Civil Unions Approved In Colorado Denver Post

Blazer Bob wrote:

MsMAM wrote: [
Make sense?

And you and I can't really disagree. We have the same values - we just envision different ways to implement them. That is all

Makes sense. So the question is would you rather live in, a world where sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited (why is this even a government issue) but your business has a lead ball of regulation around its neck that dictates what you are entitled too, or a government that wants to be in your bedroom but does not tax and regulate you to death.

The point is - and this hard for you to understand as you are straight - but they ARE regulating *my* bedroom. THEY make it a government issue. And I don't find two consenting adults

sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited

If they would get out of my bedroom - they would be FOR it THAT would be less government in *my* life

archer wrote:

MsMAM wrote:

archer wrote: No insult intended to Bob.......only his assumption that the Tea Party would appeal to someone who sees social issues as important to the future of this country as economic issues are. Once the Tea Party embraced the far right wing social agenda, I think a lot of moderate Republicans had to make a choice.....cater to the Tea Party and abandon their moderate views....or become independents or even Democrats (horrors). I think the GOP lost a lot of good people, candidates, and voters by allowing the Tea Party tail to wag the Republican dog.

Oh - I didn't think you were trying to insult Bob. And it is certainly not my place to defend him. I was just trying to make a point that sometimes folks get blinded by what they think or see on TV - VS what others thing are real is all. The Tea party is not gay friendly for sure, but Bob is

I had a similar discussion with Fred about my not supporting a candidate because of their stand on a woman's right to choose....it isn't about what a candidates personal belief is, we are all entitled to our personal beliefs, but I will base my support for a candidate on what I think they will do with those beliefs. I just cannot support those who wish to impose their personal religious or "moral" beliefs on the nation as a whole, or on a state. It's a deal breaker for me. Same with many other social issues.....

Now I'm confused. If providing for the individual welfare of the less fortunate at public expense isn't an imposition of "moral beliefs" on the Union as a whole, would you please tell me what else it might be?

I agree Bob that you know more about the Tea Party than I do.......so how did I judge them and find them wanting? First by the company they keep.......then by the statements they make.......by their actions both in congress and in the communities. Sure there are many fiscal issues that they hold that I agree with.......there are many Republicans that have run over the years that I admired, but I take a candidate, a movement, in the totality..... I see good and bad in both parties, I see things I admire and like about some candidates from both parties.....but there are the deal breakers for me....and I will not compromise my values on those candidates who seek to undo everything I worked for all my adult life.......I may no longer be an activist, I retired that part of my life years ago, but I never retired my passion for equality in all phases of life for women, minorities, sexual orientation (who the hell ever came up with that description?) and children's rights.

PrintSmith wrote: Now I'm confused. If providing for the individual welfare of the less fortunate at public expense isn't an imposition of "moral beliefs" on the Union as a whole, would you please tell me what else it might be?

Hey, you - drop back and punt, my friend. I don't understand this I am blond.

archer wrote: I may no longer be an activist, I retired that part of my life years ago, but I never retired my passion for equality in all phases of life for women, minorities, sexual orientation (who the hell ever came up with that description?) and children's rights.

Amen, sister.

Blazer Bob wrote:

MsMAM wrote: [
Make sense?

And you and I can't really disagree. We have the same values - we just envision different ways to implement them. That is all

Makes sense. So the question is would you rather live in, a world where sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited (why is this even a government issue) but your business has a lead ball of regulation around its neck that dictates what you are entitled too, or a government that wants to be in your bedroom but does not tax and regulate you to death.


edit. I see the gov that wants to be in the bedroom holding its breath and terning blue with frustration.

The goal is to accomplish both a free economy AND free citizens. Until the Tea Party boots out the religious extremists and racists ( yes, they are there. I have talked to them) they will not be able to build any kind of an effective coalition. If they take a deep breath and do it I believe they would have members flocking to them from all political ideologies. It is not the job of government to dictate how we live our lives, or with whom.

chickaree wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

MsMAM wrote: [
Make sense?

And you and I can't really disagree. We have the same values - we just envision different ways to implement them. That is all

Makes sense. So the question is would you rather live in, a world where sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited (why is this even a government issue) but your business has a lead ball of regulation around its neck that dictates what you are entitled too, or a government that wants to be in your bedroom but does not tax and regulate you to death.


edit. I see the gov that wants to be in the bedroom holding its breath and terning blue with frustration.

The goal is to accomplish both a free economy AND free citizens. Until the Tea Party boots out the religious extremists and racists ( yes, they are there. I have talked to them) they will not be able to build any kind of an effective coalition. If they take a deep breath and do it I believe they would have members flocking to them from all political ideologies. It is not the job of government to dictate how we live our lives, or with whom.

