If you could change anything in history?

[peteyt]

If you could change anything in history what would you change:

It can be anything e.g. prevent a war from happening but it can also be preventing something that happened in your own life etc.

[GommeInc]

Ah, that's easy for me. I would of prevented my dad from smoking with the chance that he would still be alive today, or possibly get him seen by a doctor at a medical centre or hospital so they could of discovered the health issues sooner rather than later. Purely self-determinating events :P I can't think of any global events at this point in time that I would change - you cannot change greed.

[FlyingJesus]

I would go back to the ---MAD--- era and stop the change to rep power that was implemented at the time

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am not sure I would change anything because i'd fear what could have occured instead.

However, if I could look at what would follow from that change - i'd look at preventing the British government from involving itself in World War I and II which would have then prevented (or I hope, again you'd have to see) the collapse of the British Empire and everything that has followed; the entry into the EEC, the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the destruction of the education system and so on.

On a personal level I have no idea.

[jasey]

the sexual revolution of the 1960s

Daniel, you don't support the sexual revolution?

If I could change anything in history it would be for the last rulers of the French Monarchy to have escaped properly from France before they were apprehended and ultimately killed in hopes that they would have returned and successfully took order over the country soon after.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Daniel, you don't support the sexual revolution?

No I don't, I don't think a marxist movement which led to all different forms of sex being put into everyday life (radio, television etc) along with legalising abortion was a good thing in the slightest.

The family suffered, the Church suffered and the country suffered.

[FlyingJesus]

Dan you really are the worst libertarian ever. Increased social autonomy is a good thing, bigoted dogma is bad, yet you fully support broken systems which uphold the latter and erase the former. You really need to choose which side you're on at some point

[jasey]

Dan you really are the worst libertarian ever. Increased social autonomy is a good thing, bigoted dogma is bad, yet you fully support broken systems which uphold the latter and erase the former. You really need to choose which side you're on at some point

I was thinking this, Daniel! I agree with Tom!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan you really are the worst libertarian ever. Increased social autonomy is a good thing, bigoted dogma is bad, yet you fully support broken systems which uphold the latter and erase the former. You really need to choose which side you're on at some point

I'm libertarian in method but conservative in personal view hence Libertarian-conservative, I wouldn't legislate against any of the sexual revolution material (publicised homosexuality, pornography) even though I find them deeply damaging and distasteful. I would try and reverse them in terms of social attitudes, but that process ought to have nothing to do with the state.


bigoted dogma is bad

I apologise for being bigoted in that I think children shouldn't be exposed to sexual references on the radio, the television and in conversation.

[FlyingJesus]

So bullying people into thinking a certain way is ok as long as you aren't in government what

[-:Undertaker:-]

So bullying people into thinking a certain way is ok as long as you aren't in government what

It isn't bullying but campaigning with Churches and social conservatives to advocate certain views is fine, yes.

For example lets take gay 'marriage' in how i'm libertarian in method but conservative in opinion; my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and anything other than that I view as void. However in terms of what i'd like the state to do - I would remove the state from marriage which would de facto allow gay 'marriage' aswell as any other form of 'marriage'. I wouldn't ever view it myself as marriage and I could campaign against it, refusing to attend any I am invited to. My point is that the state shouldn't be pro-gay 'marriage' or pro-traditional marriage, it should be removed from that sphere and allow insitutions and individuals to decide.

At the moment the state is on my personal side concerning marriage, but its threatening to move to the opposite side - remove the state from it completely and it'll remove the need for either side to impose its definition on the other.

[FlyingJesus]

I apologise for being bigoted in that I think children shouldn't be exposed to sexual references on the radio, the television and in conversation.

