Gay marriage is now legal in the US

Almost 90% of abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. During this time there is no scientific doubt that the developing fetus is incapable of any form of conscious awareness. So, opposing abortion this early in the development cycle is like getting upset over some sperm spillage on the bed or, even better, getting upset with a woman for having a period instead of getting pregnant.

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

Is this acceptable?

Speaking from experience, future generations are wondering what took you so long.

Quote from: BiJane on July 01, 2015, 09:53:35 AM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on July 01, 2015, 09:46:40 AM

Stupid statement, since straights have been doing it for 25,000 years, but then, you're not that bright.

And look what just happened in the US, and around much of the world before then

What just happened is a bunch of morons who one, don't know constitutional law, and two, don't know the history of human society. And your definition of the world amounts to a few nations in Western Europe, and about three in Latin America. In most of the world, if homosexuality itself isn't a criminal act (and it still is in many jurisdictions), then marriage between them certainly isn't permitted. So, I don't think we have much to worry about. The fact that a few degraded states at the end of their useful existence are permitting the final destruction of their civilisation by allowing perversion to become the normal practice doesn't change the fundamental fact that homosexuality IS a mental disorder.

And so it was regarded until 1973, when the so-called "gay rights" movement forced the American Psychiatric Association to accept it as a so-called normal practice through blackmail and political pressure. Welcome to America, have a nice day. The same thing had been done with abortion. You're not free to choose to pray in public. You're not free to choose to celebrate the Judaeo-Christian heritage of the Republic in public. You're not free to own a gun without increasing difficulty. You're not free to make decisions on how to educate your children what with Common Core. But you are free to murder your baby.

Welcome to America, have a nice day.

Freedom of expression, except for those who dont agree with me. Pesky commies.
Keeo the goverment out of my bedroom! Privacy for the heterosexual, not the homosexual!
Goverment should not legislate on religion, but it should  benefit myne.
I need guns to defend myself from the goverment, unless Im a criminal. Thee goverment should then kill me.
This new educational reform is too progresist! Push it back and make a more  conservative one!

Etc. I really dont know why I argue with you. You think fascism is ok

First, queers. Next, plural marriage. Next, your cat. let me know, EJ, when your wedding to your Dog comes up, ok?

The jump from gay marriage, to polygamy, to bestiality, is quite a big one.
Polygamy is fine, as long as all parties consent.
Gay marriage is fine, as long as all parties consent.
Bestiality is not fine, because the animal is not as intelligent as a human, and is therefore unable to consent.

See the difference?

Same reason applies to marrying minors, they are not mature enough to knowledgeably consent.

CONKER, you are a fucktard, but we knew that already. HOMO SUPERIOR, your citation is fine, not that that makes it any better, since last I checked, about 98% of abortions were performed purely for the convenience of the mother. This is not a legitimate reason to take a life, no matter how early that life is taken.

Sperm, by themselves, do not ever become anything other than sperm. A 10 week old fetus, by itself, left to mature in a womb, will become a human baby. That warrants the proper protections of life, in many people's view.

Plural marriage in what form? Just more than one wife, or will it include more than one husband too? You realise, of course, that most societies have condemned the latter for reasons of difficulty in determining who the fathers are. Now, in modern America, that can be done, but what about the rest of the world?

CONKER, your definition of fascism is basically anything that you don't like, so you'll pardon me if I ignore the straw man.

John, I realise this is the internet, but you are simply psychotic. I recommend a good psychiatrist and some heavy-duty medications. Anybody who believes they can travel through time is dangerously schitzophrenic. Either that or you are having an awesome laugh at everyone's expense. Or the third option is that you are smoking some really good shit, in which case, Dude, share the wealth, Man!

So, EJ, when are you going to announce your marriage to your BBC Biker Fag man?

CONKER, you are a fucktard, but we knew that already. HOMO SUPERIOR, your citation is fine, not that that makes it any better, since last I checked, about 98% of abortions were performed purely for the convenience of the mother. This is not a legitimate reason to take a life, no matter how early that life is taken.

Sperm, by themselves, do not ever become anything other than sperm. A 10 week old fetus, by itself, left to mature in a womb, will become a human baby. That warrants the proper protections of life, in many people's view.

Plural marriage in what form? Just more than one wife, or will it include more than one husband too? You realise, of course, that most societies have condemned the latter for reasons of difficulty in determining who the fathers are. Now, in modern America, that can be done, but what about the rest of the world?

CONKER, your definition of fascism is basically anything that you don't like, so you'll pardon me if I ignore the straw man.

John, I realise this is the internet, but you are simply psychotic. I recommend a good psychiatrist and some heavy-duty medications. Anybody who believes they can travel through time is dangerously schitzophrenic. Either that or you are having an awesome laugh at everyone's expense. Or the third option is that you are smoking some really good shit, in which case, Dude, share the wealth, Man!

Actually, no, I dont use fascist as an insult. Its inmature, on my opinion. You said the Francoist regime was ok. Francoist Spain self defined itself as falanxist and fascist. Therefore, you think fascism is ok. Note that my opinions on fascism are irrelevant to this topic. You objectivelly said that. Dont try to deflect that.
On calling me a fucktard, which is one of the laziests insults avaliable on the english language (I know, if I make a portmanteau of Fucking and Retard, it will be more effective!), I can only say

"Look mom, I sure told the commie! I called him a Fucktard! DEUS VULT"

CONKER, you are a fucktard, but we knew that already. HOMO SUPERIOR, your citation is fine, not that that makes it any better, since last I checked, about 98% of abortions were performed purely for the convenience of the mother. This is not a legitimate reason to take a life, no matter how early that life is taken.

Sperm, by themselves, do not ever become anything other than sperm. A 10 week old fetus, by itself, left to mature in a womb, will become a human baby. That warrants the proper protections of life, in many people's view.