Every group has extremists do they not? There's extreme environmentalists who use terrorist tactics, OWS protesters who burn buildings and incite violence, Democrats who are socialists and communist sypathizers etc. But those extremists shouldn't define the movement or the people who support it.

Sorry to go off topic.

I've been to four Tea Party meeting with friends who assured me that their group was different. They weren't. I think we are deaf to crazy when it comes out of the mouth of someone we otherwise agree with. Of course the left has it's lunatic fringe as well. It is their job to police them. As it stands, we are both letting our wings pull us further and further apart rather than coming together. That means everyone will have to swallow stuff that tastes bad to them. Just like in a marriage, if one party achieves complete victory, the marriage is destroyed. It's either win/win or lose/lose.

chickaree wrote: I've been to four Tea Party meeting with friends who assured me that their group was different. They weren't. I think we are deaf to crazy when it comes out of the mouth of someone we otherwise agree with. Of course the left has it's lunatic fringe as well. It is their job to police them. As it stands, we are both letting our wings pull us further and further apart rather than coming together. That means everyone will have to swallow stuff that tastes bad to them. Just like in a marriage, if one party achieves complete victory, the marriage is destroyed. It's either win/win or lose/lose.

I suppose it just depends on the area where you go to a meeting and who THOSE people are. When the Tea Party was first concieved, the media zoomed in on the very small percentage of people with racist signs and then they ran with the racist narrative (and morons like Janeane garafanlo spewed the same false bs).

I've never been to a single meeting or rally but I believe in the ideology of stopping the expanse of government and putting more money in the hands of the people who fund the government. I am not a racist, I have gay friends, I help my neighbors... but I can't do anything about people who happen to be worthless bigotted slime who also happen to share some of the same ideology. There's also churches full of racists with racist reverends/pastors/ preachers but people who go to good churches shouldn't be lumped together with them either.

MsMAM wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

MsMAM wrote: [
Make sense?

And you and I can't really disagree. We have the same values - we just envision different ways to implement them. That is all

Makes sense. So the question is would you rather live in, a world where sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited (why is this even a government issue) but your business has a lead ball of regulation around its neck that dictates what you are entitled too, or a government that wants to be in your bedroom but does not tax and regulate you to death.

The point is - and this hard for you to understand as you are straight - but they ARE regulating *my* bedroom. THEY make it a government issue. And I don't find two consenting adults

sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited

If they would get out of my bedroom - they would be FOR it THAT would be less government in *my* life

I hear this "get out of my bedroom" but what does that really mean anymore? Are they still arresting people for sodomy crimes?

Do same sex couples who hold hands in public get arrested in the US anymore?
And while I support homosexual marriage and civil unions, I don't realy think denying this puts the goverment in your bedroom.

My brother is homosexual and was married legally in MA, but chooses to live and have his career in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions or marriage. I have asked him why he doesn't live in a state with more rights for gays and he says he prefers the people in his current Red State over those in Boston. And he & his spouse know they are married in their eyes so the legal stuff doesn't really bother him.

FredHayek wrote:

MsMAM wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

MsMAM wrote: [
Make sense?

And you and I can't really disagree. We have the same values - we just envision different ways to implement them. That is all

Makes sense. So the question is would you rather live in, a world where sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited (why is this even a government issue) but your business has a lead ball of regulation around its neck that dictates what you are entitled too, or a government that wants to be in your bedroom but does not tax and regulate you to death.

The point is - and this hard for you to understand as you are straight - but they ARE regulating *my* bedroom. THEY make it a government issue. And I don't find two consenting adults

sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited

If they would get out of my bedroom - they would be FOR it THAT would be less government in *my* life

I hear this "get out of my bedroom" but what does that really mean anymore? Are they still arresting people for sodomy crimes?

Do same sex couples who hold hands in public get arrested in the US anymore?
And while I support homosexual marriage and civil unions, I don't realy think denying this puts the goverment in your bedroom.

My brother is homosexual and was married legally in MA, but chooses to live and have his career in a state that doesn't recognize civil unions or marriage. I have asked him why he doesn't live in a state with more rights for gays and he says he prefers the people in his current Red State over those in Boston. And he & his spouse know they are married in their eyes so the legal stuff doesn't really bother him.

Well, good for him. Does it not bother him that he cannot legally go into, say, the ICU if something would happen? Or does it not bother him that his partner's family have more legal rights to his partner than he does? It is fine if *he* feels that way - I just happen to not think that it is not fair.