Bush And The Constitution

[clocker]

Well, I suppose it was inevitable...disheartening nonetheless.
Bush has come out ( funny choice of words, eh?) in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.

As I recall, the Constitution is strangely silent concerning the validity of opposite sex marriage, how is it reasonable to use this document to bludgeon a minority on this subject?
Oddly, I imagine that the very same folks who are most vocal about the "sanctity" of the Constitution when it comes to upholding their rights ( yes, I'm referring to gun owners), have absolutely no qualms about adding a whole new section to this, "the most perfect",document.

What I find the most distressing is that I now believe that Bush plans on making this, a most divisive yet ultimately sooo trivial, issue the centerpiece of his campaign.
A diversion, if you will, distracting us from the general inanity of his past performance.
A smokescreen to cover up the fact that his latest budget wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a 9th grade economics class...NO MENTION WHATSOEVER about the 50 or so BILLION necessary to keep us in Iraq for the next year.
Grandiose promises of social programs ( "No Child Left Behind", my ass), with, ooopsie!, no funding to implement them.
A Medicare plan that won't produce ( the disputed) benefits for several years and will, most likely, cripple coming generations with unsupportable debt.
The systematic and unrelenting dismantling of environmental protections...for example, just last week, ignoring the recommendations of TWO Bush appointed panels and overwhelming public support, Yellowstone was again opened to essentially unregulated snowmobile traffic. Oh gee, that's right...there is regulation...too bad Bush has also dismantled the Parks Service, so there's no one around to do the regulating.

Ironically, as Bush is beavering away at cutting funding for every program to preserve and protect our natural resources and historic monuments, Laura is the star of a series of national ads urging US to pony up the money.
Gosh Laura honey, LOVE to help out, but, funny thing...I'm unemployed. My job went to India.
A phenomonon which Bush's Labor Secretary wants us to believe is a "good thing".
Good if you are a CEO of a multinational corporation, maybe.

Oh well, I look forward to the next months with great anticipation.
Bush's fabled grasp of rhetoric should provide hours of amusement.

And damn! maybe we can keep the queers from further degrading the institution of marriage.

I wonder if supporters of this amendment would mind if it also prohibited adultery?

[atiVidia]

i support it!


and id like it to prohibit adultery as well :)


lets also remember how many buckets ofr red ink he threw onto the national bill...

what is it: 500 trillion by the end of the year???

[Busyman]

Yeah clocker and vote Nader to preserve all of that. <_<

[Agrajag]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[clocker]

"Unless they be queer."

That part gets left out a lot....

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 22:59
"Unless they be queer."

That part gets left out a lot....
You forgot "Islamic" and "anti-government activist".

[clocker]

Talk about a minority..."the homosexual Islamic activist"...
As Jon Stewart said, a voting bloc as large as the "retarded death row Texans for Bush".

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 22:59
"Unless they be queer."

That part gets left out a lot....
:lol:

Don&#39;t you hate it when people quote something and deliberately leave a bit out, because it doesn&#39;t suit their point ?

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 23:12
Talk about a minority..."the homosexual Islamic activist"...
As Jon Stewart said, a voting bloc as large as the "retarded death row Texans for Bush".
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Agrajag]

From Website (http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/main/gl991220a.htm)

Dateline: 12/20/99

The Decision

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled today (December 20, 1999) that gay and lesbian couples must be granted the same benefits and protections given married couples of the opposite sex. The ruling has been described as the first of its kind in the nation.

Gay rights activist Scott Miller notes, "A huge victory in the state of Vermont goes a long way towards removing our second-class status as citizens."

He continues, "To mark this momentous occasion, I would like to see every national gay organization schedule their next convention in Vermont. Giving this state an influx of gay dollars is the least we could do&#33;"

I can&#39;t say that I disagree with him. Any state that supports fundamental fairness is all right in my book.

The case that is bringing the smiles is Baker v. State, where three Vermont (two men and four women) couples were suing for freedom to marry.

In its landmark decision, the Vermont Supreme Court today ruled in favor of three same-sex couples who challenged the constitutionality of Vermont&#39;s marriage laws.

Writing for the Court, Justice Amestoy declared, "The extension of the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge plaintiffs as Vermonters who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity."

The decision made no bones about the benefits marriage confers, "We hold that the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law."

The Court concluded that statutory benefits and protections of marriage must be extended to same-sex couples. The Court directed the legislature to remedy the discrimination. The court said the Legislature will determine whether such benefits will come through formal marriage or a system of domestic partnerships.

Under either method, the result must offer equal protections to same-sex couples as currently afforded to heterosexual married couples. The decision was unanimous.