Plural marriage in what form? Just more than one wife, or will it include more than one husband too? You realise, of course, that most societies have condemned the latter for reasons of difficulty in determining who the fathers are. Now, in modern America, that can be done, but what about the rest of the world?

CONKER, your definition of fascism is basically anything that you don't like, so you'll pardon me if I ignore the straw man.

John, I realise this is the internet, but you are simply psychotic. I recommend a good psychiatrist and some heavy-duty medications. Anybody who believes they can travel through time is dangerously schitzophrenic. Either that or you are having an awesome laugh at everyone's expense. Or the third option is that you are smoking some really good shit, in which case, Dude, share the wealth, Man!

Yaakov, I think I understand your position on homosexuality.
You say it is a mental disorder.
This is somewhat true, but having a mental disorder does not make you any less of a human.
And as humans, gays deserve the same rights that we, the straight majority, take for granted.
The right to marry a romantic partner is, as you say, a hallowed part of any society.
Why should it be denied to our gay brethren?

Anti-gay people, like yourself, have the right to a voice. No one is denying you that.
But gay people also have a voice, why should we ignore it?
Gay people marrying won't make straight people not be able to get married.
Giving them rights is not denying you any.

Conker, you are an idiot. I never said that I supported Franco. I said he was better than the alternative. That doesn't make me an radical supporter of falangism. Not that I expect you to get that. So yes, you are setting up a straw man. But then, you are a fucktard, so...

You don't seem to get the "better of two evils" perspective. One can end up thinking that one side is better than another without being in favour of either. You aren't that bright, are you?

Yaakov, I think I understand your position on homosexuality.
You say it is a mental disorder.
This is somewhat true, but having a mental disorder does not make you any less of a human.
And as humans, gays deserve the same rights that we, the straight majority, take for granted.
The right to marry a romantic partner is, as you say, a hallowed part of any society.
Why should it be denied to our gay brethren?

Anti-gay people, like yourself, have the right to a voice. No one is denying you that.
But gay people also have a voice, why should we ignore it?
Gay people marrying won't make straight people not be able to get married.
Giving them rights is not denying you any.

Someone who is mentally ill should be a ward of the State until further notice, when they are capable of taking care of themselves. If a gay person can take care of himself, then fine. But he should not be rewarded for his anti-social behaviour.

Conker, you are an idiot. I never said that I supported Franco. I said he was better than the alternative. That doesn't make me an radical supporter of falangism. Not that I expect you to get that. So yes, you are setting up a straw man. But then, you are a fucktard, so...

You don't seem to get the "better of two evils" perspective. One can end up thinking that one side is better than another without being in favour of either. You aren't that bright, are you?

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on July 02, 2015, 04:28:46 AM

Yaakov, I think I understand your position on homosexuality.
You say it is a mental disorder.
This is somewhat true, but having a mental disorder does not make you any less of a human.
And as humans, gays deserve the same rights that we, the straight majority, take for granted.
The right to marry a romantic partner is, as you say, a hallowed part of any society.
Why should it be denied to our gay brethren?

Anti-gay people, like yourself, have the right to a voice. No one is denying you that.
But gay people also have a voice, why should we ignore it?
Gay people marrying won't make straight people not be able to get married.
Giving them rights is not denying you any.

Someone who is mentally ill should be a ward of the State until further notice, when they are capable of taking care of themselves. If a gay person can take care of himself, then fine. But he should not be rewarded for his anti-social behaviour.

Didn't you said that Franco was better than the democratic republic alternative? So you think Falanxism is better than Democracy. Again, if it's not true, it isnt because I am an idiot. I AM an idiot, but I still can quote and deduce perfectly fine. You said those things, man. Also, don't cry strawman when you said I consider fascism everything I disagree with, which is notoriously false.

That doesn't make me an radical supporter of falangism

I didn't said that in any moment. I simply said you supported it, that you thought it was ok. You said it.

One can end up thinking that one side is better than another without being in favour of either

That would be fine for me, if it wasn't that the civil war was a coup d'etat by fascists against a democratic republic. I mean, you can't really get any more assholish. And while I won't support any of the things either side did on the war, I will judge what they did after and before it. The II Republic wasn't perfect, of course. There was a lot of political trouble and protesting, which some times ended up bloody, just as in Berlin, London, Paris, or Moskova. However, it was a democracy, a legitimate goverment. The francoists were traitors that swore defending their land, and they ended up starting a war against the legitimate goverment, commiting a genocide, and outruling democracy.

Also, homosexuality is a mental disorder in the same sense that having grey, brown or blue eyes is a physical abnormality.

The Second Spanish Republic was essentially a shit-ton of Communists and other Left-wing assholes, that, left to their own devices, would have wound up a People's Republic. The only difference between them and the Eastern European Soviet Satellite States would have been their geographic location. Sure, Franco was a bit of a dick, but he was a better choice than that!

And just because something is a legitimate Government doesn't make it a good idea. The Nazis were a "legitimate government". They won a lawful election. I hardly think that you are supportive of them, unless you're even more of an idiot than I already perceive you to be.

The American Psychiatric Association disagreed with you until it was blackmailed. Lets face it. Less than 5% of people are queer. Why do you think that is?

The Second Spanish Republic was essentially a shit-ton of Communists and other Left-wing assholes, that, left to their own devices, would have wound up a People's Republic.

Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Confederation_of_Autonomous_Right-wing_Groups

Sure, Franco was a bit of a dick, but he was a better choice than that!

You are literally telling me to my face that a genocidal dictator is a better choice than democracy.

And just because something is a legitimate Government doesn't make it a good idea. The Nazis were a "legitimate government".

They weren't. They instaurated a dictatorship via the burning of the parliament and the killing of their detractors. Their actions were not legitimate.

The American Psychiatric Association disagreed with you until it was blackmailed. Lets face it. Less than 5% of people are queer. Why do you think that is?