It's quite right that you apologise if you are indeed bigoted in that (or any) belief. There's a world of difference between having a strong belief based on real facts/evidences and being bigoted, and despite disagreeing with a lot of what you say on certain matters I know that you do usually attempt to use better arguments than "IT'S JUST WRONG IT IS" so I don't think you actually are all that bigoted. I'd like to believe that you're a logical enough person to not be, at any rate


It isn't bullying but campaigning with Churches and social conservatives to advocate certain views is fine, yes.

For example lets take gay 'marriage' in how i'm libertarian in method but conservative in opinion; my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and anything other than that I view as void. However in terms of what i'd like the state to do - I would remove the state from marriage which would de facto allow gay 'marriage' aswell as any other form of 'marriage'. I wouldn't ever view it myself as marriage and I could campaign against it, refusing to attend any I am invited to. My point is that the state shouldn't be pro-gay 'marriage' or pro-traditional marriage, it should be removed from that sphere and allow insitutions and individuals to decide.

At the moment the state is on my personal side concerning marriage, but its threatening to move to the opposite side - remove the state from it completely and it'll remove the need for either side to impose its definition on the other.

I definitely agree that marriage should be removed from the state - with state inclusion there's all sorts of benefit fraud to be wraught from it (I've honestly considered it myself as a possible future contract for mutual financial benefit) and it totally ignores the existence and wishes of polyamorists, to name just two of the problems that I personally have with the current concept of "marriage" as a legal/state term. Frankly it's just too tricky a subject to attempt to control through legislation in the modern world, especially with differing views on what does or does not constitute a marriage in the first place.

That's not really the point though. The point is that while you should certainly be allowed to state your views on a subject, you shouldn't be trying to actually change any practises that only affect those directly involved, as per your earlier statement of wanting to reverse social attitudes re: sex. If you actually meant you would just be putting forward your views it's not a problem, so long as you don't coerce, threaten, etc., and don't give false evidences or dismiss evidence contrary to your ideals.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's quite right that you apologise if you are indeed bigoted in that (or any) belief. There's a world of difference between having a strong belief based on real facts/evidences and being bigoted, and despite disagreeing with a lot of what you say on certain matters I know that you do usually attempt to use better arguments than "IT'S JUST WRONG IT IS" so I don't think you actually are all that bigoted. I'd like to believe that you're a logical enough person to not be, at any rate

Where is the bigotry in thinking that pornographic/sexual messages are inappropiate for young children in that I believe it ruins their childhood innocence and is not a need for them to see or hear about on a daily basis.

I am struggling to see where bigotry comes into that.


I definitely agree that marriage should be removed from the state - with state inclusion there's all sorts of benefit fraud to be wraught from it (I've honestly considered it myself as a possible future contract for mutual financial benefit) and it totally ignores the existence and wishes of polyamorists, to name just two of the problems that I personally have with the current concept of "marriage" as a legal/state term. Frankly it's just too tricky a subject to attempt to control through legislation in the modern world, especially with differing views on what does or does not constitute a marriage in the first place.

Indeed.


That's not really the point though. The point is that while you should certainly be allowed to state your views on a subject, you shouldn't be trying to actually change any practises that only affect those directly involved, as per your earlier statement of wanting to reverse social attitudes re: sex. If you actually meant you would just be putting forward your views it's not a problem, so long as you don't coerce, threaten, etc., and don't give false evidences or dismiss evidence contrary to your ideals.

Of course I can, for example lets take the drug issue - I would legalise drugs knowing the immense damage that people will do to themselves by taking drugs, but that is their choice. I personally view those taking drugs as stupid, foolish and undeserving of much sympathy once they are hooked. Therefore in a libertarian society the state would neither be pro-drugs or anti-drugs. But as a private subject who agrees with this, I could and would for example involve myself in campaigns (campaigns not calling for legislation on the matter, thats the crucial point) which advised people to stay away from drug taking and to boycott the drug business.

