But the government has been modifying marriage, well, forever.

If the government had never been allowed to regulate marriage and had kept out of it, then:

1. Mormons would still be able to have multiple wives;

2. Women would still be treated as property of their husband (very traditional, and in the Bible, too);

3. People of different races would not be able to get married to each other;

4. People would be able to marry kids as young as 12.

The government defines marriage, not religion. The fact that some religions may perform them does not give the religion the right to define what it is. They can refuse to perform them if they disagree, but we are a nation of laws, not religions. Religions don't have freedom to decide for the rest of us what we will do.

You're probably right, and realistically, what I suggest has 0 chance of happening.

The future will have gay marriage. It's already a fact in many countries and in a few states (where, surprisingly to many Christians, the world has not ended).

Might as well get used to it!

I totally agree, it's only a matter of time. Just feel bad for those who have to wait.

If you go read my post regarding that statement, I even mention I was trying to be ironic, dick head.

Well, let's go to the tape:

What civil right has a Republican ever denied to a gay? If you mean marriage, gays are allowed to marry, just like all American's that meet age requirements and just like all American's, they are not allowed to marry people of the same sex.

That is the entirety of the message. I didn't leave anything out.

Please educate me: Where is the irony?

And as to this comment:

If you go read my post regarding that statement, I even mention I was trying to be ironic, dick head.

What post? There has been no post from you since the original one. Or did you think no one would check?

I was referring to the post about me calling Obama a war monger. It was from a couple of months ago.
Here is the thread: http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=33311&p=978454&hilit=+iran#p978454

Of course, how silly of me. I should have realized that when you make an ironic post from two months ago that the irony must be read in every subsequent post you make.

?

Beeble said Republicans' do not have an irony gene and cited an example of me calling Obama a "war monger." I then pointed out that in that post I was specifically attempting to be ironic.
Other then me calling Beeble a dickhead, which I apologize for and admit that it was an ad hominem attack, I fail to see what your beef is regarding that post and its relation to irony.

goodness. glad to see dialgue

Haven't republicans voted against adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes bill?

Yup. Again, the idea that Republicans have not tried to deny civil rights to gays is patently false. The attempt to argue otherwise is either ludicrously ignorant or intentionally dishonest.

Yeah. I can understand the argument for small government. I don't agree with it, but I can see why some would think that is best. It just doesn't make any sense to me though about the things I've mentioned about republicans.

Are there any conflicting ideologies in the democratic party?

Of course not!

I can think of one (and it affects the GOP as well). Union supporters tend to be more opposed to immigrant labor while on the other hand the Democratic party has traditionally been welcoming towards immigrants.

Another issue is free speech. The Democratic party tends to champion free speech (and that is commendable) while at the same time many members of the party are for speech codes which ban things like hate speech. You will notice these codes when you look at University student codes of conduct.

All ideologies have internal inconsistencies. Afterall, they are espoused by humans.

And the government, likewise, failed at it as well.

So if neither of them work, the least the government can do is stop taking my money for a program that doesn't achieve what it set out to do.

Gotta side with Beeble on this. Most Republicans hide their homophobia and prejudice behind "rational" arguments that they merely seek to ptoect the sanctity of marriage. I call bull.

The ONLY responsibility of the fedneral government on this issue is to either pass an amendment that says the gay marriage is a protected right, or leave it up to the individual states. Anything else is unconstitutional.

He wasn't talking about his original post at all. His comment was only directed towards Beeble's quote...your post and his original post were not the subject of his comment.

I'd say the conflict between unions and immigrants makes more sense than the free speech one, since that's true of both parties. But to clarify, no one has tried to ban hate speech via government, but they have sought to make hate a component of punishment in the committal of another crime. In other words, calling someone a "nigger" to their face or in a public forum is not illegal (career suicide maybe, but not illegal). But to spray paint it on their garage door would be a hate crime as opposed to mere vandalism.