It was usually thought that black people are inferior, and that the jews' betrayal of Jesus made them a despicable race. Many people wanted the jews exterminated. Indeed, they only changed their mind when the progress of the world let those people behind. I suspect you don't agree with them?

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on July 02, 2015, 07:21:34 AM

The Second Spanish Republic was essentially a shit-ton of Communists and other Left-wing assholes, that, left to their own devices, would have wound up a People's Republic.

Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Confederation_of_Autonomous_Right-wing_Groups

And that invalidates my point how?

Quote

Sure, Franco was a bit of a dick, but he was a better choice than that!

You are literally telling me to my face that a genocidal dictator is a better choice than democracy.

First off, Franco may have been a bit of an asshole, but that hardly makes him "genocidal". My G-d, liberals fucking LOVE that word. "Genocide" refers to an attempt to destroy all, or a substantial part of, a given ethnic, racial, or religious group because they are a part of that group. A civil war does not constitute a genocide. Out of 25,000,000 people, approximately approximately 500,000 people died from all causes on all sides. Hardly a fucking genocide.

Its like when they accuse accuse Israel of genocide. It doesn't matter that since 1967, the so-called "Palestinian" population has increased four fucking times. People are fucking moronic. But that's as may may be.

Quote

And just because something is a legitimate Government doesn't make it a good idea. The Nazis were a "legitimate government".

They weren't. They instaurated a dictatorship via the burning of the parliament and the killing of their detractors. Their actions were not legitimate.

The fact that the legitimate government became a dictatorship is by the by. It was still the elected government of Germany, properly elected by the people of that country. And the majority of the population was pretty much ok with the Declaration of Emergency that Hitler made, however illegitimate we may deem it to have been today.

Quote

The American Psychiatric Association disagreed with you until it was blackmailed. Lets face it. Less than 5% of people are queer. Why do you think that is?

It was usually thought that black people are inferior, and that the jews' betrayal of Jesus made them a despicable race. Many people wanted the jews exterminated. Indeed, they only changed their mind when the progress of the world let those people behind. I suspect you don't agree with them?

Point one, I am not advocating extermination. Point two, I have my own thoughts regarding Black people. Give Caucasians an island, you get Britain. Give East Asians an island, you get Japan. Give Negroes an island, and you get Haiti or Madagascar.

Point three, and a bit of a side-note, Asians, Caucasians, and well, just about everybody is known to have about 4% of their human genome borrowed from the Neandertal man, except one group, and that is the African Negro. it makes one wonder, does it not, why that continent, and the people from it, have the problems they have, that are not shared by other groups on the planet. I'm not sure at all that this is a discussion you want to get into with me. You might not like the results. I am not advocating treating anybody unkindly or with any disrespect, but I think you can see where this conversation might lead. We might want to, you know, let it end here?

Quote from: Conker on July 02, 2015, 08:03:27 AM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on July 02, 2015, 07:21:34 AM

The Second Spanish Republic was essentially a shit-ton of Communists and other Left-wing assholes, that, left to their own devices, would have wound up a People's Republic.

Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Confederation_of_Autonomous_Right-wing_Groups

And that invalidates my point how?

How come a group of communists voted a christian catholic far right movement into the goverment?

Quote

Quote

Sure, Franco was a bit of a dick, but he was a better choice than that!

You are literally telling me to my face that a genocidal dictator is a better choice than democracy.

First off, Franco may have been a bit of an asshole, but that hardly makes him "genocidal".

A bit of an asshole? The genocide of the left population, and instaurating a military oppressive regime is being "a bit of an asshole"?

My G-d, liberals fucking LOVE that word.

Its nice Im not one, then.

"Genocide" refers to an attempt to destroy all, or a substantial part of, a given ethnic, racial, or religious group because they are a part of that group.

Ideological genocide is still a genocide

A civil war does not constitute a genocide.

Correct (although it is still an atrocity). The problem is that the regime, specially on the post-war years, activelly killed leftists, homosexuals, right-wing moderates, libertarians, writers, poets, artists, scientists, etc. That is a genocide.

Out of 25,000,000 people, approximately approximately 500,000 people died from all causes on all sides. Hardly a fucking genocide.

Its like when they accuse accuse Israel of genocide. It doesn't matter that since 1967, the so-called "Palestinian" population has increased four fucking times. People are fucking moronic. But that's as may may be.

Quote

Quote

And just because something is a legitimate Government doesn't make it a good idea. The Nazis were a "legitimate government".

They weren't. They instaurated a dictatorship via the burning of the parliament and the killing of their detractors. Their actions were not legitimate.

The fact that the legitimate government became a dictatorship is by the by. It was still the elected government of Germany, properly elected by the people of that country. And the majority of the population was pretty much ok with the Declaration of Emergency that Hitler made, however illegitimate we may deem it to have been today.

Popularity does not make legitimacy. I can only find funny that a Jew cannot perceive how Weimar's Republic laws and basis were bent by the Nazis.

Quote

The American Psychiatric Association disagreed with you until it was blackmailed. Lets face it. Less than 5% of people are queer. Why do you think that is?

It was usually thought that black people are inferior, and that the jews' betrayal of Jesus made them a despicable race. Many people wanted the jews exterminated. Indeed, they only changed their mind when the progress of the world let those people behind. I suspect you don't agree with them?

Point one, I am not advocating extermination. [/quote]
But you are for the belief of inferiority of the Judaic people?

Point two, I have my own thoughts regarding Black people. Give Caucasians an island, you get Britain. Give East Asians an island, you get Japan. Give Negroes an island, and you get Haiti or Madagascar.

