RCMP

Yesterday, as I was calmly minding my own business, what should I read, but this! http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

I know it would be better if I read it aloud to you since I’ve got boobs and all that junk in my trunk, but the reality is that you must read it………………..while you fantasize upon me.

Here is my comment: Let me say outright that I personally agree with legalized civil unions….and I don’t have issues with these polyamorous couples/partners doing the same. If the state is to singularly reward the heterosexual couple, it should not be allowed to discriminate. Now then, if a society deems a marriage between a man and a woman, I find that that is logical, and it would be infringing upon one’s 1st Amendment rights to force a church to marry a homosexual couple/group. Personally, I feel that if you devolve the morals of a society, you lose.

Thoughts?

39 thoughts on “RCMP

  1. I believe the Federal Government should stick to it’s constitutional mandate period, and let the states cope with issues closer to the American citizen. Beyond that, everyone should mind their own damn business, and quit running around like a poor little victim.

    Victims, aren’t we all?

    • Indeed…….which is I believe the state of CA f’d up totally 100%. By overturning the majority’s opinion, we seem to be emulating our dear leader. Libs are worse at numbers than I…….and that fact should scare the hello out of you, baby.

  2. Completely shut down the IRS and then nobody can get tax benefits that other Americans can’t qualify for and get.
    Completely shut down Social Security and then nobody can get retirement benefits (?) that other Americans can’t qualify for and get.
    Completely shut down 99% of the federal govt and then nobody can get freebies (politicians & their pals) that other Americans can’t get.

    • But wait a second. I’m pretty sure the govt. just hired 16K employees to administer the ACA…..not to mention, the navigators. Can’t wait to see the inflated numbers. (I could do a “priceless” post on that.)

      Social Security has been tapped by the greedy mongrels for a long time. I do truly wonder if folks would know anything about retirement investing as SS seems to have become the crutch on which people solely rely.

      Careful, Dusty, B. will accuse you of being an anarchist……..or a Libertarian.

      • If the govt only taxed us enough to take care of the really necessary issues, it would save all us TAXPAYERS a hell of a lot. Instead we get to pay for so much BS so the pols can “repay” their buddies for the campaign contributions that it makes it hard to pay for all the other things we would love to have or donate to.
        If I had been allowed to take the amount I paid to SS and invest it as I have the rest of my retirement income, it would be several times as much as the govt is returning to me monthly. My SS payments are are only about 1/4 of what I have budgeted to take care of my retirement expenses, and if all goes well, I will still be able to pass along to my son at least 50 times the total I will get from SS.

  3. Marriage is consistent with human nature.

    Human nature is male and female.

    All homosexuals are either male or female.

    As a result it is obvious that gay marriage is a denial of human nature.

    Since all our basic rights are also consistent with our human nature, gay marriage is also a denial of basic human rights.

    It is therefore the duty of all freedom loving people, including homosexuals, to repudiate gay marriage.

      • Kells,

        Marriage is not a business, it the foundation of civil society from which every human being emerges.

        It is the purpose of government to foster and encourage virtue in the People.

        Therefore, it is the job of government to support traditional marriage.

        • But by allowing govt. to wield and deal benefits to certain Americans is not fair. I tell you, I married young and divorced. According to the Bible that constitutes me as an adulterer. What would happen if our govt. did not allow adulterers to remarry? I just feel that marriage should be in the church, and govt. should not have a say.

          • Kells,

            Giving tax breaks to married people encourages family life.

            There is nothing wrong with letting married couples keep their own money so that they can use it to take care of their families.

            The Constitution is written to foster the common good.

            There is no greater common good than the family.

            • But there are so many families! Why reward one and not the other? I tell you, in FL they used to allow gays to only be foster parents. Now they let them adopt. If a child wants and need love, and is getting it; why should the govt. benefit the heterosexual couple rather than the homosexual?

              • Kells,

                Yes, there are many types of families and they all have the advantage of tax breaks.

                But marriage is between a man and a woman because that heterosexual union is based on human nature.

                Marriage between a man and a woman is therefore virtuous (it encourages the fulfillment of human nature) and should be encouraged by government.

