothing sacred to this institution. The definition 'has' changed for centuries with the shift of social norms. The current US ideal of marriage is completely modern. It's manufactured by a small minority of religions and Madison Avenue ad men.

Homosexuals aren't throwing a temper tantrum. The very idea that you think they are acting as 'children' is degrading. I can guess with reasonable certainty that you know no gay couple. All they want is to not get ****ed over by the man. I thought gun owners could understand that. Apparently not and that's why we're not winning the good fight. Do you really think the gay community would ever come out and be vocal in support of our rights being trampled on in our 'adult life choices' (firearms) if we can't respect them enough to give them the freedom to do theirs? There's a significant portion of gays who are conservatives and pro gun. Ever wonder why gays own so many successful business and real-estate properties?

I know a lesbian vet (disabled at that). Explain to her why her sacrifice wasn't good enough. That, 'sorry, you can only have a civil union" its like the same thing as marriage but you can't call it that. She has more right to get married than most any schmuck walking down the street.
 
Son of Sasquatch said:
For centuries marriage has been about a man owning a woman (sometimes 'women') and sometimes little girls. Sometimes it was about love but more often it was for power and wealth. Heck, in some middle eastern countries it's okay to beat your wives or to mutilate them if they talk back. Heck other religions say it's okay to cheat on your wives. There is nothing sacred to this institution. The definition 'has' changed for centuries with the shift of social norms. The current US ideal of marriage is completely modern. It's manufactured by a small minority of religions and Madison Avenue ad men.

Homosexuals aren't throwing a temper tantrum. The very idea that you think they are acting as 'children' is degrading. I can guess with reasonable certainty that you know no gay couple. All they want is to not get ****ed over by the man. I thought gun owners could understand that. Apparently not and that's why we're not winning the good fight. Do you really think the gay community would ever come out and be vocal in support of our rights being trampled on in our 'adult life choices' (firearms) if we can't respect them enough to give them the freedom to do theirs? There's a significant portion of gays who are conservatives and pro gun. Ever wonder why gays own so many successful business and real-estate properties?

I know a lesbian vet (disabled at that). Explain to her why her sacrifice wasn't good enough. That, 'sorry, you can only have a civil union" its like the same thing as marriage but you can't call it that. She has more right to get married than most any schmuck walking down the street.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on most of your points, except that EVERY gay/lesbian that I have ever met/known has been completely anti-gun, so whether we support them and their way of life (or not) will likely not have any bearing on support for our 2A rights. As to your other question about why they seem to own so many businesses and real estate, that has more to do with their "internal support system". This is the same type of community support structure that immigrant communities have to help their people get a leg up financially. In "our world" for the most part, it is every man for himself, but in cultures such as Jewish people, Chinese, Russian, etc. they tend to help and support their cultures through nepotism. The gay community operates on similar principles.
 
Dench said:
Not in every state.
Click to expand...

It depends on if you view marriage as a right or not.

If the argument is that "these people are getting ****ed by the government because they can't get married" then by logical extension, we need to extend those perceived "benefits" out to single people too. Unmarried people are also discriminated against by the government in form of taxation and a different set of rules for people who are married and have kids. Fedgov attitude is: "Got a spouse and kids? Don't make a lot? Here you go, cash machine! "Got no spouse and no kids? **** you, we want your money." "

Another argument why getting the government out of the marriage business entirely is a good idea. Kills like 4 different cancerous birds with one stone.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
It depends on if you view marriage as a right or not.

If the argument is that "these people are getting ****ed by the government because they can't get married" then by logical extension, we need to extend those perceived "benefits" out to single people too. Unmarried people are also discriminated against by the government in form of taxation and a different set of rules for people who are married and have kids. Fedgov attitude is: "Got a spouse and kids? Don't make a lot? Here you go, cash machine! "Got no spouse and no kids? **** you, we want your money." "

Another argument why getting the government out of the marriage business entirely is a good idea. Kills like 4 different cancerous birds with one stone.

-Mike
Click to expand...

I had a friend who used to say there should be a tax PENALTY (extra tax) for having kids, not a REWARD (tax break). They put more strain on the system (fire, police, roads, schools). I think he was pretty liberal, actually. It makes more and more sense every day.
 
drgrant said:
It depends on if you view marriage as a right or not.

If the argument is that "these people are getting ****ed by the government because they can't get married" then by logical extension, we need to extend those perceived "benefits" out to single people too. Unmarried people are also discriminated against by the government in form of taxation and a different set of rules for people who are married and have kids. Fedgov attitude is: "Got a spouse and kids? Don't make a lot? Here you go, cash machine! "Got no spouse and no kids? **** you, we want your money." "

Another argument why getting the government out of the marriage business entirely is a good idea. Kills like 4 different cancerous birds with one stone.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head. +1
 
Terminator03 said:
I agree with you on most of your points, except that EVERY gay/lesbian that I have ever met/known has been completely anti-gun, so whether we support them and their way of life (or not) will likely not have any bearing on support for our 2A rights. As to your other question about why they seem to own so many businesses and real estate, that has more to do with their "internal support system". This is the same type of community support structure that immigrant communities have to help their people get a leg up financially. In "our world" for the most part, it is every man for himself, but in cultures such as Jewish people, Chinese, Russian, etc. they tend to help and support their cultures through nepotism. The gay community operates on similar principles.
Click to expand...

Well I know multiple pro-gun gays and lesbians. I've also turned on a few to the concept and idea because I'm not a traditional 'gun owner' stereotype. Though most of them won't get active in the sport because of the NRA's blind support for the GOP and the 'crusty old white guys' that hang around the clubs. They may not be Republicans but they understand the value in gun ownership and the heritage. A lot of them are pro-hunting too as they see it as a great wildlife control.

I know a few conservative shop owners who are gay/lesbian. A couple log cabin republicans too.
 
Coyote33 said:
I had a friend who used to say there should be a tax PENALTY (extra tax) for having kids, not a REWARD (tax break). They put more strain on the system (fire, police, roads, schools). I think he was pretty liberal, actually. It makes more and more sense every day.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would go that far, but I don't think the government should be incentivizing childbirth, it's just wrong on its face. Worse yet, people who produce children who are unlikely to be producers are incentivized for reproduction. The gov used to promote these tax breaks because back when like only 5% of all families were completely ****ed up, it increased the revenue base, but that isn't the score anymore and hasn't been for the past 20 years or so.

-Mike
 

Similar threads

Gun rights enthusiasts as Extremists
Replies
2
Views
334
StevieP
StevieP
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
143
oldguy68
oldguy68
All Eyes on Congress As Veterans’ Gun Rights Up For Grabs
Replies
0
Views
134
Reptile
Reptile
Not So Fast: GOA Says Sen. John Cornyn’s Gun Control Support Makes Him Unfit for GOP Leadership
Replies
4
Views
186
1sern
1
Washington Transfers Seized Firearms to Ukraine as House GOP Continues Opposition to More Funding
Replies
7
Views
135
Animal357
A
Back
Top Bottom