Point three, and a bit of a side-note, Asians, Caucasians, and well, just about everybody is known to have about 4% of their human genome borrowed from the Neandertal man, except one group, and that is the African Negro. it makes one wonder, does it not, why that continent, and the people from it, have the problems they have, that are not shared by other groups on the planet. I'm not sure at all that this is a discussion you want to get into with me. You might not like the results. I am not advocating treating anybody unkindly or with any disrespect, but I think you can see where this conversation might lead. We might want to, you know, let it end here?

First off, I very much doubt that is widelly agreed on by scientists. Second, since the Neandertal man had an lowee cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it can only mean that the African Negro is the most pure Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It only makes sense! That's why are they at the birth of many civilizations. I expect a warm welcome to your new black overlords on your part.

Oh, you went there. Real stupid.

A group of Communists did not vote for a bunch of Rightists. The fact is that the "Republican" government was a total cluster-fuck. You know it and I know it, and the Communist and other Left-Wing forces ended out on top. They were supported by such wonderful nations as Mexico's Left-Wing shit-hole country and Stalin's Soviet Union. The Rightists in the mess ended up supporting Franco, as did the monarchists, who couldn't properly be called Rightists or Leftists per se.

A military regime, while hardly nice, is sometimes the only alternative to full-scale disaster (in this case, becoming a Soviet client-state). You were damned lucky Franco was there to save your asses.

As far as killing political opponents, you think the "Republic" (which most likely would have been a "People's Republic" had it won the Civil War) wouldn't have done the same damn thing but far worse, in reverse? If you do you are far more of a fool than I already perceive you to be.

Yes, you are quite liberal. That much is obvious. And your overuse of the word "genocide" makes that quite clear.

Of course the Weimar Republic's laws were bent by the Nazis! That's what made them a dictatorship. My point exactly, and you are making it for me quite well. An elected government can become assholish very easily, as the "Republican" Government in Spain did.

And suggesting that I am advocating the inferiority of Jews is just snidely on  your part, and indicates an inability to make a serious argument. But we knew that already. Thank you for confirming it, however.

And no, the Neanderthal had a larger brain than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size

Most scientists consider Neanderthal to be as intelligent as Homo sapiens. They certainly had a contribution to the overall mindset of the Modern Human, that Negros clearly lack from not HAVING that genome contribution. The fact that they DO lack it, and the results of that fact, is currently being studied. But some scientists are considering the possibility that it may be the cause of some of that ethnic group's issues, that have been avoided by other groups on the planet. This is clearly a controversial topic, but one that cannot, and should not, be avoided because of Political Correctness.

You went there. Really stupid. But you did have to go there, and after my warning, too. Dumbass.

Oh, you went there. Real stupid.

As opposed to imaginary stupid.

A group of Communists did not vote for a bunch of Rightists.

I know, I wasn't the one claiming the Republic was communist. In fact, it had been moderate left, far-right, and then a conglomerate of all major (far and moderate) left parties won. Calling it sovietic is insulting to the historical importance of the socialists, Trotskytes, anti-sovietists, anarquists, moderates, reformists, mutualists, pacifists, independentists, republicans, sindicalists (unionists), regionalists, and nationalists. And, again, if the Republic was a corrupt communist state on the verge of sovietism, why did the war started not because of the communists, but because of a decay in relationships with the military, the perceived corruption of the Straperlo scandal, and the de-facto federalization of the republic (the day of the coup d'etat, Autonomical Statutes were being discussed, one of them being the Galician)? Why, if the communists were the big boogieman, no one gave a shit about them, while everyone was scared of an actual terrorist anarquist organization (Black Hand) during the republic, and the anarquists ended up as the de-facto rulers of the republic after the goverment fell?.

The fact is that the "Republican" government was a total cluster-fuck.

I agree, in the same sense the actual goverment is, at the moment.

You know it and I know it, and the Communist and other Left-Wing forces ended out on top. They were supported by such wonderful nations as Mexico's Left-Wing shit-hole country and Stalin's Soviet Union.

Actually, Sovietism was marginal before the war. People were afraid of the consequences it would have with their beliefs, for example. But when they realized the church activelly helped the Francoist, the "Democracies" at Europe abandonned Spain, and the only foreign aid was coming via Soviet supplies... well, lets just say that people aren't stupid.

The Rightists in the mess ended up supporting Franco, as did the monarchists, who couldn't properly be called Rightists or Leftists per se.

Actually wrong. The supporters of Franco were the Monarchists, the Carlists, the Fascists, and the Falangists. Moderate right-wing supported the republic, but the popular support was minnimal. They mostly migrated or were assasinated by the Franco regime (yes, they killed right-wing too. Specially libertarians).

A military regime, while hardly nice, is sometimes the only alternative to full-scale disaster (in this case, becoming a Soviet client-state). You were damned lucky Franco was there to save your asses.

As far as killing political opponents, you think the "Republic" (which most likely would have been a "People's Republic" had it won the Civil War)

You still don't get it. There was no point for the war. It is like saying "Well if Salvador Allende had won, I'm sure he would have killed many, too". Well, maybe. I don't know, and I wouldnt support it. The war was a traitor regime using its miltary to siege it's own country, who was left without military. The citizens had to rise up in arms to defend the cities, that was what radicalized the left in Spain. The goverments had been largelly moderate. Have you seen the actual reforms they did? Nothing fancy, really.

Yes, you are quite liberal.

I beg to differ, your Honor. Let's check the definitions of liberal:

• Classical liberalism: Nope. Laissez-fair markets only end up in ecological ruin, exploitation, corporatocracy, and disaster
• Conservative liberalism: Niet. Im not a conservative. I've been using latelly the expression "moderate progressive anti-postmodernist" to describe myself on this axis of thought.
• Economic liberalism: Nope. Same reasons as Classical
• Social liberalism: Not either. Does not issue the core issues, its no different than buying your salvation by giving money to the poor. Terrible system, even if a lesser evil.
• An adherent of a Liberal party: Im not the member of any political party at the moment

If you meant something else by liberal, please, do tell.