                Since homosexuality is an obvious deviation from human nature it the notion of gay marriage is ridiculous.

                Asking the government to encourage what is ridiculous can only lead to disaster.

                  • Kells,

                    Love has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

                    If my penis fell in love with a hole in your back fence would you object to my marriage with the hole and our passionate conjugal activities?

                    • Kells,

                      Your argument against my love for the hole in your fence is based on human nature.

                      That is my exact argument against gay marriage, that it contradicts human nature.

                      Why can you cite human nature as the basis for your argument but I can’t?

                      I’ll tell you why.

                      It’s because your arguments are based on your personal bias and not on first principles.

                      That means you are an Obama Democrat because that’s the way they form their political philosophy too.

                    • Wrong! I am not an Obamacrat. As I stated previously, if the govt. is to dole out tax breaks or other such rewards to heters; it should do the same with homos. I’m not saying they should marry……but I don’t see a problem with a civil union where they are awarded the same rights. That is what I am saying.

                    • Kells,

                      Your ideas are based on your personal opinion which is powered by your personal bias.

                      You used an argument for yourself (human nature) yet did not accept the same argument when I used it.

                      That means your thought process is Progressive and that you are part of the problem.

                      Having only personal opinion upon which to base your political philosophy leads to a government where justice is defined as being to the advantage of the strong (I’m referring to the political philosophy espoused by Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic).

                      That’s because only the strong have the power to give superior value to their opinions.

                      That is the essence of tyranny and oppression.

                    • Your argument was silly. An object is not a living, breathing and loving thing. No, I do not love Obama. And I don’t believe in gay marriage. However…..I do believe in civil unions! I tell you, there are two boys who have been together for over 30 years. I’m terribly fond of them. They are not “married”, but they are very much in love with one another. While this idea may gross you out; fact is, love is love. And no, I won’t be trying to marry a fence post or a juvenile as it seems radical Muslims take that role.

                    • Kells,

                      Who are you to judge my love?

                      You’re a bigot and a hole-in-the-fense-aphobe.

                      You argue that marriage should be based on love, but only love that you approve of.

                      Who appointed you the boss of me and my beloved hole in the fence?

                    • This is a very silly argument, Sam. Don’t get me wrong, I love Mr.T with all my heart and soul (my turtle) and my sweet Hammy (my hamster) is dying. While this brings me to tears, I am not so dumb as to say I should marry silly Happy (that’s one of my dogs.) An animal and a minor are the same as a fence post, baby.

          • I agree…………………….. I am a married man and will surely die before my wife does, so I am actually happy that she will benefit (SS) because she outlives me. However, I wish the govt had never gotten into the business of marriage, retirement, welfare or at least 95% of the BS they have decided they needed to be in control of.As I have said here several times, “if the govt didn’t take such a bunch of money from me and then use a small dab of it to help the needy, I could give far more than I do now to those that really need and deserve it.”

          • Kells: One of the endearing aspects of this blog is that some of our esteemed colleagues feel free to exercise their apparent clairvoyant talents to explain what the rest of us are thinking and to provide convenient labels about the genesis of our views and beliefs. This, of course, makes it easier to marginalize the substance of any statement, such as calling your statements on marriage, “Progressive” while supplying no facts or rational argument in support of that misapplied indictment.

            On the substance of your argument, my view is that civil union is a concern of the state, while marriage is most appropriately a religious sacrament. The specific religion is not particularly germane, since every religion I have studied makes some provision for recognition of heterosexual marriage. Some religious traditions, although very few, now make provision for recognition of same-sex marriages, but there is no historical support for those changes in doctrine. Government’s interests in civil unions derives from two issues. First, for those who do not practice a religious faith of any kind, or whose religious tradition will not recognize his or her desire to wed due to a violation of that religion’s marital requirements, the government typically provides civil unions as a means of recognizing that a civil union exists that conveys a variety of benefits that singles who co-habit do not typically enjoy. Second, religiously consecrated marriages are also recognized by the state as conveying the same benefits as civil unions, from the state’s perspective. Hence, those who obtain a religiously sanctioned marriage typically enjoy all the social and legal benefits of civil unions, while those who obtain civil unions enjoy the benefits of civil and legal recognition, but are not “married,” since marriage is by definition a religiously related event and in the US the government has no role in religious practices or doctrine!!! CDE

            • Charles,

              All my claims are backed up by argumentation.

