Voting isn't a very good indicator of what the majority of people think since it is a self-selected sample.
 

I'm sure all the lesbians stayed home that day.
 

People who have a large stake in the matter (gays and fundamental Christians) come out of the woodwork for these votes. People like me, who aren't affected by such things tend to stay home.
 

Not many Americans vote anyway. Wasn't it something like only half of all Americans voted in this last election? I seem to remember being shocked by the number of people that just don't vote.
 

Voting's just illegitimate anyway...gotcha. How about communism; seems to fit better for your ideas anyway.
 

Hey, why not go all the way traditional? Let's make it so you can't marry outside your race. While we're at it, let's make women the property of their fathers and husbands, and rescind the vote.

I mean, if traditionalism is so great, why stop with the gays? Why not get the blacks and women, too, like we used to?
 

Name one traditionalist, in the modern-day sense of the word, who approves of those thing. You can't because they don't and neither do I.

But, I can name the ACLU as a supporter of the Man-Boy Love Associaion; Ruth Bader Ginsburg want the age of sexual consent to be 12; The ACLU defends the right of individuals to engage in polygamy and believes that laws prohibiting it should be abolished.

There is a radical element in society that wants to redefine America to make fit their liberal utopia--I reject this. In contrast, I simply want to maintain the principles that America has had, errors notwithstanding, elevating the Constitution as the founders envisioned.

If I were really radical as you claim I am, I'd be praying for Jesus to the be the President; haven't done that yet.
 

If I were really radical as you claim I am, I'd be praying for Jesus to the be the President; haven't done that yet.

I'm glad you haven't. Because if Jesus were the president, that would mean that he's come back already, and that would mean that the Apocalypse is on its way, and I just don't want that to happen yet.
 

Name one traditionalist, in the modern-day sense of the word

Look, here's a hint - if the first line of your post contains exactly the contradiction that your opponent is pointing out, just stop. You've lost.

But, I can name the ACLU as a supporter of the Man-Boy Love Associaion;

And also Rush Limbaugh, countless churches, Bill O'Reilly, and a few other of your conservative buddies. New rule - nobody who's been represented by, or had an amicus brief filed on their behalf by, the ACLU is allowed to decry them as a "threat to our liberties."

I mean, I guess I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying that belonging to a group like NAMBLA means you lose your citizenship? What other organizations is that true for? The NRA? The Democratic party? Where is that supposed to stop?

The ACLU defends the right of individuals to engage in polygamy and believes that laws prohibiting it should be abolished.

There are no laws against it. Never have been, or at least, they've never been enforceable. Or did you mean polygamous marriage? You know, like they have in the Bible, and most of human history? You can't get any more traditional than polygamous marriage.

There is a radical element in society that wants to redefine America to make fit their liberal utopia

Yeah - they're called "conservative Christians", and they want America to become something that it has never been, and cannot and should not be - a Christian nation.

If I were really radical as you claim I am, I'd be praying for Jesus to the be the President; haven't done that yet.

Where's the need? You already have a president who think's he's on a mission from God.
 

Argh! What does Communism have to do with SAMPLING?! Are you planning on taking that strawman to Oz?
 

So, you can't name one traditionalist against blacks or women voting; or who think blacks shouldn't marry outside of their race? I didn't think so. So, you characterization is immediately flawed. You've lost.

Belonging to or supporting a group like NAMBLA identifies you with the extreme secular progressive agenda. NAMBLA wants to normalize men and boys having sex--that's extreme!!!!!!!!! Don't you get it? This talk about not being a citizen is ridiculous--we are not even talking about that. Come on.

Chet, your arguments are so weak today; either that or I in my sleepiness have gained superior intellectual ability.

Marriage is inherent in term polygamy. No 'marriage' and all you have is a person sleeping around with a bunch of people. And, yes there are laws against polygamy; people have been convicted of it as recently as 2001.
 

Marriage is not inherent in the term polygamy, since many species of animals are polygamous. And the last time I checked, animals do not sign marriage contracts.

NAMBLA is extreme, yes. I think their members are sick. They do, however, have the right to free speech. Just because I don't like what a group has to say doesn't mean that I won't protect their right to say it.

There are many, many conservatives who advocate putting women back in the kitchen. And the conservatives don't come out and say it, they just fly Confederate flags over government buildings in the South.
 

So, you can't name one traditionalist against blacks or women voting; or who think blacks shouldn't marry outside of their race?

I didn't say I couldn't; there's just no relevance. But if you insist - Fred Phelps. Or Charles Pickering, one of your prominent judges.

Belonging to or supporting a group like NAMBLA identifies you with the extreme secular progressive agenda. NAMBLA wants to normalize men and boys having sex--that's extreme!!!!!!!!!

That is extreme. But you still haven't explained to me why membership in, or even association with, an organization like NAMBLA disqualifies you from civil rights.

If they were doing, not just promoting, something illegal, by all means, let them be punished. But it isn't against the law to be in favor of the legalization of something illegal. And you as a conservative should be very wary of disqualifying any American from civil protections based simply on what they believe; you must be very naieve indeed if you believe that the same rationale you apply to them can't be applied to you.

This talk about not being a citizen is ridiculous--we are not even talking about that.

But that's the only thing that the ACLU defends - a person's rights as a result of being a citizen of the United States of America. You as a conservative should be thankful the ACLU, an organization that has defended many prominent conservatives, exists.

Chet, your arguments are so weak today; either that or I in my sleepiness have gained superior intellectual ability.

In your sleepiness, you've completely missed my point. And if you don't understand that the ACLU defends civil rights then you don't understand in what capacity the ACLU has defended NAMBLA. Never for their "right" to have sex with boys; always for the same rights they enjoy as citizens of the United States. What's wrong with that? Maybe you'd post to the front page about the issue.

Equivocating between the ACLU and NAMBLA is an old conservative canard. I doubt you're even aware of the specific details of the court action you're alluding to.

Marriage is inherent in term polygamy.

No, it's not. If you look at the term you'll see that it's a compound word that, from the Greek, means "many women." It's just a situation where a man is in sexual relationships, openly, with many women simultaneously. Which is not illegal.

But we can talk about polygamous marriage if you like. As I said, it's a very traditional arrangement, and yes, it is currently against the law in all states. So? To oppose it is to be progressive, not traditional.