FallenMorgan vs. Lief

[Mechaman]

Yeah.. I'm pro choice. Morally, I think its wrong. But at what point can I say what a woman can, or cant do with her own body.

So how is your position different from that of John Kerry and Joe Biden?

Or Scott Brown, Mike Castle, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mark Kirk or Jodi Rell (and a whole bunch of others)?

In other words, RINOs.

Thanks for furthering my point, Joe.

I dont run or hide from my positions. Call me a moderate, liberal, or RINO. I'll embrase them all. My choices are mine to make, and mine alone.

I find it funny how Libertas thinks that being pro-choice is totally unacceptable for a Republican, but doesn't mind joining a party where alot of the politicians are raging homophobes who have a hardon for military interventionism and spying on people. Tell me Libertas, do you feel comfortable joining a party where most of it's members are opposed to legal equality between LGBT individuals and straight individuals? Or is it okay for them to be raging gay haters as long as they aren't "pro-abortion"?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yeah.. I'm pro choice. Morally, I think its wrong. But at what point can I say what a woman can, or cant do with her own body.

So how is your position different from that of John Kerry and Joe Biden?

Or Scott Brown, Mike Castle, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mark Kirk or Jodi Rell (and a whole bunch of others)?

In other words, RINOs.

Thanks for furthering my point, Joe.

I dont run or hide from my positions. Call me a moderate, liberal, or RINO. I'll embrase them all. My choices are mine to make, and mine alone.

I find it funny how Libertas thinks that being pro-choice is totally unacceptable for a Republican, but doesn't mind joining a party where alot of the politicians are raging homophobes who have a hardon for military interventionism and spying on people. Tell me Libertas, do you feel comfortable joining a party where most of it's members are opposed to legal equality between LGBT individuals and straight individuals? Or is it okay for them to be raging gay haters as long as they aren't "pro-abortion"?

Um, do you not intend on voting in the primaries for 2012?

And anyway, being pro-life is far more important to me than 'gay' issues.

[Mechaman]

Yeah.. I'm pro choice. Morally, I think its wrong. But at what point can I say what a woman can, or cant do with her own body.

So how is your position different from that of John Kerry and Joe Biden?

Or Scott Brown, Mike Castle, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mark Kirk or Jodi Rell (and a whole bunch of others)?

In other words, RINOs.

Thanks for furthering my point, Joe.

I dont run or hide from my positions. Call me a moderate, liberal, or RINO. I'll embrase them all. My choices are mine to make, and mine alone.

I find it funny how Libertas thinks that being pro-choice is totally unacceptable for a Republican, but doesn't mind joining a party where alot of the politicians are raging homophobes who have a hardon for military interventionism and spying on people. Tell me Libertas, do you feel comfortable joining a party where most of it's members are opposed to legal equality between LGBT individuals and straight individuals? Or is it okay for them to be raging gay haters as long as they aren't "pro-abortion"?

Um, do you not intend on voting in the primaries for 2012?

And anyway, being pro-life is far more important to me than 'gay' issues.

I'm sorry, I sometimes go overboard.
I will vote for Gary Johnson (or Ron Paul if Johnson doesn't run). However, I am still disappointed by how many libertarians think the 'gay' issue is not important. Sure, it may not affect a majority of us or have as many people affected by it as say abortion, but equal rights (I mean actual equality, not favoritism) for all people is a very important issue. I will swallow that pill come the primary season, I will vote in the Republican primaries for an openminded individual on this issue (among others) named Gary Johnson.

[Electric Feel]

Lol thread

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yeah.. I'm pro choice. Morally, I think its wrong. But at what point can I say what a woman can, or cant do with her own body.

So how is your position different from that of John Kerry and Joe Biden?

Or Scott Brown, Mike Castle, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mark Kirk or Jodi Rell (and a whole bunch of others)?

In other words, RINOs.

Thanks for furthering my point, Joe.

I dont run or hide from my positions. Call me a moderate, liberal, or RINO. I'll embrase them all. My choices are mine to make, and mine alone.

I find it funny how Libertas thinks that being pro-choice is totally unacceptable for a Republican, but doesn't mind joining a party where alot of the politicians are raging homophobes who have a hardon for military interventionism and spying on people. Tell me Libertas, do you feel comfortable joining a party where most of it's members are opposed to legal equality between LGBT individuals and straight individuals? Or is it okay for them to be raging gay haters as long as they aren't "pro-abortion"?

Um, do you not intend on voting in the primaries for 2012?