The Plaintiffs

Holly Puterbaugh and Lois Farnham, one of the plaintiff couples, cheered the Court&#39;s ruling, noting, "We&#39;ll be celebrating our 27th anniversary together in October. We look forward to the time when we can finally make it official." Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan of Shelburne, and Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles of South Burlington, joined Farnham and Puterbaugh in challenging the State of Vermont&#39;s refusal to grant them civil marriage licenses.

Susan Murray, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs from the Middlebury law firm Langrock Sperry & Wool, stated: "It&#39;s really a win-win situation for everyone. The Court&#39;s decision will provide added security and protection to same-sex couples and their families without taking anything away from anyone else."

"This is a legal and cultural milestone," added Mary Bonauto, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, and Civil Rights Director at New England-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. "The Court recognized that same-sex couples need and deserve the same legal rights and protections other people take for granted. The Court&#39;s decision paves the way for more secure families and stronger communities."

It appears that The Pres now wishes to change your Constitution in order to outlaw Gay marriages. It would seem that he has no desire for individual states to make their own decisions in this matter. See my earlier post re the fourteenth amendment.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 19:58
Oddly, I imagine that the very same folks who are most vocal about the "sanctity" of the Constitution when it comes to upholding their rights ( yes, I&#39;m referring to gun owners), have absolutely no qualms about adding a whole new section to this, "the most perfect",document.


bit assuming to say gun owners are anti-gays.............

[lynx]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 18:58
No Child Left Behind My Ass
A quote from Michael Jackson? :rolleyes:

[vidcc]

The next time Bush gives one of his justifying speeches about fighting for freedom you can shout out hypocrite at the top of your voice.
As Americans we should be fighting for the freedom of ALL Americans even if we don&#39;t agree with their views. If you feel that gay people shouldn&#39;t be joined as a couple and share the same rights as hetrosexual people then you have the freedom to have that view, but not the freedom to stop their freedoms.
Wanting to add something like this to the constitution smacks of oppression to me and is anti everything the USA is supposed to stand for.... Freedom,Liberty and justice FOR ALL.
As a hetrosexual, happily married father of 3 with one on the way i don&#39;t understand why someone wants to sleep with the same sex....but i don&#39;t judge them and i will fight for their right to do so.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@24 February 2004 - 19:54
From Website (http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/main/gl991220a.htm)

Dateline: 12/20/99

The Decision

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled today (December 20, 1999) that gay and lesbian couples must be granted the same benefits and protections given married couples of the opposite sex. The ruling has been described as the first of its kind in the nation.

Gay rights activist Scott Miller notes, "A huge victory in the state of Vermont goes a long way towards removing our second-class status as citizens."

He continues, "To mark this momentous occasion, I would like to see every national gay organization schedule their next convention in Vermont. Giving this state an influx of gay dollars is the least we could do&#33;"

I can&#39;t say that I disagree with him. Any state that supports fundamental fairness is all right in my book.

The case that is bringing the smiles is Baker v. State, where three Vermont (two men and four women) couples were suing for freedom to marry.

In its landmark decision, the Vermont Supreme Court today ruled in favor of three same-sex couples who challenged the constitutionality of Vermont&#39;s marriage laws.

Writing for the Court, Justice Amestoy declared, "The extension of the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge plaintiffs as Vermonters who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity."

The decision made no bones about the benefits marriage confers, "We hold that the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law."

The Court concluded that statutory benefits and protections of marriage must be extended to same-sex couples. The Court directed the legislature to remedy the discrimination. The court said the Legislature will determine whether such benefits will come through formal marriage or a system of domestic partnerships.

Under either method, the result must offer equal protections to same-sex couples as currently afforded to heterosexual married couples. The decision was unanimous.

The Plaintiffs

Holly Puterbaugh and Lois Farnham, one of the plaintiff couples, cheered the Court&#39;s ruling, noting, "We&#39;ll be celebrating our 27th anniversary together in October. We look forward to the time when we can finally make it official." Stan Baker and Peter Harrigan of Shelburne, and Nina Beck and Stacy Jolles of South Burlington, joined Farnham and Puterbaugh in challenging the State of Vermont&#39;s refusal to grant them civil marriage licenses.

Susan Murray, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs from the Middlebury law firm Langrock Sperry & Wool, stated: "It&#39;s really a win-win situation for everyone. The Court&#39;s decision will provide added security and protection to same-sex couples and their families without taking anything away from anyone else."

"This is a legal and cultural milestone," added Mary Bonauto, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, and Civil Rights Director at New England-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. "The Court recognized that same-sex couples need and deserve the same legal rights and protections other people take for granted. The Court&#39;s decision paves the way for more secure families and stronger communities."