I go back to the sex point as well, as a private subject I would probably boycott stores which insisted in taking a pro-sexual revolutionary stance in what they sell. Heck I might even set up a campaign to persuade them (or threat you could say by launching a boycott) not to follow this social line anymore in which I disapprove of. Instead of using legislation via the state to push for my conservative opinions I would have to use financial pressure and battle for the hearts and minds of the people through simple debate and discussion. Even in a libertarian society, the battle between marxists and conservatives will still go on and I stand with the conservatives.

[jasey]

I wouldn't legislate against any of the sexual revolution material (publicised homosexuality, pornography) even though I find them deeply damaging and distasteful.

Daniel, you really worry me sometimes. Why do you say things like that? What in the world is wrong with publicised homosexuality? Do you think it is wrong for two men to kiss in public, perhaps at an airport after being apart for a month, just like a woman and man might? I don't want to bring your own orientation in to this but it pains me deeply when anyone, especially fellow homosexuals, say things like this. It is bad enough when psychotics campaign against any normal life for homosexuals. Sometimes these psychotics go so far as to kill people because of it - directly or indirectly. Please do not dig my grave and perhaps your own by advocating the censorship of same-sex love. It is a small step to a big slide in the wrong direction. Do you really think that me showing a public display of affection to my husband is damaging? You really believe that an advertisement on the television showing two women in love is distasteful? Honestly, please tell me you were joking. I am very shaken and upset.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Daniel, you really worry me sometimes. Why do you say things like that? What in the world is wrong with publicised homosexuality? Do you think it is wrong for two men to kiss in public, perhaps at an airport after being apart for a month, just like a woman and man might? I don't want to bring your own orientation in to this but it pains me deeply when anyone, especially fellow homosexuals, say things like this. It is bad enough when psychotics campaign against any normal life for homosexuals. Sometimes these psychotics go so far as to kill people because of it - directly or indirectly. Please do not dig my grave and perhaps your own by advocating the censorship of same-sex love. It is a small step to a big slide in the wrong direction. Do you really think that me showing a public display of affection to my husband is damaging? You really believe that an advertisement on the television showing two women in love is distasteful? Honestly, please tell me you were joking. I am very shaken and upset.

I'm not advocating any legislation on these matters, see above.

Do remember, toleration is not approval.

[FlyingJesus]

Where is the bigotry in thinking that pornographic/sexual messages are inappropiate for young children in that I believe it ruins their childhood innocence and is not a need for them to see or hear about on a daily basis.

I am struggling to see where bigotry comes into that.

Which is precisely why I said "if" and that I don't think you are a bigot. Bigotry is holding a belief that you are not willing to budge on no matter what evidence is thrown at you, and you've stated actual reasons for your views in this example. I'm not really sure what you're attacking here - you apologised for being bigoted, I said you weren't being bigoted, then you tried telling me off for calling you bigoted... if the apology was sarcasm then it was putting words in my mouth in that I never mentioned any specifics, and wasn't needed in the first place. So yeah think we're done on this one


Of course I can, for example lets take the drug issue - I would legalise drugs knowing the immense damage that people will do to themselves by taking drugs, but that is their choice. I personally view those taking drugs as stupid, foolish and undeserving of much sympathy once they are hooked. Therefore in a libertarian society the state would neither be pro-drugs or anti-drugs. But as a private subject who agrees with this, I could and would for example involve myself in campaigns (campaigns not calling for legislation on the matter, thats the crucial point) which advised people to stay away from drug taking and to boycott the drug business.

I go back to the sex point as well, as a private subject I would probably boycott stores which insisted in taking a pro-sexual revolutionary stance in what they sell. Heck I might even set up a campaign to persuade them (or threat you could say by launching a boycott) not to follow this social line anymore in which I disapprove of. Instead of using legislation via the state to push for my conservative opinions I would have to use financial pressure and battle for the hearts and minds of the people through simple debate and discussion. Even in a libertarian society, the battle between marxists and conservatives will still go on and I stand with the conservatives.

You do know that conservative is not synonymous with Christian purist, right? Personal views on drugs and sex have absolutely nothing to do with Marxism or conservatism, and what you're talking about isn't libertarianism either because you're trying to force certain things to happen for/to other people, which definitely goes against that at the core. You seem basically to be saying you want to do away with the state and replace it not with autonomy but with plutocracy, essentially with a "you can do what you want, as long as it's what I want" attitude. Any time you impose yourself on someone else you are not acting in a libertarian manner

[jasey]

I'm not advocating any legislation on these matters, see above.

Do remember, toleration is not approval.

I read very well that you don't support legislation. What I am saying is that an attitude like that is pushing guys like me that have lived before down the stairs they worked very damn hard to climb. I might expect that kind of point of view if you were the leader of Saudi Arabia but you are a very thoughtful and equally homosexual male from a western country. I simply don't understand how you can say things like that. You may not support legislation but by supporting and even 'campaigning' that point of view you are encouraging the same around you among others who may and probably would support legislation. Not everyone is content to have their view and sit on it politely. People like to have their rules on top - it is human nature. I beg you to rethink the things you are saying because I believe that guys like you are the future of our world and it scares me and breaks my heart at the same time to know you think things like this. I don't want to live in a world where I am not allowed to be who I was born to be.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Which is precisely why I said "if" and that I don't think you are a bigot. Bigotry is holding a belief that you are not willing to budge on no matter what evidence is thrown at you, and you've stated actual reasons for your views in this example. I'm not really sure what you're attacking here - you apologised for being bigoted, I said you weren't being bigoted, then you tried telling me off for calling you bigoted... if the apology was sarcasm then it was putting words in my mouth in that I never mentioned any specifics, and wasn't needed in the first place. So yeah think we're done on this one

Oh good.


You do know that conservative is not synonymous with Christian purist, right? Personal views on drugs and sex have absolutely nothing to do with Marxism or conservatism,

Yes they do i'm afraid, conservatives believe in sexual morality whereas cultural marxism pushes for the legalisation of drugs, a care-free sexual climate (which is also viewed as the freedom of the woman).


and what you're talking about isn't libertarianism either because you're trying to force certain things to happen for/to other people, which definitely goes against that at the core. You seem basically to be saying you want to do away with the state and replace it not with autonomy but with plutocracy, essentially saying "you can do what you want, as long as it's what I want". Any time you impose yourself on someone else you are not acting in a libertarian manner

I don't have to act in a libertarian (which I think you are confusing with modern liberalism) manner in my personal life. I take this "you can do what you want, as long as it's what I want" - as an individual if you are doing something which I disapprove of for whatever reasons and you are on my property then I can force you to comply otherwise you are ejected from my property. If not and it is a business that I do not own for example doing something which I do not approve of then they do not have to take any notice of me should they choose to do so.

Attempting to reason somebody/the population around to your opinion without using force is libertarian.


I read very well that you don't support legislation. What I am saying is that an attitude like that is pushing guys like me that have lived before down the stairs they worked very damn hard to climb. I might expect that kind of point of view if you were the leader of Saudi Arabia but you are a very thoughtful and equally homosexual male from a western country. I simply don't understand how you can say things like that. You may not support legislation but by supporting and even 'campaigning' that point of view you are encouraging the same around you among others who may and probably would support legislation. Not everyone is content to have their view and sit on it politely. People like to have their rules on top - it is human nature. I beg you to rethink the things you are saying because I believe that guys like you are the future of our world and it scares me and breaks my heart at the same time to know you think things like this. I don't want to live in a world where I am not allowed to be who I was born to be.

Ah yes, because Saudi Arabia pushes for the state to stay out of the business of homosexuals.

I don't see the issue you've picked here, I don't support any legislation on this topic - in a libertarian society we'd simply be battling against one another for the attitudes of the people, and thats another debate.

