Deleted

Just remember, we have several liberal memebers on the forum.

This has been the stupidest... I'll repeat, STUPIDEST ARGUMENT.

Anyone that thinks this way is stupid. I know that is against forum rules to bash a person, but anyone that thinks this is even possibly the resulting progression of allowing gays to marry IS STUPID.

It would be conservatives that actually have horses. Liberals typically live in the city far away from horses. Maybe it's that the person thinks that marrying a horse (or dog or cat or cow etc) is exactly what they themselves would like to do. We know that conservatives tend to be bigger sexual-deviants than the liberals. They just try to hide it and deny it.

Anyone thinking this way should immediately stop watching FOX NEWS, and turn in their human card. (and then marry their horse of course)

If anyone wants to be against gay-marriage, fine. You are free to think/believe anyway you want. By subscribing to the horse argument you are showing people you are stupid, and any other political stance you have will be affected by this. ie GUNS.

If anyone wants my moderator status over this... Take it.

Deleted

Deleted

Well, lets see, now.

If conservatism is a belief in the maintenance of the status quo ante, then let's remember that serious modern gun control dates back to the 1960s. A good "conservative" would support it.

Oh, you disagree? You want the older, pre-1960s status quo? Segregated schools, buses, lunch counters and water fountains and all?

The point is, some things are right and some are wrong, and the wrong needs to be changed, whether that wrong is old or new.

The governments has no business getting involved in religion, and that includes marriage. The government should get out entirely, but that's unlikely. If they're going to be in it, they have an obligation not to discriminate.

I am a forum administrator, and I think Chaindriven is wrong. I'm willing to wager that the site owner and many other moderators would agree.

By the way, Chain, your First Amendment rights don't exist here. This forum is a dictatorship, where the owner is fully within his rights to remove you or your speech for any or no reason.

That said, you're not in trouble, Chain. You're entitled to your views, and it is the policy here to allow people to be as wrong as they care to be, as long as they are moderately polite about it.

On the other hand, Pakrat, you're right, and you're also in violation of the rules. I'd recommend that you edit your post now, before the site owner sees it and takes action.

To be just a little mean: about the same place that the notion that liberals want to marry horses comes from, probably.

Or, to pick another one of my favorites: the notion, among some folks who call themselves conservatives, that men who choose to have sex with other men should be sent to prison, where, surely, they'll be cured of that nasty habit.

More generally: this is the one area where I try to be a bit less restrictive in the rules than others, but I really would appreciate it if folks would not try to explore what the boundaries are; historically, that's never worked out terribly well.

And more specifically . . . in Minnesota, the carry law wouldn't have passed -- either time -- without votes from some liberals in the lege, and, by and large, I'd much rather see not a lot of over-the-top liberal-bashing here.

I'm not going to, entirely because of your years of contributions to the Forum and the movement. But I'm unhappy that you're giving me the choice of cutting you that much slack or yanking your flags, and really, really would prefer that you not do it real often. Wouldn't bother me much if you never did it again.

That said, sure, you can attack the position he's taking. Please at least try to do it within the rules, rather then flagrantly violating them.

I'm not offended by your post or your beliefs.

Andrew, I appreciate the chance to edit my response. But, if I broke the rules, I will not take any special treatment. I can and will take a suspension, even if self-imposed.

Joel (posted while I was posting), My apologies to you. I'm sorry you were put in that position. See the statement to Andrew.

Maybe I've finally had it with the conservatives. For those of you that are new here, I am not a liberal.
Don't tap your foot in the restroom.

The "marry a horse" statement may or may not reflect stupidity, but perhaps it does perpetuate prejudice against gay people. Years ago interacial marriage was against the law, and I'd bet proposals to change that faced the same arguements.

In any event, most or all of the conservatives I know would object to a "marry a horse" analogy, including the ones who are opposed to the concept of the government sanctioning gay marriage.

This particular post by Packrat may not meet his usual high standard of elequence, but I can understand his not wanting to just let it go by without comment.

But we're all supposed to be friends having fun exchanging ideas, so we should try to treat each other with respect.

Chaindriven, I do want to apologize to you. I'm sorry that you have had a poor forum experience. I have been annoyed with others being mean to new members of this forum, then I happen to go and do it too. But, please understand that was not a factor in my posting.

Does this mean that Pakrat and Chaindriven are going to kiss and make up?

We will have to wait and see until after the break...

..or get married?