It appears that The Pres now wishes to change your Constitution in order to outlaw Gay marriages. It would seem that he has no desire for individual states to make their own decisions in this matter. See my earlier post re the fourteenth amendment.
Uh yeah if it&#39;s federal law then yes it supercedes state law.
Yeah that&#39;s right ok.

[vegasguy]

Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are human beings, isnt marriage a bond between two people? Who cares if its the same sex. Homosexuals has been around since the begining of time, by shutting homosexuals out its comparing to the racial discrimination of blacks in the slavery days. They were denied their human rights and this damn country is doing the same.

VOTE FOR CLINTON&#33; Uh, I mean KERRY&#33;

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 15:12
Talk about a minority..."the homosexual Islamic activist"...
As Jon Stewart said, a voting bloc as large as the "retarded death row Texans for Bush".
or "Hobo Mayor."

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005S8KT.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[atiVidia]

Originally posted by vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 01:57
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are human beings, isnt marriage a bond between two people?&nbsp; Who cares if its the same sex.&nbsp; Homosexuals has been around since the begining of time, by shutting homosexuals out its comparing to the racial discrimination of blacks in the slavery days.&nbsp; They were denied their human rights and this damn country is doing the same.

VOTE FOR CLINTON&#33;&nbsp; Uh, I mean KERRY&#33;
a marriage has and still is defined as:

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

it is usually NOT legal to have same-sex marriage

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage


in my opinion: homosexuality is a disease. such laws and amendments are a cure to this wretched disease&#33; homosexuality is usually a genetic thing. thus, it should have been abolished by not allowing lesbian couples to have sperm.


it could also be a hormonal thing, in which case the hormone inbalance can be cured.



homosexual, like HIV and AIDS, should be researched and cured. it is destroying the society. by cured, i mean an actual cure, not genocide.

[vegasguy]

Hi,

homosexuals is not caused by genentic, that is the misperception that millions of people have. Studies show that a child raise by same-sex couple has a greater chance to be hit by a toliet seat from a airplane.

Homosexuality is caused by the person enivornment, in which they grew up in.

I gotta go to work, ill have to find my sources later on, to prove my point.

[j2k4]

A sedan and a motorcycle can both be defined as transportation insofar as they are capable of conveying a body from point A to point B.

However, only one might be appropriately termed a car.

Gays are human.

Straights are human.

But:

Gays are "homosexual".

Straights are "heterosexual".

Are these terms/references to be done away with, too?

If civil union somehow isn&#39;t good enough (even though that term has all the legal connotations of a marriage), why don&#39;t gays coin a term they can all agree on?

For all of you who ask, What&#39;s the big deal?", why shouldn&#39;t it suffice to say that those who, for whatever reason, wish to keep the term marriage as it is, currently and legally, just want it to remain that way?

If you are gay, and a "civil union" (or whatever term you care to affix to it), fills the bill as to legalities, what could possibly be wrong with coming up with something else?

Not to stereotype, but shouldn&#39;t this be a welcome opportunity for gays to put their renowned creativity to use?

Why "MARRIAGE?" :huh:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 10:54
Homosexuality is caused by the person enivornment, in which they grew up in.


so how does that work with homosexuals that grew up in a hetrosexual family?..nearly all of them

[vidcc]

j2.

Are you saying that people that marry outside a church ceromony are not married?...please clear this up for me :)

[sk8er789]

Originally posted by vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 06:57
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are human beings, isnt marriage a bond between two people?&nbsp; Who cares if its the same sex.&nbsp; Homosexuals has been around since the begining of time, by shutting homosexuals out its comparing to the racial discrimination of blacks in the slavery days.&nbsp; They were denied their human rights and this damn country is doing the same.

VOTE FOR CLINTON&#33;&nbsp; Uh, I mean KERRY&#33;


are you really comparing racism and gays wanting to be married
huge difference, race is not a choice
being gay is a decision that the person made they have a choice to be gay i have no problem with that.what i have a problem with is them thinking that a maraige is for anyone. its not.period.

[dwightfry]

in my opinion: homosexuality is a disease. such laws and amendments are a cure to this wretched disease&#33; homosexuality is usually a genetic thing. thus, it should have been abolished by not allowing lesbian couples to have sperm.





homosexual, like HIV and AIDS, should be researched and cured. it is destroying the society. by cured, i mean an actual cure, not genocide.



:stupid:

I had to do it. I rolled my eyes so far back in my head reading this I ended up looking forward again.