Of course the Weimar Republic's laws were bent by the Nazis! That's what made them a dictatorship.

Actually, the law bending made them illegitimate. They could have not been a dictatorship, yet bend the laws. A clear example was seen in my own country when the then president decided it was a cool idea to fund state terrorists as a state weapon.

My point exactly, and you are making it for me quite well. An elected government can become assholish very easily, as the "Republican" Government in Spain did.

What made the goverment illegitimate? Defending themselves against an internal threat? Franco is the 30's equivalent of terrorism.

And suggesting that I am advocating the inferiority of Jews is just snidely on  your part, and indicates an inability to make a serious argument.

It was both a joke, and a ridicule of your argument that since many people believed it in the past then it must be true. I know you aren't, but acording to your argument you should. What I intend is that you notice the contradiction and solve it.

And no, the Neanderthal had a larger brain than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size

You are, for once, correct. I mistakingly confused cranial capacity with encephalization and relative brain size. When those factors are taken in mind, however, Neanderthal seems to be the loser (although not by much, IIRC. It is still a matter of controversy, though).

I won't address the last part of your post because I have no way of verifying your claims.
Did you notice something? I don't need to insult you.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on July 02, 2015, 04:28:46 AM

Yaakov, I think I understand your position on homosexuality.
You say it is a mental disorder.
This is somewhat true, but having a mental disorder does not make you any less of a human.
And as humans, gays deserve the same rights that we, the straight majority, take for granted.
The right to marry a romantic partner is, as you say, a hallowed part of any society.
Why should it be denied to our gay brethren?

Anti-gay people, like yourself, have the right to a voice. No one is denying you that.
But gay people also have a voice, why should we ignore it?
Gay people marrying won't make straight people not be able to get married.
Giving them rights is not denying you any.

Someone who is mentally ill should be a ward of the State until further notice, when they are capable of taking care of themselves. If a gay person can take care of himself, then fine. But he should not be rewarded for his anti-social behaviour.

You don't seem to understand my point.
The ability to marry is not a reward, it is a right.

And if homosexuality is a mental disorder, like you say, how does this make them unable to be married? We allow autistic and Down syndrome people to get married.

Quote

A group of Communists did not vote for a bunch of Rightists.

I know, I wasn't the one claiming the Republic was communist. In fact, it had been moderate left, far-right, and then a conglomerate of all major (far and moderate) left parties won. Calling it sovietic is insulting to the historical importance of the socialists, Trotskytes, anti-sovietists, anarquists, moderates, reformists, mutualists, pacifists, independentists, republicans, sindicalists (unionists), regionalists, and nationalists. And, again, if the Republic was a corrupt communist state on the verge of sovietism, why did the war started not because of the communists, but because of a decay in relationships with the military, the perceived corruption of the Straperlo scandal, and the de-facto federalization of the republic (the day of the coup d'etat, Autonomical Statutes were being discussed, one of them being the Galician)? Why, if the communists were the big boogieman, no one gave a shit about them, while everyone was scared of an actual terrorist anarquist organization (Black Hand) during the republic, and the anarquists ended up as the de-facto rulers of the republic after the goverment fell?.

I think that is kind of the whole point. Although there were non-Leftists in the Government, the fact is, the Leftists came out on top, and the die was cast for a sovietisation of Spain.

Quote

The fact is that the "Republican" government was a total cluster-fuck.

I agree, in the same sense the actual goverment is, at the moment.

As to that I can't say.

Quote

You know it and I know it, and the Communist and other Left-Wing forces ended out on top. They were supported by such wonderful nations as Mexico's Left-Wing shit-hole country and Stalin's Soviet Union.

Actually, Sovietism was marginal before the war. People were afraid of the consequences it would have with their beliefs, for example. But when they realized the church activelly helped the Francoist, the "Democracies" at Europe abandonned Spain, and the only foreign aid was coming via Soviet supplies... well, lets just say that people aren't stupid.

It appears enough of them in Spain were pretty damned stupid. Anybody who was willing to support anything smelling of the Soviets was and is an idiot then and now. Of course the Church helped Franco! What did you expect them to do? Allow themselves to go the way things ended up in Mexico under Plutarco Elias Calles? Use your brain, Man!

Quote

The Rightists in the mess ended up supporting Franco, as did the monarchists, who couldn't properly be called Rightists or Leftists per se.

Actually wrong. The supporters of Franco were the Monarchists, the Carlists, the Fascists, and the Falangists. Moderate right-wing supported the republic, but the popular support was minnimal. They mostly migrated or were assasinated by the Franco regime (yes, they killed right-wing too. Specially libertarians).

To be fair, yes, the Franco regime killed anybody that got in their way, and that included some rightists. They often used a machete when a surgical scalpel might have been more appropriate.

Quote

A military regime, while hardly nice, is sometimes the only alternative to full-scale disaster (in this case, becoming a Soviet client-state). You were damned lucky Franco was there to save your asses.

As far as killing political opponents, you think the "Republic" (which most likely would have been a "People's Republic" had it won the Civil War)

You still don't get it. There was no point for the war. It is like saying "Well if Salvador Allende had won, I'm sure he would have killed many, too". Well, maybe. I don't know, and I wouldnt support it. The war was a traitor regime using its miltary to siege it's own country, who was left without military. The citizens had to rise up in arms to defend the cities, that was what radicalized the left in Spain. The goverments had been largelly moderate. Have you seen the actual reforms they did? Nothing fancy, really.