And anyway, being pro-life is far more important to me than 'gay' issues.

I'm sorry, I sometimes go overboard.
I will vote for Gary Johnson (or Ron Paul if Johnson doesn't run). However, I am still disappointed by how many libertarians think the 'gay' issue is not important. Sure, it may not affect a majority of us or have as many people affected by it as say abortion, but equal rights (I mean actual equality, not favoritism) for all people is a very important issue. I will swallow that pill come the primary season, I will vote in the Republican primaries for an openminded individual on this issue (among others) named Gary Johnson.

Well I really don't see how the gay issue is so important. I'm supposed to get all outraged because gays can't get the meaningless term "marriage" applied to their relationship? Please. I care about the real problems facing this country; that is a trifle.

[Mechaman]

Yeah.. I'm pro choice. Morally, I think its wrong. But at what point can I say what a woman can, or cant do with her own body.

So how is your position different from that of John Kerry and Joe Biden?

Or Scott Brown, Mike Castle, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mark Kirk or Jodi Rell (and a whole bunch of others)?

In other words, RINOs.

Thanks for furthering my point, Joe.

I dont run or hide from my positions. Call me a moderate, liberal, or RINO. I'll embrase them all. My choices are mine to make, and mine alone.

I find it funny how Libertas thinks that being pro-choice is totally unacceptable for a Republican, but doesn't mind joining a party where alot of the politicians are raging homophobes who have a hardon for military interventionism and spying on people. Tell me Libertas, do you feel comfortable joining a party where most of it's members are opposed to legal equality between LGBT individuals and straight individuals? Or is it okay for them to be raging gay haters as long as they aren't "pro-abortion"?

Um, do you not intend on voting in the primaries for 2012?

And anyway, being pro-life is far more important to me than 'gay' issues.

I'm sorry, I sometimes go overboard.
I will vote for Gary Johnson (or Ron Paul if Johnson doesn't run). However, I am still disappointed by how many libertarians think the 'gay' issue is not important. Sure, it may not affect a majority of us or have as many people affected by it as say abortion, but equal rights (I mean actual equality, not favoritism) for all people is a very important issue. I will swallow that pill come the primary season, I will vote in the Republican primaries for an openminded individual on this issue (among others) named Gary Johnson.

Well I really don't see how the gay issue is so important. I'm supposed to get all outraged because gays can't get the meaningless term "marriage" applied to their relationship? Please. I care about the real problems facing this country; that is a trifle.

It isn't that I'm concerned about, it's government believing it can define marriage in the first place and show favortism towards straight partnerships. And I suggest that if you don't give a damn about making all people on the same level of legal equality, if you don't care about the fact that some people are granted more rights than other, to kindly GTFO out of the liberty movement look a little bit more into the plight of gay people since the 1950's.
If you actually think that all gay people are fighting for is the right to call their partnership "marriage", then you are very ignorant of the struggles of millions of gay people around this country. Sure, it is quite easy for LGBT individuals in New York to find employment and housing opportunity, but in my homestate of Oklahoma, where homophobia is running wild, they are treated like absolute sh*t. Such a view, that they are only fighting for the right to call their partnerships "marriage" completely ignores the fact that they have for years been told to shut the f**k up if they join the military or the discriminatory regulations that existed that made homosexuality a justification to prevent one from getting a professional license. The idea that gays are only doing this because they can't call their partnership "marriage" denies the existence of many anti-gay laws such as laws against cross-dressing or allowing the government to collect data on the sexual orientation of citizens or laws that allowed homosexuality to be used as grounds for denying the right to adoption. Such a view denies that the state has for decades been fighting a war against gays, to deny them the same rights as straight people. Such a view disgusts me. Such a view disregards the cries of millions of gay people around the nation for legal equality, no matter if it results in government sanctioned marriage or not, and pretty much says "okay we don't give a sh*t" to the social authoritarians in this nation who would like nothing more than a nationwide ban on gay equivalents to marriage or civil unions.
To call this matter a trifle is nothing more than an endorsement of millions of homophobic bigots out there who have been going out of their way to restrict as much as possible gay rights for decades.
If we are so willing to lie with the Republican animal, it is important that they at least give a little our way as well.
I prefer that the government just say "alright screw this, we won't define marriage, that is a private matter for individuals involved in relationships", but if given a choice between the status quo of "F*** you f****ts" and "marriage rights for all" I prefer the latter.

EDIT: I apologize for the tone, but being the friend of a few gay people who have been the victim of statist laws, I am very passionate about this issue.