First a bit of housekeeping. I need some help with Volkalize. When I first joined I was getting notifications in my personal email when someone mentioned me in a Volkalize post. This made it easy to respond to a post.
Recently I have not been getting these notifications in my personal email and several times I have gone to the “settings” page on my account and verified that the box was checked to receive email notifications. Can someone help me with this?
As it is, since I don’t get notifications I often miss out on some good debate. I currently have to go surfing to see if anyone includes me. It has occurred to me that this might be a conspiracy by everyone to exclude me because of my lengthy posts (just kidding). Any help would be appreciated.
On to the discussion at hand:
I tend to agree with Gary and the points he made in the opening post of this thread. I don’t necessarily consider myself a “member” of the TEA Party but I do support much of what they stand for. My reluctance to be a member stems in large-part from a local chapter in my opinion not being in sync with the official TEA Party movement but that is irrelevant.
I would offer one thing to Gary though. That is a minor point on the $459,000,000 worth of military aircraft he said we are leaving behind in Afghanistan. Although I can’t substantiate this (see below) I doubt that Gary would argue against it.
My point is that while that number is not in dispute, I don’t think that total is due to military aircraft. I believe it is military hardware, which probably includes aircraft parts. I seriously doubt that we are leaving aircraft behind, with the exception of foreign military sales and the like.
If we just abandon aircraft on the battlefield they will be used against us in a future engagement. A truck on the other hand is very much different. I am not advocating the abandonment of anything although I do understand some of the logic.
My only reason for even saying this is because I logged many flight hours in tactical aircraft in Afghanistan after 9/11 (and Iraq later) so I probably key in on this more than some. No harm no foul!
I absolutely agree with James’ first post in that I personally don’t agree with the LGBT lifestyle but just as James, I agree that those who do believe in it have the right to pursue their own happiness just as everyone else does.
Julia, the TEA Party in reference to Chick-fil-A, as I understand it supported the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech used by Chick-fil-A when they stated an opinion of theirs. There is nothing wrong with supporting freedom of speech. Coincidently a large part of the TEA Party may share this opinion but I am reasonably sure that not all members do.
Folks please listen to what FoxWebster said because I believe he has the best input here so far. He said “I’m openly gay and honestly I don’t consider myself republican, democrat or tea party. I consider myself as an AMERICAN [my emphasis].” I have a great deal of respect for that statement. He is acknowledging his rights, particularly his right to the pursuit of happiness, and he is also acknowledging that others have rights as well by stating that he is “an American.”
As a matter of opinion you can agree or disagree with the lifestyle but until that lifestyle actually interferes with your same rights, there is nothing else you can do about it.
Chris (first post), I guess I am confused when you say the TEA Party doesn’t see “the contradiction in wanting limited government while fighting LGBT marriage” and then you contradict that later in the same post. I could have misread that and if I did I’m sorry, but I don’t think I did because you later mentioned LGBT demands for job protection, housing protection, the right to not be offended, special privileges, a plethora of other political favors, and so on.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your list, that list supports having a bigger government in order to separately and independently ensure these things, and bigger government actually does fly in the face of the stated goals of the TEA Party. My point, and I don’t wish to take sides here (on this point) is that this is not a contradiction; in fact it is consistent with their stated goals.
Chris, this is not an attack. I agree with you in concept but I don’t think there is a contradiction. In fact your second post is pretty good.
Chris your second post is most interesting. I see that you are new to the Volkalize site (as is FoxWebster who joined the same day) and as such I am still trying to figure you out. So far I agree substantially with most of what you have posted.
You mentioned that much of what is being offered to the LGBT community is in fact not a “right” but a “privilege” and you list examples. You have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Then you used a phrase for which I have been looking for quite some time. You said “if it must be provided then it is not a right.” I couldn’t agree more and I wish I had the insight to come up with that on my own. I have been saying that (in concept) for years but never in those clear words. People look at the privileges they have and falsely consider them to be their rights.
As a separate issue and a bit off topic, your phrase “if it must be provided then it is not a right” goes a long way to explain why Obamacare must be defeated (repealed). That is for another thread.
We all have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Coincidently this was the sole reason to fight a war against the King of England for our freedom. We felt so strongly about those rights that we formed a government (nation) to guarantee that those creator-bestowed rights would NEVER be taken from us again. For clarity, all of the specific rights listed in the Bill of Rights are included in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Those are our God-given (or creator-given if you prefer) rights and they say that you can do pretty much anything you want to do. We had a lengthy discussion on another thread as to the limits of those rights and because of the length of that discussion I will not copy it here. Suffice it to say that the ONLY limit to your rights are my identical rights. In other words I cannot interfere with your rights and you cannot interfere with my rights. We had some Libertarian input on that and I very strongly disagreed with the Libertarian. I later found that I was not the only one to strongly disagree.
The problem is that, as you so succinctly pointed out, we tend to confuse “rights” with “privileges.” Because you have the right to pursue happiness, any of a million “privileges” are available to you and you can exercise those “privileges” all you want until it interferes with my pursuit of happiness.
Marriage is NOT a right, it is a privilege. Therefore the LGBT community does NOT have a right to get married and as a matter of fact NOBODY has a right to be married. So where then is the problem in reference to marriage?
Marriage, being a privilege, is a matter of law, not a matter of a “right.” Therefore we can write that law as we see fit and that is just what we did. Long ago when the law was written marriage was defined as a relationship between one man and one woman (gays did not fit this legal criteria). Is this fair? Maybe yes and maybe no but that is irrelevant. This is how we (society) decided to write the law at the time it was written. This is a states issue by the way, not a power of the federal government.
Should the marriage laws be changed to allow marriage between two members of the same sex? Some say yes and some say no. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. This is a matter of opinion and we as society write those opinion-based laws as society sees fit. If enough members of society (voters) want to change that law they certainly can. If they don’t want to change it they don’t have to because marriage is NOT a right.
I have an opinion on this and my personal opinion is that I would prefer marriage to be between one man and one woman, but that is only my personal opinion and I can cast my vote as I see fit. If I lose then I lose and there is nothing I can do about it, nor is there anything I would do about it.
We have to live within the confines of the constitution (although government seems to disagree) and those boundaries are pretty wide but clear. Within those boundaries we can do basically whatever the majority wants to do. Marriage, whether it be gay marriage or non-gay marriage, is well inside those boundaries meaning that society can write that law either way and it would be legal. Again, this is a states issue and not a power of the federal government.
Chris, you did say one thing that I am a bit cautious of and that is that we need to “strengthen the libertarian faction as much as possible.” I agree with some 70% of what the Libertarians stand for because that is constitution based. However, the remaining 30% is so untenable and so unacceptable (in my opinion) that it completely negates the good. These numbers of 70-30 are approximations but indicative of the notion that I agree with more than half of what the Libertarians stand for. I say this with all due respect for the views of others.