There was EVERY point for the war. If I had been a young General Franco, and had seen the Leftists come to power, whether by election as they did, or by force, and end up being supported and given accolades by the likes of Stalin, you're damned right I would have rebelled. You're saying that didn't happen until after the war started. That may be true. But the fact is that the Leftist government started pulling all kinds of shenanigans with the established order. Spain wasn't ready for an overturn of the established order. They had already been through too much chaos in the past 50 years. Franco, while he may have been many things good and bad, was NOT stupid. He knew that what Spain needed, more than anything, was stability, the stability provided by a society that would be guided by the Church and the State. It did NOT need a fucking social revolution, at least not that point in its history. He was wise enough, and enough of a General, to make sure it didn't happen. For that he deserves credit.

Quote

Yes, you are quite liberal.

I beg to differ, your Honor. Let's check the definitions of liberal:

• Classical liberalism: Nope. Laissez-fair markets only end up in ecological ruin, exploitation, corporatocracy, and disaster
• Conservative liberalism: Niet. Im not a conservative. I've been using latelly the expression "moderate progressive anti-postmodernist" to describe myself on this axis of thought.
• Economic liberalism: Nope. Same reasons as Classical
• Social liberalism: Not either. Does not issue the core issues, its no different than buying your salvation by giving money to the poor. Terrible system, even if a lesser evil.
• An adherent of a Liberal party: Im not the member of any political party at the moment

If you meant something else by liberal, please, do tell.

Anybody who advocates homosexual marriage and other liberal causes of that nature, and Left Wing Nut Job politics of the variety endorsed by the Second Spanish "Republic" would generally be classified by most people as a liberal, yes. Throw in the fact that you are an atheist or at least an agnostic, and yes, you are a liberal.

Quote

Of course the Weimar Republic's laws were bent by the Nazis! That's what made them a dictatorship.

Actually, the law bending made them illegitimate. They could have not been a dictatorship, yet bend the laws. A clear example was seen in my own country when the then president decided it was a cool idea to fund state terrorists as a state weapon.

Quote

My point exactly, and you are making it for me quite well. An elected government can become assholish very easily, as the "Republican" Government in Spain did.

What made the goverment illegitimate? Defending themselves against an internal threat? Franco is the 30's equivalent of terrorism.

The government became illegitimate when it began to embark on full-scale social revolution of the variety that would destroy the country. It is that fucking simple.

Quote

And suggesting that I am advocating the inferiority of Jews is just snidely on  your part, and indicates an inability to make a serious argument.

It was both a joke, and a ridicule of your argument that since many people believed it in the past then it must be true. I know you aren't, but acording to your argument you should. What I intend is that you notice the contradiction and solve it.

Quote

And no, the Neanderthal had a larger brain than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size

You are, for once, correct. I mistakingly confused cranial capacity with encephalization and relative brain size. When those factors are taken in mind, however, Neanderthal seems to be the loser (although not by much, IIRC. It is still a matter of controversy, though).

I won't address the last part of your post because I have no way of verifying your claims.
Did you notice something? I don't need to insult you.

At least in this last bit you are not as obnoxiously arrogant as you have been. I might be able to talk to you after all.

It should also be noted that Franco is beloved by Jews for another reason, and this must be admitted. Although a recent document was discovered that shows that a list of all 6,000 Jews then living in Spain was written up under German pressure and given to Himmler, it is also known that NOT ONE Jew was ever forced to leave Spain during Hitler's rule. On the contrary, Franco made damn sure that Jews were protected in the Spanish possessions in Morocco, and were not molested there in any way. Furthermore, Spanish diplomats throughout Europe, but especially in the East, made incredible efforts to extend the protection of the Spanish State to Jews, and get them from where they were to Spanish Embassies, Consulates, and then on to Spain itself. Spain in fact saved more Jews than any other country in Europe during the 1933-1945 Holocaust.

Franco had several Jewish friends in France and in Spain. There were also Jews that served in the Spanish military, particularly as officers, including as high ranking officers, and they were treated no differently than their Catholic fellow officers.

Although the history of Judaism in Spain is definitely a crazy one ever since 1492, and Jews have always lived very quietly in Spain, and did so during Franco's rule as well, the fact that he protected us is not something we forget. He stayed neutral during WWII except for the Legion Azul (the Blue Legion) which was a volunteer force that fought alongside the Germans against the Soviets. But he did not allow any forces to fight against the democracies. And although he allowed bases to be used for German boats during WWII, this was stopped in 1943.

Admittedly, the paper showing the 6,000 of us was written up, and there can be no excuse for this, except to say that he felt pressured into it. But when it came down to it, when Himmler asked for his Jews, he had the cajones to tell Himmler to fuck himself.

It is said that after one meeting with Hitler, Hitler and Franco got nowhere in terms of an alliance. Hitler was said to have have stated that he would rather have teeth extracted then have to meet with Franco again. Anybody that can piss off Hitler to that point gets my respect, and if they can protect my people, they get a bit more. This doesn't mean that the man was a Saint by any means. He made his mistakes, and these should be seen for what they are. But he was a human being. And I still think that he was better than the alternative.

Just went online looking at pictures of Generalissimo Franco. It seems that there is a surge of interest in the gentleman. As more and more people in Catalonia want to separate from Spain (traitorous bastards, in my opinion), there seems to be a rise among some people of interest in the Caudillo. I was, well, surprised, to say the least.

If Spain had any sense, they would not allow Catalonia to go the way of Scotland. They would deal with the pro-independent forces by lining them up and shooting them at dawn, and putting an end to it, before they end up having to devolve yet more power to the Regions, which can only result in the mess in which Britain currently finds itself.

If Spain had any sense, they would not allow Catalonia to go the way of Scotland. They would deal with the pro-independent forces by lining them up and shooting them at dawn, and putting an end to it, before they end up having to devolve yet more power to the Regions, which can only result in the mess in which Britain currently finds itself.

Kind of hypocritical of you telling others that they can't have opinions on US policy because they don't understand what it is like to live in the US, then you go and have such strong opinions on the Spanish and English situations don't you think?