[FlyingJesus]

Yes they do i'm afraid, conservatives believe in sexual morality whereas cultural marxism pushes for the legalisation of drugs, a care-free sexual climate (which is also viewed as the freedom of the woman).

Oh dear, we're confusing conservative with Conservative are we? Sexual morality is subjective (as is all morality) and so to suggest that one who doesn't comply with a strict "only in marriage, only for procreation" approach -or any other- does not have sexual morals is entirely wrong. I rather thought you'd have learned the difference in terms by now.


I don't have to act in a libertarian (which I think you are confusing with modern liberalism) manner in my personal life. I take this "you can do what you want, as long as it's what I want" - as an individual if you are doing something which I disapprove of for whatever reasons and you are on my property then I can force you to comply otherwise you are ejected from my property. If not and it is a business that I do not own for example doing something which I do not approve of then they do not have to take any notice of me should they choose to do so.

Attempting to reason somebody/the population around to your opinion without using force is libertarian.

Use of boycotts and financial pressure in order to impress a point on people is not "without using force". If I have a choice between being shot dead and being allowed to live but having to live by another's ethical code that I don't agree with I'd certainly take life, but that wouldn't mean I haven't been forced into a certain way of living. That's an extreme, but it's the extreme of pressure. Genuinely disappointed in where this has ended up, honestly believed you had a grip on logic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh dear, we're confusing conservative with Conservative are we? Sexual morality is subjective (as is all morality) and so to suggest that one who doesn't comply with a strict "only in marriage, only for procreation" approach -or any other- does not have sexual morals is entirely wrong. I rather thought you'd have learned the difference in terms by now.

No 'we' are not referring to the Conservative Party with the capital C, I don 't believe its come up actually. The morality argument is an entirely different argument that I have tried to steer away from as you come from the left on the issue whereas I come from the conservative side on the issue which supports the notion of Christian morality which has been present on these islands for thousands of years and is something myself and conservatives wish to preserve. We agree on the state issue and how to go about this, we differ on the personal issues - but i'm not wanting to go into them here in-depth because they are entirely different subjects.

I am not arguing for morality to be legislated on although I will argue in favour of what I view as morality should you wish to do so at any time.


Use of boycotts and financial pressure in order to impress a point on people is not "without using force". If I have a choice between being shot dead and being allowed to live but having to live by another's ethical code that I don't agree with I'd certainly take life, but that wouldn't mean I haven't been forced into a certain way of living. That's an extreme, but it's the extreme of pressure. Genuinely disappointed in where this has ended up, honestly believed you had a grip on logic.

Then you again show you don't understand a libertarian society, you are now bringing anarchy into the topic which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. I understand the point about the gun being used to pressure people, and thats exactly why i'm a libertarian with conservative personal opinions and not an anarchist.

[jasey]

Ah yes, because Saudi Arabia pushes for the state to stay out of the business of homosexuals.

I don't see the issue you've picked here, I don't support any legislation on this topic - in a libertarian society we'd simply be battling against one another for the attitudes of the people, and thats another debate.

I am saying that by holding the opinion you do, you are encouraging other people who would support legislation solidifying the opinion to go further with it. You are a type of supporter. Let me quote myself so you can re-read what I just said in this post in my previous post.


You may not support legislation but by supporting and even 'campaigning' that point of view you are encouraging the same around you among others who may and probably would support legislation. Not everyone is content to have their view and sit on it politely.

Let me make an example. There is a country called Dystopia and the country is founded on the basis that the state will stay out of the personal lives of its citizens. Everything is fine for a while but, as humans, some of us will naturally form a bias or an opinion on something regarding the personal lives of Dystopians - like homosexuality. It starts with one person. They believe that public homosexuality is damaging in this case. That person is you, Daniel. You are that citizen. They don't do anything about their opinion and sit on it content to believe what they believe. One day they meet another citizen who has independently developed the same opinion because, in Dystopia, people obey the values that the nation was founded on and don't usually discuss things like this. Now, Daniel, you and your peer who shares your opinion that public homosexuality is damaging or immoral have connected over this.