              Bias is blinding and that is but one reason it is so deadly.

              I urge all you Progressives to get with our Western Heritage which was developed over 2500 years in order to attenuate the inherent bias in our thinking.

              • I found Charles reply to be very coherhent. I tell you, I will never consisidre myself a progressive; that’s what amendments are for, after, all! Do you know, sweet Sam, that sweet Charles also studied theology? Well, I did as well! Only, it was in church and not in school. Twere it not for the Lutherans; y’all’s religion wouldn’t exist. Jes saying…….yeah, I’ll slap my Lutheran ass in someone’s face (Not yours.)

              • Silence: I’ve read your posts and they do not support your declarative statements. I’m not certain what your “bias” statement refers to, so you’ll need to explain what you mean if you have any interest i engaging on that point.

                Your third statement actually made me howl with laughter!!! You provided the perfect illustration of my earlier point to kells about people who find it helpful to label others who they neither know nor understand. In doing so you provided evidence of your own ignorance of every point you have attempted to make. Let’s take a short walk through your hubris, shall we???

                Had you bother to review any of my prior posts or comments, you would have been aware that I am a movement libertarian, and that I possess detailed knowledge of the Progressive Movement in America, and its European and Asian variants, including Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Socialism and the other smaller variations. You do not appear to understand either the history or core beliefs of Progressives, or you could not have concluded from my remarks concerning the critical differences between Civil Unions and marriages as an indication that I hold any “Progressive” views on anything!!!

                On this site we require that statements be supported by facts and/or rational argument. Please explain how a statement describing the differences between civil unions and religiously sanctioned marriages is somehow evidence of Progressive thinking??? I can usually make both sides of any argument, even though I may think one is clearly correct. I have no idea what logic you could have possibly employed to arrive at the notion that my explanation somehow was sprung from Progressive beliefs in any form.

                Progressives believe in the centrality of the collective over the rights and freedoms of the individual. They see a powerful central government and the judgments of a small group of elites as the decision-makers for every aspect of the lives of the individuals under their control. They enforce their power by using coercive force against those who presume to express beliefs or ideas that conflict with the doctrines laid down by the elites, who may be called the nomenklatura (Russia), the Central Committee (China), the Federal bureaucracy (US) or the nobility or aristocracy (most of Europe until the 19th century). Progressives and Collectivists generally tend toward authoritarian rule after they have consolidated their power and often develop a cult of personality around a supreme leader who is often revered in a quasi religious fashion. Examples include Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, FDR and Obama in the US today. Progressives reject individual freedom, free markets, private property and most of the Constitutionally guarantied rights that American citizens have enjoyed for over 200-years. I’m not a Progressive.

                Libertarians believe in individual freedom, free markets, limited government and the protection of private property. We also embrace the non-aggression axiom, which is that the use of violence and coercion should not occur unless there is a threat to the person or the freedoms on the citizen being threatened. We accept the need for a strong military, but reject military adventurism for the sake of territorial expansion or in support of commercial interests of private citizens. We are all about freedom of individual choice, within the context of no citizen or the government having the right to impinge on the freedoms of another American citizen. I have been a libertarian for my entire adult life, and I categorically reject every essential doctrine of American Progressivism and Collectivism generally. Hopefully you can see why I found your labeling of a non-political comment as having anything to do with Progressive thinking. I am interested in your response. CDE

    • Not only does he have a bit of the blarney; he’s a Kelly. I’ll not lie that we love a good prank….amd we’re pretyy well off in the singin dept.. too!

      I enjoyed that. Thanks.

      • Thanks……But this WASN’T a prank…..this was loving and fun and serious all at the same time.

        In other words a Union of man and woman in marriage…..the performance in all its aspects was reflective and respectful of Marriage….. Playful and soulful in equal measure.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s