BJ, at least I have studied British and Spanish history. I have my MA in British Renaissance History, thank you, Asshole. And I have studied Spanish history in the Spanish language. Most of the people spouting off about America have never studied us. Shit for brains.

BJ, at least I have studied British and Spanish history. I have my MA in British Renaissance History, thank you, Asshole. And I have studied Spanish history in the Spanish language. Most of the people spouting off about America have never studied us. Shit for brains.

Wow, quite an eloquent response.  Still, you studied history. You are currently talking about current events.  Just as the others are.  You are nothing more than a hypocrite.  You are giving your opinion about the current state of affairs of countries when you do not, and can not know the feelings of the people of those countries.  And for someone who is supposedly well educated, you sure have a way of showing your inability to make sound rebuttals that are free of ad hominem.

Yaakov why haven't you complained that the federal government legislated states the power to ban same-sex marriage?  Don't you consider that also to be unconstitutional?

I don't know where you are getting your information. SCOTUS just ruled that the States cannot ban same-sex marriage.

Of course, the argument has been made that the State should not be involved in marriage at all. This is bullshit. The State should indeed be in the business of maintaining stable, healthy family dynamics. and little Sally growing up with two Dads is not a healthy dynamic. Allowing children to think that homosexuality is in any way "cool" or appropriate is analogous to letting them think that smoking is "cool"  or healthy.

Smoking gives you severe medical problems. Homosexuality likewise gives you medical problems (men who take it in the can often wind up wearing a bag in later years), not counting the AIDS and HIV that started in their population before moving to the Straight population by going through the Bis first.

Aside from that, you have the emotional turmoil that homosexuals live each day, knowing that they are outcasts in a society that does not, and never will, accept them. It would be far better for them if they just strove to be happy in a straight relationship or, if that is not possible, then gave their lives to G-d in  the holy sacrifice of celibacy.

No, I am not one of those who believes in "Pray the Gay Away", or hormone therapy. I think that both of those usually wind up in causing further emotional damage to the gay person, and in the latter case, possibly physical damage as well.

But I do believe in self-discipline and self dignity. Just because you are minded to do it doesn't make it dignified. A person might be minded to look at porn. That doesn't make it ok to look at the stuff. There are all kinds of things that people are minded to do that don't have any moral integrity to at all, and in fact may be morally bankrupt. So the fact that they are morally minded to do those things doesn't make those things right. Homosexuality is just one of those things.

I think that is kind of the whole point. Although there were non-Leftists in the Government, the fact is, the Leftists came out on top, and the die was cast for a sovietisation of Spain.

There had been leftist before, during, and after the Republic. Not once Spain was a soviet.

There was EVERY point for the war. If I had been a young General Franco, and had seen the Leftists come to power, whether by election as they did, or by force, and end up being supported and given accolades by the likes of Stalin, you're damned right I would have rebelled. You're saying that didn't happen until after the war started. That may be true. But the fact is that the Leftist government started pulling all kinds of shenanigans with the established order. Spain wasn't ready for an overturn of the established order. They had already been through too much chaos in the past 50 years. Franco, while he may have been many things good and bad, was NOT stupid. He knew that what Spain needed, more than anything, was stability, the stability provided by a society that would be guided by the Church and the State. It did NOT need a fucking social revolution, at least not that point in its history. He was wise enough, and enough of a General, to make sure it didn't happen. For that he deserves credit.

There was NO overturn of the established order, nor any social revolution AT ALL. The leftists at the goverment were moderate social-democrats, and didn't advocate for any kind of revolution (in fact, they were responsible for the death of quite a few anarquists) or major social change. Same economic system. The only major change were the Autonomic Statutes, which were nothing but a very moderate federalization of Spain, similar to France's system, with nationality recognition. Nothing major, and nothing special (there hasn't been a single time in history in which the entirety of Spain has had the same laws/system).

Anybody who advocates homosexual marriage and other liberal causes of that nature, and Left Wing Nut Job politics of the variety endorsed by the Second Spanish "Republic" would generally be classified by most people as a liberal, yes. Throw in the fact that you are an atheist or at least an agnostic, and yes, you are a liberal.

That is not any definition of liberal I am familiar with. You probably mean a progressist, which has nothing to do with left-wing politics (Orwell, for example, was a socialist/anarco-communist, yet he was agressivelly conservative). As I said, I consider myself a moderate anti-PosMo progressist. And my ideas on religion and limits of knowdlege are not relevant at all to that (I consider myself an agnostic atheist, if you are interested)

The government became illegitimate when it began to embark on full-scale social revolution of the variety that would destroy the country. It is that fucking simple.

They didn't. Can you name any single act of that kind backed up by the moderate social-democrats on the goverment?

At least in this last bit you are not as obnoxiously arrogant as you have been. I might be able to talk to you after all.

Im being honest. You are incredibly obnoxious, insulting me all the time. I have been exceptionally nice to you.

Regarding Jews and Franco, you got the wrong idea. Franco blamed the Jews and the Masons for almost everything (the war was for him a Judaic-Masonic conspiracy, which ended up being his catchphrase, calling everything Judaic-Masonic conspiracy). The reason why Franco didn't help Hitler or chased the Jews at a great scale is mainly the same reason why most leftists could escape: Spain was absolutelly ruined after the war, and had nor manpower nor money to contribute to the war effort. They certain did not liked the democracies, and if the war had lasted enough for Spain to recover, Franco himself had plans to invade Gibraltar from the British.

But he was a human being

So was Hitler.

As more and more people in Catalonia want to separate from Spain (traitorous bastards, in my opinion)

Good thing no one cares about the opinion of foreigners on complicated political situations. Independentism is the consequence of the goverment making one bad decision after another on the nationalist issue for 20 years, an economical crisis, and the fact that federalism was basically promised to the historical nations, but then it wasn't ever really made. Now they have plans to install it, but its already too late. Just as that Deus Ex dialog says, "The more of us you kill, the more secessionism lives on in the hearts of the people."