You may or may not talk about it after the initial realisation but you can be certain that two other people in Dystopia have connected over the same thing. No one can be sure why - perhaps a homosexual has wronged a citizen of Dystopia and they carry a grudge on the whole homosexual population. Perhaps some believe that any public sexuality is wrong but take on public homosexuality because it is a smaller stone to crush since homosexuality is naturally a minority behaviour in humans. In any case, the opinion develops. Periodical connections between individuals with the same opinion as you, Daniel, connect.

Some citizens of Dystopia soon also develop the opinion that some of the founding principles of the nation are not correct. This is not farfetched - slavery was once the dominant paradigm throughout the western world in years past. People like you Daniel, the simple citizen with his opinion that he kept mostly quiet, begin to mutate. Some of you will remain the same and urge for the state to remain impartial to the personal lives of its citizens. Others, unlike you, will support legislation. As humans, so many of us are programmed to desire our views to be in the spotlight. One by one people who want to ban public homosexuality amass in to groups and, eventually, it is quite possible that Dystopian citizens like this enter the political arena of the nation and begin to make change to suit their beliefs.

While it is not totally likely that there will be enough support to change the founding values of Dystopia, there is a change that is large enough to be considered a risk. A small group of determined radicals has just as much power as a huge group of special snowflakes who have no interest in change. Perhaps in this case people who have grown to support legislation against public homosexuality and the children of these citizens who inherited their parents' views get strong enough to pass the legislation they desire. Just like that, my friend, homosexuals like me no longer live in the Dystopia I grew up in. I am no longer allowed to embrace my husband in public, view anything but heteronormative publications in the media and news and admit and act like my true self in a public spectrum. My most important rights have been stripped away.

Daniel, go back to the start. Who did this start with? It started with a person - perhaps you, perhaps not - who had a toxic opinion. I beg you to rethink your position before people like me are forced backwards on to the dead bodies of activists who have fought for my rights over the past fifty years. I don't want to live a secret life. Please think of us.

[FlyingJesus]

No 'we' are not referring to the Conservative Party with the capital C, I don 't believe its come up actually. The morality argument is an entirely different argument that I have tried to steer away from as you come from the left on the issue whereas I come from the conservative side on the issue which supports the notion of Christian morality which has been present on these islands for thousands of years and is something myself and conservatives wish to preserve. We agree on the state issue and how to go about this, we differ on the personal issues - but i'm not wanting to go into them here in-depth because they are entirely different subjects.

I am not arguing for morality to be legislated on although I will argue in favour of what I view as morality should you wish to do so at any time.

I'm not coming from the left at all, not everything loosely associated with Marx is a leftist policy. Separation of church and state is something Marx wanted, but it doesn't mean that everyone who agrees is a Marxist in the same way that having hair doesn't make me a lion. As for arguing morality, that really is a fruitless task, hence why it shouldn't be state-sanctioned (which we agree on) or forced upon people (which seemingly you don't agree with).


Then you again show you don't understand a libertarian society, you are now bringing anarchy into the topic which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. I understand the point about the gun being used to pressure people, and thats exactly why i'm a libertarian with conservative personal opinions and not an anarchist.

I'm not talking about anarchism (although technically anarchism is a branch of libertarianism and therefore certainly part of the subject at hand), I'm talking about how you absolutely cannot claim to be a libertarian if you think coercion and pressure are good tools for "winning" points. That's the ONE THING that a libertarian government is supposed to protect from. You're allowed your personal opinions, I do not deny this. You are not, however, allowed to suggest shaming, bullying, and pressuring as tools to force other people to agree with you if you wish to call yourself a libertarian. That is entirely analogous to someone wearing a badge saying "vegetarian" while they eat a plate of bacon.

