Democrats are trying to destroy the United States
Well, I had an interesting conversation with a few friends of mine last night.
The subject lines was one of their thoughts. We had a good night, included a bit o' Absinthe, but we ended up talking about Bush and issues therein.
I told them I was displeased with Bush to say the least, and they then proceeded to put their stance out, which was a conservative one and one that I definitely did not agree with. They are Republican and think that there's no point really in voting for a Democrat because they all want to destroy the United States.
The two big parts of the conversation had to do with A: the war, and B: gay marriage.
While they don't necessarily agree with everything Bush is doing, they do think that he has really helped the economy quite a bit. the Dow is finally going up again after a large decline and putting financial backing into the war is a great help. The war they think is probably the best thing that Bush has done. They are really taking care of the terrorist problem and they actually captured Saddam, which is good because otherwise we'd have to deal with him at a later date when he would be a much bigger problem for us.
Another good thing, they said, was that this was a very humane war. Very little people are dying in comparison to other wars, and even when compared to crime within the U.S. People dying from crime in the states is much higher than the casualties in this war. There are also very few innocent casualties in the countries we are bombing, and the accuracy with the weapons used is quite amazing. Only the buildings with terrorists and arms are being destroyed, the buildings around those have not been harmed.
And it kept going like this for awhile.
Then we got into the gay marriage thing. These 2 friends had similar views but even they differed at one point. My friend D. was for homosexuals having civil unions and thought that them not having certain rights that were given therein was immoral and wrong. He thought they definitely should have certain rights with regards to a civil union. But definitely not the right to marriage. The other friend of mine Steve, did not agree with even the civil union. But that was about as far as their differences were.
When I pressed them as to why they thought there should not be gay marriages, they mentioned that homosexuals were a minority and this whole issue is about them wanting 'special' rights. This right is a 'special' right, because in the constitution it dictates that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Anything outside of the constitution would be a 'special' right, and they do not think that it is a good idea to be altering the Constitution that we are based on. They thought if we were to give this 'minority' special rights then other minority people's would want to have their rights acknowledged as well, such as Polygamy couples and also a group I hadn't heard of but that think that a man of whatever age, about 30-40 or something should be able marry a consenting boy of 10 or similar age. And they definitely did not want something like that to be acknowledged as ok. So if the snowball started here with homosexual marriage then it would continue to other more 'depraved' minorities out there. D. hypothetically asked me why he shouldn't have the right to marry a dog. If he felt it was ok to do and if he really loved his dog then by all means he should be able to marry a dog. This was part of the snowball effect he saw that could develop.
A fear of theirs in regards to this point was that if we went down that road then our society would fall to ruin and we would end up like the Romans did. Our great empire would be crushed from the inside.
Additionally, in regards to gay marriage, they sited psychological studies in which a child raised by two parents of the same sex would not grow up to be psychologically sound. The studies showed that a child needs a female and a male parent/role model when being raised to grow up correctly.
They also mentioned that because of this they would not want their child raised by a gay couple if they were to die in an accident or something. They preferred their child to be raised by a 'nomal' situation couple if they did happen to perish.
Another point brought up in regards to marriage was that they thought that they don't even fall into a 'minority' category because there is no scientific evidence to show that someone would be 'born gay.' This would be something that would happen through their growing up phase that would make them at some point say that they are 'gay.' So in essence there is no gene to show that one is gay, but rather that it is a choice they make to become as such. The point being that black people are born black because of a gene that they have. Asian people are born asian or whatever. They are minorities by birth; they did not have a choice in the matter. A gay person does not 'have' to be gay, they just choose to be. They are not born gay. So by this they are not even a true minority and therefore not truly deserving of 'special' rights therein. Then he went on to restate the above mentioned other 'similar' 'minorites' that would want to have rights as well. Polygamy rights, etc. etc.....
He thought that if they were to be thought of as a minority people would have to acknowledge that homosexuality was a defect in the human mind, and thought that they probably would not like to be thought of as a defect. Because no where else in nature, save for a few exceptions, were there any cases of same sex attraction or sexuality. Nature dictates that a male is to be with a female in nature for the act of procreation. Without that there is no survival of a particular species. So it is 'normal' and natural for a male to be with a female. And a defect, or a choice for anything else.
So this went on for a few hours, and at the end, of course, nothing was really agreed upon, most points I tried to make were met with silence and basically being ignored, untill I pushed for an answer. It was rather irritating and angering to hear quite a different stance on the matter. I mean we were on about the complete opposite sides of each other. Mostly what they told me about what I thought, was that I must be listening to overly emotional people who care too much for the complaints of others. They said you don't always have feel sorry for other people's emotions. This angered me as well, but I held my tongue as I knew that this conversation wasn't going to go anywhere since it had been like this for a few hours.
So, we changed subjects and moved on, then Steve left and I took D. home.
D. came here to start talking with me and Steve about his wedding coming up, and we'd been friends since early high school. I was to be best man and he wanted all his close friends there. He was kinda weirded out by my long hair and mentioned that if I were coming i'd have to cut it. (I will, however, have to talk with him about that in more detail next time)
And his girlfriend, whom he's marrying was there too, not for the political conversation but before we got to my house, she went to see her mom while we did our thing. I have known her too for almost as long as D but when I saw them, and I hadn't seen them since I moved to Florida three years ago, she was kinda weirded out that I went to give her a hug. She didn't hug back and said: 'ok, since it's been so long I guess it's ok.'
She thought it was weird to be giving her a hug. She said she didn't like to hug.
So that was about that, that was me seeing my old friends. The beginning of planning the wedding and such.....seems like it will be interesting times indeed.