[clocker]

are you really comparing racism and gays wanting to be married
huge difference, race is not a choice
being gay is a decision that the person made they have a choice to be gay i have no problem with that.what i have a problem with is them thinking that a maraige is for anyone. its not.period.
Skaterperson,
I see, from a quick perusal of your post history, that you average one post a month.

That&#39;s just about right.
See you next month.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by sk8er789@25 February 2004 - 16:30
being gay is a decision that the person made they have a choice to be gay i have no problem with that.what i have a problem with is them thinking that a maraige is for anyone. its not.period.
there is not a choice to be gay, they are or are not, the choice only comes as to acting on it or not. I have posted this before,homosexuality is when someone is sexually attracted to same sex one is no less gay because one decides to be celebate just as one is no less hetrosexual because one is a virgin

[sk8er789]

Originally posted by clocker@26 February 2004 - 02:22

are you really comparing racism and gays wanting to be married
huge difference, race is not a choice
being gay is a decision that the person made they have a choice to be gay i have no problem with that.what i have a problem with is them thinking that a maraige is for anyone. its not.period.
Skaterperson,
I see, from a quick perusal of your post history, that you average one post a month.

That&#39;s just about right.
See you next month.

have you heard of not spending your life on a computer?
no wonder you dont know shit about the REAL world...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@25 February 2004 - 18:38
j2.

Are you saying that people that marry outside a church ceromony are not married?...please clear this up for me&nbsp; :)
vidcc-

Having re-read my post, I don&#39;t see what led you to infer this....please clear this up for me. :)

[clocker]

Originally posted by sk8er789@25 February 2004 - 16:30

being gay is a decision that the person made they have a choice to be gay i have no problem with that.what i have a problem with is them thinking that a maraige is for anyone. its not.period.

no wonder you dont know shit about the REAL world...
If this is the "real world" then no thanks.

[Alex H]

Sk8er

If you knew anything about the real world you wouldn&#39;t be saying that one in ten people should not have the right to be happy in a commited relationship.

Why would you choose to be gay? What makes is so apealing about being in a small minority that a large proportion of the population hates/fears/discriminates against?

Why do you give a sh*t about someone else getting married anyway?

In this REAL world that you talk about, most people have got more important things to worry about than the marital arrangements of consenting adults. Perhaps you may like to join us here...

[h1]

What makes homosexuals any less human than the rest of us? Just because we don&#39;t accept something doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s wrong.

In my opinion, this is almost the very same thing as McCarthyism or racism.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by haxor41789@26 February 2004 - 03:14
Just because we don&#39;t accept something doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s wrong.

In my opinion, this is almost the very same thing as McCarthyism or racism.
Then I&#39;m sure you can see the point of those who wish the term marriage to remain as it is, yes?

It would follow (from your statement) that, even though gays would prefer the term "marriage", that they would have to accede to this wish, I think.

As for your inclusion of racism as analogous: Sure, why not?

As for McCarthyism, best leave that one off the list; research would reveal it to be largely a myth.

In any case, we&#39;re talking gay, not Communist. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+25 February 2004 - 23:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 25 February 2004 - 23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sk8er789@25 February 2004 - 16:30
being gay is a decision that the person made they have a choice to be gay i have no problem with that.what i have a problem with is them thinking that a maraige is for anyone. its not.period.
there is not a choice to be gay, they are or are not, the choice only comes as to acting on it or not. I have posted this before,homosexuality is when someone is sexually attracted to same sex one is no less gay because one decides to be celebate just as one is no less hetrosexual because one is a virgin [/b][/quote]
There are many gays that would disagree with you.

You guys kill me how you pigeon hole everyone in a category.

GAY | STRAIGHT | BISEXUAL?

What about when a gay male has sex with a female?

Oh nnnnnnoooooo he&#39;s still gay ......or is he bisexual?

What about the women that fucked other women in college but only in college?
Now she&#39;s been happily married for 15 years.

Oh nnnnooooooo she&#39;s............ bisexual?

Gays have a term for someone previously gay there called "has beens".

What makes someone attracted to the same sex anyway?

The way they comb their hair? The fact they have a pussy or dick? Their mannerisms?

Sorry but some of what attracts one person to another IS environment.
I guess some gay women wear their hair like a boy because they were born to wear their hair that way?

No they like women and men like women so they imitate what they see as normal for a person that likes women. A man is used as a stencil.

No one here has given proof that, in regards to sexuality, you just don&#39;t like what you like.

All you can say is well research has shown...........

well........nothing <_<

Well the most promising research...........

hasn&#39;t kept a promise <_<

[ilw]

what possible reason could you have for not allowing gays to officially use the word marriage? I&#39;m sure there will eventually be a slang word for gay marriage, but it makes perfect sense in my book to generally just use the same word. