Texas GOP: criminalize gay marriage and ban sodomy, outlaw strip clubs and porn

[Gonz]

You know what, I don't know.

The activities that they are looking at do nothing to help a community. I already believe that marriage is not a right & have lived in communities where strip clubs & porn ships were illegal. It didn't change my life.

It's dumb, I'll grant you that, but as long as it's not federal, leaving it up to the state, or the local community, I don't think I'd blink twice.

 

[spike]

The activities that they are looking at do nothing to help a community.

Sure they do. Strip clubs and offer entertainment and boost the economy like any other business. Gay marriage helps the community just like straight marriage. And sodomy? How the hell is it the governments business if my girlfriend wants to give me a blowjob?

have lived in communities where strip clubs & porn ships were illegal. It didn't change my life.

It's amazing that people can care so little about giving up personal freedom as long as it doesn't affect them.

It's like if someone doesn't fish or hike say "Sure, go ahead and outlaw fishing and hiking".

 

[Gonz]

It's amazing that people can care so little about giving up personal freedom as long as it doesn't affect them.

I've fucked my share of strippers. I've seen their lifestyles. I've been around them.

I've been places that don't allow them.

The places that don't have them have a far better environment.

The entire "adult" industry does nothing to better our lives. Nothing. Yea, some folks make some money & it is part of the local economy but take it away & you'll see how insignificant it is.

However, if I chose to live in Texas, asumuing they pass this bill into law or if I chose to live in West Hollywood, right next to the pleasure chest, is an option I have. Wanna know why? Too bad, I'll say it AGAIN...STATES RIGHTS. If this were a federal bill, I'd be more involved. Since it's Texas, I don't much care.

 

[2minkey]

And all the schools use them?

that's irrelevant to your assertion that only an oral tradition survives, which is simply wrong.

 

[Gotholic]

that's irrelevant to your assertion that only an oral tradition survives, which is simply wrong.

Minks, you are a literalist? It obvious that catocom meant that both points of view are not being taught in the federally funded schools, just like opposing views of evolution are not taught.

 

[spike]

The entire "adult" industry does nothing to better our lives. Nothing.

A lot of people would disagree with you.

Yea, some folks make some money & it is part of the local economy but take it away & you'll see how insignificant it is.

You could say the same thing about comic book stores, sports bars, laser tag. Let's just ban 'em all!

Too bad, I'll say it AGAIN...STATES RIGHTS. If this were a federal bill, I'd be more involved. Since it's Texas, I don't much care.

You had a entirely different view on some other topics.

Non-use of seat belts don't disrupt the rights & liberties of another. Keep the government out of our life.

If ya don't like KFC grease, go somewhere else. Leave the market alone.

As far as trans-fat....or any other horseshit we're eating - IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. It's especially none of the governments business.

Ban SMOKING....legislate food....what the hell else are we going to turn over to nanny?

Apparently there's a bunch of things you don't mind being turned over to nanny.

 

[catocom]

that's irrelevant to your assertion that only an oral tradition survives, which is simply wrong.

of coarse I disagree
and of coarse you don't want to answer the question, because we all know the answer,
and it doesn't support your argument.

 

[2minkey]

Minks, you are a literalist? It obvious that catocom meant that both points of view are not being taught in the federally funded schools, just like opposing views of evolution are not taught.

it was only obvious to those that think that imprecise language is acceptable. he asserted that there was no counterdiscourse in anything other than oral form. the counterdiscourse is mildly obscure. who are you to argue with obscure counterdiscourse?

BTW when do you get your braces off?

 

[Gonz]

A lot of people would disagree with you.

I'm sure they would. SHow me concrete facts how it's a positive to our lives & I might reconsider.

You could say the same thing about comic book stores, sports bars, laser tag.

Yes, you could. Show me the harm. I can find lots of porn-is-bad stufff.

Apparently there's a bunch of things you don't mind being turned over to nanny.

The quote you presented, those are things that the feds are looking to regulate.

 

[spike]

I'm sure they would. SHow me concrete facts how it's a positive to our lives & I might reconsider.

Here you go...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/248654/5_reasons_why_pornography_is_good_for.html

It doesn't matter though. Show me how cigarettes are positive to our lives? Show me how trans fats are positive? Show me how not using seatbelts is positive?

What happened to "keep the government out of our lives"? It seems you have no problem with a nanny state as long as it just takes away freedoms you personally don't care about.

Yes, you could. Show me the harm. I can find lots of porn-is-bad stufff.

There's lots of porn is bad stuff and porn is good stuff. Doesn't matter. You don't have a problem with the government deciding for you. Are you telling me you don't have a problem with government outlawing anything that has some "whatever is bad stuff? Like alcohol, trans fats, cigarettes....and yes, there's plenty of comic books are bad stuff too.

The quote you presented, those are things that the feds are looking to regulate.

Hell no, you were commenting on a city ban of trans fats. There's no talk of a federal ban of KFC.

WTF happened to the old Gonz who said "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS"?

Suddenly if you look at porn or go to a strip club or get a bj or are attracted to someone of the same sex it's the governments business?

 

[catocom]

There's lots of porn is bad stuff and porn is good stuff. Doesn't matter. You don't have a problem with the government deciding for you. Are you telling me you don't have a problem with government outlawing anything that has some "whatever is bad stuff? Like alcohol, trans fats, cigarettes....and yes, there's plenty of comic books are bad stuff too.

when you say gov, you mean ALL gov.
When I use it (see historic posts) I mean National usually.

There is a difference in state government, and national.
Especially when it comes to the topic of Freedom.

Nationalization is trying to divide this country, and states hold it together.

 

[valkyrie]

Institute?
Personally I'm a fan of.....if there's legislation that a good number of people opposed in the state,
it should be put to a majority vote of the constituents.

Now with that said, I think there'd be a problem with constitutionally of it.
Same as with any religion, be it Islam, Christianity, Buddism...

Majority rule is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It goes against the principles of freedom for all citizens. You can not oppress one group in favor of another. You can not restrict one group's freedom while giving that same freedom to another group. This is not a country of freedom hierarchies.
That would not be justified.

That is the problem with a democracy. Your example is a likely scenario with current trends.

We were headed toward a Theocracy in the previous administration, and still the Loudest Monkeys In The Forest get attention. This makes legislators think that what the Loud Monkeys want, everyone wants, regardless of who it tramples on and regardless of who's freedoms it infringes on.

There is a faction in this nation that has been pushing for years to eat away at the freedom that America stands for. This newest push is just another example of that.

To all of those that are pushing their little anti-freedom agenda:

 

[catocom]

Majority rule is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It goes against the principles of freedom for all citizens. You can not oppress one group in favor of another. You can not restrict one group's freedom while giving that same freedom to another group. This is not a country of freedom hierarchies.
That would not be justified.

Can you have freedom then, and justice at the same time?

What is your vision of real freedom?

 

[2minkey]

one would think that our local constitutional scholars would at least understand that many of the freedoms in the constitution are there to protect the rights of the individual vs. the tyranny of a majority that wants to vote shit like we're seeing in texas into law. just like freedom of religion protects minority religious groups from being force-fed the tripe from some other, dominant religious group.

the constitution is about enabling choices. not pushing some shitcan moral agenda on others. don't like gays? then don't hang around them. don't like porn? don't buy it. otherwise, fuck off.

 

[catocom]

that's part of what the senators were supposed to be for, until they
started being (supposedly) voted into office.

 

[catocom]

one would think that our local constitutional scholars would at least understand that many of the freedoms in the constitution are there to protect the rights of the individual vs. the tyranny of a majority that wants to vote shit like we're seeing in texas into law. just like freedom of religion protects minority religious groups from being force-fed the tripe from some other, dominant religious group.

the constitution is about enabling choices. not pushing some shitcan moral agenda on others. don't like gays? then don't hang around them. don't like porn? don't buy it. otherwise, fuck off.

so, you think we should start over...with anarchy, and work our way back up,
or just keep the anarchy?

 

[valkyrie]

Can you have freedom then, and justice at the same time?

What is your vision of real freedom?

As Minks so eloquently spoke (), there are limits to individual freedoms: when those freedoms interfere with the freedoms of others (oppression) or harm others (aggression).

The Founding Fathers never intended to legislate morality, notice that the choices of laws that were put in place were intended to support individual freedom and prevent the oppression and aggression of one group on another.

 

[catocom]

there are limits to individual freedoms:

ah, now that is the quandry isn't it.
Who get's to say then...

 

[spike]

She just said it...

when those freedoms interfere with the freedoms of others (oppression) or harm others (aggression).

 

[catocom]

all freedoms interfere with the freedom of others, unless you live alone in the wilderness.