They would deal with the pro-independent forces by lining them up and shooting them at dawn

Shit, I forgot I'm speaking with a fascist (using fascist in its commonly agreed meaning of "far right wing autoritarian conservative militarist revolutionary"). You fullfill all those, dude. In any case, I don't know why am I wasting my time with someone who wants to shoot the ones that do not think like him.

men who take it in the can often wind up wearing a bag in later years

So do woman that do the same. There is more than one sexual position for man in man, you know? They figured this out years ago.

HIV that started in their population

Wrong. It started in North African prostitutes, aparently. It used to spread more easilly in their population because unlike heterosexuals, they couldn't legally keep stable relationships.

knowing that they are outcasts in a society that does not, and never will, accept them.

Actually, on Europe, they are mostly accepted, at least as much as we could accept a foreigner (Foreigner might mean 8th generation Spanish black, recently moved German, or even someone from an Autonomal community that is traditionally rival from yours. There is even rivalry between cities. If there is something Spaniards do right, is hating each other even more that we hate everyone else).

It would be far better for them if they just strove to be happy in a straight relationship

They can't. Could you, if forced, be happy on a gay relationship? Kissing a man goodbye everyday of your life? Sucking his dick on marital duty? I doubt it.

A person might be minded to look at porn. That doesn't make it ok to look at the stuff.

But it is ok. I mean, when and if I have kids, I will certainly don't give a fuck as long as the future computer is clean up of shit and they clean up the mess. They are going to jerk off anyway, so at least they'll enjoy it, I guess. Certainly everyone I know has done or does that, so I don't care.

So the fact that they are morally minded to do it doesn't make it right

It is not about morals. It is about who they are. As I said in other topics, you can't change how can someone get a hardon. Someone might get on brunette women, and that's fine, there is no problem with that and we will agree. Other might get on black dudes, and that's fine too. But now comes the tricky part, the part that is different. Some people get on kids, and that is not ok to do. It can't possibly be consentual. It is statutory rape. But you still can't change him or her. S/He will still have the same attraction. But since S/He knows it is rape, S/He won't do it. Maybe S/He will jerk off to pictures of asian cartoon kiddie porn, which is perfectly legal (no kid had to be molested for it). Same with rape fetishists. Rape isn't ok, but fantasizing and simulating with a consentual other? It is fine. Beating your wife isn't cool, but there's nothing wrong with BDSM. Consent is what makes sexual relationships a go or a no-go. That's why zoophilia isn't ok either.

Ok. A request. Either slow down, and rewrite that mess, WITHOUT the Politically Correct BS in English, and do so with orthography that I can understand, or go ahead and write it all in Castilian. I don't care which one you choose. But before I can respond to it, I have to be able to understand it.

Por favor. Estoy pidiendo un favor. Puede escoger entre dos posibilidades. Uno, escriba mas lentamente, y escriba esta desastre otra vez, SIN el ingles que is "Politically Correct", y hagalo en una manera, con ortografia que yo puedo entender, o, por favor, escribalo completamete en castellano. Ud. puede escoger lo que quiere. Pero antes de que puedo responder a Ud, yo necesito entender lo que esta diciendo, y su manera de escribir ahora es una mezcla de ingles y castellano que no puedo entender para salvar mi alma.

If I made any mistakes in my Castilian, I apologise. I haven't written it in years. The only reason I do so now is to make my request clear to you. Any response I give you will be in English.

And yes, I admit, I have been unkind to you. For that, I apologise. As much as I disagree with you, there is no need for me to be an uncharitable Asshole, and I have been. I am sorry.

Now, if I understood you correctly, you were distinguishing between a "liberal" and a "progressive". Outside the USA, that might be an important distinction to make. At one time, it would have been here as well. But in the last ten years, it has become irrelevant.

Liberals are Democrats. Progressives are Democrats. Conservatives are Republicans. Traditionalists are Republicans.

It used to be that you could be what was called a Blue Dog Democrat, which was a Traditional Democrat, ie, one who was Socially Conservative,but Financially more Liberal. Such an animal barely exists any more. It also used to be that you could be a Socially Liberal Republican, ie, a Republican who was farly Progressive Socially but remained Financially more Conservative. This barely exists any more.

Nowadays, in this country, a Democrat is almost ALWAYS a Financial Liberal, and a Social Liberal (ie, a Progressive), and a Republican is almost always a Financial Conservative and a Social Conservative (ie, a Traditionalist).

That's why I call you a Liberal. The term may not apply in Europe generally, or Spain in particular.

So fine. I'll redesignate you a Progressive. Still distasteful from my perspective, but more accurate from yours.

I consider myself to be a Social Traditional, and a Financial Liberal (in fact, almost a Marxist). I would even go so far as to call myself borderline on the nexus between Fascist and Communist when it comes to the Financial aspects of things. Obviously, I am NOT Fascist in a racial/ethnic/religious way. That's just pure idiocy, and has nothing to do with any structure of government. I don't care what you look like or worship, as long as the social order is maintained.

Now, some might quibble with my definition of the social order. For me, it depends on where you live. if you live in a traditionally Catholic country, then that is the social order. Although you don't have to be a Catholic, and in fact can worship anything or nothing, I don't believe you should challenge the fact that the social order is Catholicism. I think you should shut up and like it, basically, or pack your shit and leave.

The same is true here in America. The basic social order is generally Protestant. I am not one. Don't want to be. Don't have to be. But I don't believe I should challenge that basic social order. If I don't like it, I am always free to pack my shit and leave. In Israel, the social order is Judaism. Other beliefs are allowed and maintained. But if you don't like the established order, pack your shit, and leave. Very simple.

I don't know if all that makes sense. I hope it helps straighten out things, though.