Party idea, two right wing parties

[Donerail]

Conservatism by defintion is defined by the actions of the left that it is reacting to.

Thank you! Finally, someone admits that you guys base decisions off of what the left does in this game. Makes you wonder what will happen if you guys ever actually control the Senate + Presidency.

Actually I was thinking of the changes to Conservatism that occured between the 1880's and 1930's. How the ideology that started in America under the RL Hamilton, became that of Bob Taft.

Objective 1: Order some tea.
Objective 2: Get unemployment under 6% for like the first time in six or seven years.
Objective 3: Order some more tea
Objective 4: Devolve something to the regions.
Objective 5: Man the tea cups are just too damn small now.
Objective 6: Support Regional Education Reforms
Objective 7: Buy some lemons

Can they be combustible lemons?

Damn interventionists and their combustible lemons...

[Donerail]

Most of my comments on marriage were in response to the intolerance many here have towards traditional marriage and the Christian worldview. Plus why should the Atlasian senate have final say on an issue that should be handled on the regional level in a game like this?

As for gun control you also need to look at when I've talked about support for background checks and comprehensive education in the proper use of said firearms. Its totally unfair to cherrypick that statement when the other statements exist and that was in response to TNF and his view in taking away the guns of law enforcement.

The loading nuclear waste and shooting it into the sun thing...... for an enviromentalist as most leftists such as yourself are, whatever happened to an all of the above idea to solutions to environmental problems?

With regards to evolution you would rather believe a crackpot like Darwin blindly instead of men like George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Galileo, Issac Newton, Ron and Rand Paul, Kelvin, Faraday, Pascal and Pasteur amongst many others like DiVinci

How is repealing the direct election of senators or the income tax bizarre?

Okay. Dude, I like you. But damn it you're digging yourself a bigger hole here. Nobody here has an issue with Christianity and nobody is seriously trying to destroy 'traditional marriage'. We're just not legislating on the basis of Christianity. We accept equality in marriage, as do (I would venture to say) most Federalists. As a Christian I've been able to reconcile my faith and gay equality. As both an environmentalist and a supporter of nuclear power, shooting it into the sun is in no way any kind of good option. Rockets fail. Pretty often. A rocket plummeting into a populated area filled with nuclear materials is not a good idea to even be remotely possible. Darwin is not a crackpot and is a much better biologist than a Senator/ophthalmologist whose job in no way confronts studying the theory of evolution. And the income tax is the main method of government revenue, so repealing it is bizarre. And repealing electing our representatives is inherently anti-democratic, and is out of the mainstream of both Atlasia and the US.

[Donerail]

Yes, you're destroying traditional marriage because you're eliminating the entire concept.

Much as we destroyed traditional marriage by allowing interracial marriage, yes, I'm aware.

Now, I'm happy to vote for others like yourself (see my first preference), on the grounds that we have a truce on these issues. You don't push the same Labor party line, we support you in the elections. Want to go to war over this, you'll happily lose folks like JCL and myself and our support. Forever. Not voting for you is less of a consequence then going against what our faith teaches.

The reason I'm not pushing these issues, and the reason there seems to be a truce on them, is because they are largely settled. There is no way that there is a majority in the Senate that will vote to change our current laws to the detriment of gay unions and a President that will sign such legislation for the foreseeable future. I don't talk about them because we've already won on the issue.

Far from it, you're legislating contrary to Christianity.

See below, but the civil unions we have in Atlasia in place of government-sanctioned marriage are a wholly civil and secular institution.

Do you believe it's discriminatory that marriage is limited to only one person?

The Economist has an excellent explanation of why polygamy is different. Though a short contributing argument that should be presented here: prohibiting polygamous marriage is placing a prohibition on conduct, while prohibiting gay marriage is discriminating based on biology. There are also a variety of legal issues.

So. Show me where Jesus blesses gay marriage. I don't see it. Personally, I think you're lying here. You don't really care what Christ has to say so long as it's in line with your social liberalism.

Prove me wrong. Show me how Jesus does indeed state that your believe is coherent with his teachings.

That's not my burden to prove, it's your own: I can provide no instances of Jesus condemning same-sex marriage or actions and cannot derive from the Gospel a Biblical prohibition of same-sex relationships.

Look: I don't want a culture war. But I will defend the rights of same-sex individuals.

[Donerail]

Forcing it on the regions is not a settled issue. You vote the Labor party line on that and I'll never vote for you again. Ever.

Alrighty

If you can't vote for me because I continue to support the right of people to love who they love, not my problem. I'll continue to vote the Labor/Progressive Union/Liberal/pretty much everyone else except you and JCL line on those issues, and I will continue to fight for social tolerance and give same-sex couples the same equal, fundamental, human rights as everyone else, because that is what I believe as a Christian who believes in tolerance. I am just as willing to lose votes for that belief as you are for yours.