[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.

Wow . . . what a sentence. I guess because this follows my post that it inspired this reply. I am not sure what you mean by "conservative." I often put it in quotes because the word is so loosely used to mean anything from an intolerant bigot who is ruining society or a saint who is saving it. From the posts where you throw the word in it sounds like you view it more like the bigot than the saint. I don't refer to myself as a "conservative." There are some things I like to conserve and much that I don't. I am not a "liberal" but am liberal in the classical sense. Politically I would like to conserve the classically liberal view of government. I don't support the "hick," as you call the baker, I support and try to defend the liberal form of government we once had and which is giving way to a more repressive one.

That you read a comparison of gays or Neo-Nazis in my post may speak more volumes of either your reading comprehension or your inability to see what is actually there and so impose your own narrow (bigoted?) prejudged interpretation of it.

If a man and a man love each other, they should be allowed to live together and have a bond on paper. And in reality.. The biggest reason gays have fought for the right to Marry is to be allowed to visit their partner if he or she is dieing in a hospital, and to have equal rights that men and women have as far as these things... It's all the little details.

They have had the right to live together for as long as I can remember. And if they wanted to have a legal bond to do so, nothing prevented them from going to a lawyer and putting it "on paper." If they had such legal papers be it via civil union or a "paper" signed by both parties to do so they could visit their dying loved one in a hospital. As far as equal rights to government marriage benefits go, I don't think even men/women should have them. I can understand society's concern for the procreation and raising of children, but large intrusions of government "help" and regulation discriminates financially against single folks. And makes no sense for the increasingly growing number of childless couples. But that was the initial reason for government intrusion, and gays simply don't have the complimentary biological equipment to procreate, so how can they have equal marriage rights? I would consider all the little details, and get government mostly out of the marriage benefit programs. As well as out of the marriage penalty stuff.

But when you consider how many people have died on our planet because of fighting over imaginary men in the clouds, I'm really not surprised.

Are you certain that the imaginary men in clouds syndrome is any more culpable than all the other motives for killing? the big wars where hundreds of thousands or even millions have been killed have not been about imaginary men in the clouds. Imaginary men in the clouds folks have also saved or helped thousands or millions of other people.

If this baker was a Muslim, I wonder if he would martyr himself in the name of Allah...

I've heard of men martyring themselves over broken romances. Humans are capable of dying for lots of reasons of which you would disapprove. So what? You want to start a movement, or just sadly wonder and make sarcastic comments?

Santa Claus tells us all to be good all year long or we get coal. I struggle to see the difference...
There is no Easter bunny.. There is no Santa, and once you understand that religion is used to control the sheep of society to all behave in a harmonious way, you realize that you are actually capable of thinking for yourself!! Then if you are smart enough and can judge between right and wrong, you don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to pull your strings...

Sure there are Easter bunnies and Santa Clauses. I've seen movies and paintings, even glass blown images of them. They make for little bits of pleasure. Are you a Grinch? Religion can be used to control the "sheep." So can so-called democratic systems controlled by demagogues. The controlling of the sheep in our society has been done lately by demagogues dispersing more "candies" and goodies than an Easter bunny or a Santa could ever do. Perhaps people trust them more to pull their strings than imaginary men in the sky because the goodies they get are more abundant and tangible so the more worthy of dancing to the strings.

Societal utopia is a world where the entire race does not worship anything outside of themselves and one another.. Where respect of each others happiness is equal to our own. I doubt the baker will ever see this or many of you...

That, at least, is a more unique way of defining utopia. So how does that "respect of each others' happiness is equal to our own" work in the gays vs. the baker case? Is the baker's happiness equal to the gays' happiness? That all would work well if everybody had the same happiness. Would be kinda redundant, though--make for very boring movies. What happens to viva la difference? I think the Founders concept, though not utopian, provided for a way to make everyone's diverse happinesses, at least the pursuit of them, a viable proposition. That's what I'ld like to conserve.

So I will continue to follow my 2 commandments. Be cool and don't be an A-hole. Life is very simple that way.

Those commandments work well in various types of societies. They work especially well in monochrome societies where differences are limited and frowned upon. And most especially well in very structured, regulated societies, bee-hive like or borg-like societies. In dictatorships those commandments are absolutely necessary and actually, though expressed in more legalistic verbiage, are part of the official code of conduct. But in the more diverse, complex, and freer societies, with various personalities and differing points of view and greater passions for expressing those points, there is far greater probability that coolness will not prevail and the other guy will be the A-hole. The greatest growth, in most measurable facets, of our society of free individuals happened amidst rambunctious, energetic, bustling activities which had no little opportunity for expression of likes and dislikes. It was wild, exciting, and still a model for interesting and entertaining stories. Your an artist--what would instigate the most entertaining, expressive, exciting, even beautiful art? A static world of think and act alikes living in a utopian comfort lacking in disruption, or one with the friction of human interaction?

I would love to see a number of how many peoe have died in the last 1000 years because of religion. Billions?? Hey... It's good population control
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have a suspicion that Obamacare will be a far more effective means of population control.