Please comment as I am baffled by hearing anything pro-Bush. I welcome all thoughts to this table.
The subject lines was one of their thoughts. We had a good night, included a bit o' Absinthe, but we ended up talking about Bush and issues therein.
I told them I was displeased with Bush to say the least, and they then proceeded to put their stance out, which was a conservative one and one that I definitely did not agree with. They are Republican and think that there's no point really in voting for a Democrat because they all want to destroy the United States.
The two big parts of the conversation had to do with A: the war, and B: gay marriage.
While they don't necessarily agree with everything Bush is doing, they do think that he has really helped the economy quite a bit. the Dow is finally going up again after a large decline and putting financial backing into the war is a great help. The war they think is probably the best thing that Bush has done. They are really taking care of the terrorist problem and they actually captured Saddam, which is good because otherwise we'd have to deal with him at a later date when he would be a much bigger problem for us.
Another good thing, they said, was that this was a very humane war. Very little people are dying in comparison to other wars, and even when compared to crime within the U.S. People dying from crime in the states is much higher than the casualties in this war. There are also very few innocent casualties in the countries we are bombing, and the accuracy with the weapons used is quite amazing. Only the buildings with terrorists and arms are being destroyed, the buildings around those have not been harmed.
And it kept going like this for awhile.
Then we got into the gay marriage thing. These 2 friends had similar views but even they differed at one point. My friend D. was for homosexuals having civil unions and thought that them not having certain rights that were given therein was immoral and wrong. He thought they definitely should have certain rights with regards to a civil union. But definitely not the right to marriage. The other friend of mine Steve, did not agree with even the civil union. But that was about as far as their differences were.
When I pressed them as to why they thought there should not be gay marriages, they mentioned that homosexuals were a minority and this whole issue is about them wanting 'special' rights. This right is a 'special' right, because in the constitution it dictates that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Anything outside of the constitution would be a 'special' right, and they do not think that it is a good idea to be altering the Constitution that we are based on. They thought if we were to give this 'minority' special rights then other minority people's would want to have their rights acknowledged as well, such as Polygamy couples and also a group I hadn't heard of but that think that a man of whatever age, about 30-40 or something should be able marry a consenting boy of 10 or similar age. And they definitely did not want something like that to be acknowledged as ok. So if the snowball started here with homosexual marriage then it would continue to other more 'depraved' minorities out there. D. hypothetically asked me why he shouldn't have the right to marry a dog. If he felt it was ok to do and if he really loved his dog then by all means he should be able to marry a dog. This was part of the snowball effect he saw that could develop.
A fear of theirs in regards to this point was that if we went down that road then our society would fall to ruin and we would end up like the Romans did. Our great empire would be crushed from the inside.
Additionally, in regards to gay marriage, they sited psychological studies in which a child raised by two parents of the same sex would not grow up to be psychologically sound. The studies showed that a child needs a female and a male parent/role model when being raised to grow up correctly.
They also mentioned that because of this they would not want their child raised by a gay couple if they were to die in an accident or something. They preferred their child to be raised by a 'nomal' situation couple if they did happen to perish.
Another point brought up in regards to marriage was that they thought that they don't even fall into a 'minority' category because there is no scientific evidence to show that someone would be 'born gay.' This would be something that would happen through their growing up phase that would make them at some point say that they are 'gay.' So in essence there is no gene to show that one is gay, but rather that it is a choice they make to become as such. The point being that black people are born black because of a gene that they have. Asian people are born asian or whatever. They are minorities by birth; they did not have a choice in the matter. A gay person does not 'have' to be gay, they just choose to be. They are not born gay. So by this they are not even a true minority and therefore not truly deserving of 'special' rights therein. Then he went on to restate the above mentioned other 'similar' 'minorites' that would want to have rights as well. Polygamy rights, etc. etc.....
He thought that if they were to be thought of as a minority people would have to acknowledge that homosexuality was a defect in the human mind, and thought that they probably would not like to be thought of as a defect. Because no where else in nature, save for a few exceptions, were there any cases of same sex attraction or sexuality. Nature dictates that a male is to be with a female in nature for the act of procreation. Without that there is no survival of a particular species. So it is 'normal' and natural for a male to be with a female. And a defect, or a choice for anything else.
So this went on for a few hours, and at the end, of course, nothing was really agreed upon, most points I tried to make were met with silence and basically being ignored, untill I pushed for an answer. It was rather irritating and angering to hear quite a different stance on the matter. I mean we were on about the complete opposite sides of each other. Mostly what they told me about what I thought, was that I must be listening to overly emotional people who care too much for the complaints of others. They said you don't always have feel sorry for other people's emotions. This angered me as well, but I held my tongue as I knew that this conversation wasn't going to go anywhere since it had been like this for a few hours.
So, we changed subjects and moved on, then Steve left and I took D. home.
D. came here to start talking with me and Steve about his wedding coming up, and we'd been friends since early high school. I was to be best man and he wanted all his close friends there. He was kinda weirded out by my long hair and mentioned that if I were coming i'd have to cut it. (I will, however, have to talk with him about that in more detail next time)
And his girlfriend, whom he's marrying was there too, not for the political conversation but before we got to my house, she went to see her mom while we did our thing. I have known her too for almost as long as D but when I saw them, and I hadn't seen them since I moved to Florida three years ago, she was kinda weirded out that I went to give her a hug. She didn't hug back and said: 'ok, since it's been so long I guess it's ok.'
She thought it was weird to be giving her a hug. She said she didn't like to hug.
So that was about that, that was me seeing my old friends. The beginning of planning the wedding and such.....seems like it will be interesting times indeed.
Please comment as I am baffled by hearing anything pro-Bush. I welcome all thoughts to this table.