In a libertarian world, your views are your views. They affect you. They do NOT affect other people and theirs do NOT affect you. If this isn't the case, it's not libertarianism.

[Cerys]

I have no idea what's going on in the above posts, but I'm just going to say something I'd change in my history:

Definitely coming on habbo in 08. Its taken so much of my life away and whenever I quit I end up missing people and coming back on xD

[peteyt]

love how my post have been hijacked ha

[beth]

totes selfish but i would go back to being 11 and do everything differently.

[Inseriousity.]

I don't know, it's hard to see what you'd change because the mistakes of the past mean they can be prevented in the future. The holocaust, for example, is horrible piece of human history that I wish didn't happen but anti-semitism was a common thing at the time and after ww2 it became taboo to believe in fascism and their ideologies (hooray!) so yeah it's tough. On a personal level, I wish I wasn't such a selfish brat as a kid but again that's shaped me into the try-to-be-considerate-as-much-as-possible person I am today!

[MKR&*42]

Probably breaking up with one of my exes a few years ago. I'm not a huge fan of romance, but I would love to see how it would have turned out if I hadn't ended it.

[geo]

Not entirely sure I'd change anything (like the big, big happenings in the world) because what if they didn't happen, what would have happened instead? It could have been far worse. :P

Um, if I could go back though I'd change the secondary school I went to. I don't feel like I belong and I don't think the teaching standards are great either, haha.

[dbgtz]

@the whole debate above on homosexuality etc. I think the most annoying part of this debate is that people keep complaining about homosexual rights etc (this includes feminism, race and stuff like that aswell) but there seriously is nothing to complain about anymore and some people just seem to stir up crap. And on the whole marriage point of homosexuality, is there any real need? Civil partnerships already exist and marriage is just thrown around by most people nowadays anyway so it's basically worthless.

Anyway on the original thread, I'd quite like to see what would happen if the American Revolution failed.

[peteyt]

@the whole debate above on homosexuality etc. I think the most annoying part of this debate is that people keep complaining about homosexual rights etc (this includes feminism, race and stuff like that aswell) but there seriously is nothing to complain about anymore and some people just seem to stir up crap. And on the whole marriage point of homosexuality, is there any real need? Civil partnerships already exist and marriage is just thrown around by most people nowadays anyway so it's basically worthless.

Anyway on the original thread, I'd quite like to see what would happen if the American Revolution failed.

Interesting you said that. A friend of mine who is gay said quite a few years ago he wasn't that keen on all the gay movements as he thought they where asking for extra rights over everyone else

[The Don]

It isn't bullying but campaigning with Churches and social conservatives to advocate certain views is fine, yes.

For example lets take gay 'marriage' in how i'm libertarian in method but conservative in opinion; my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and anything other than that I view as void. However in terms of what i'd like the state to do - I would remove the state from marriage which would de facto allow gay 'marriage' aswell as any other form of 'marriage'. I wouldn't ever view it myself as marriage and I could campaign against it, refusing to attend any I am invited to. My point is that the state shouldn't be pro-gay 'marriage' or pro-traditional marriage, it should be removed from that sphere and allow insitutions and individuals to decide.

At the moment the state is on my personal side concerning marriage, but its threatening to move to the opposite side - remove the state from it completely and it'll remove the need for either side to impose its definition on the other.

Dan i am confused, you argue that everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities such as smokers etc, yet believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Talk about hypocrisy.

EDIT:
Sorry, just re-read your post, seems that I misread it, probably something to do with the lateness of the hour. Sorry :P

[The Don]

Anyway on the original thread, I'd quite like to see what would happen if the American Revolution failed.

We would all be speaking German, wearing Swastika's

[ange-vashes!]

I wouldnt change anything.

[Seikou]

i'd go back a few years and stop my cousin from getting into that car. the driver crashed and everyone in the car walked away from the accident unharmed except for my cousin who lost his life. things would be so much better if he was still here.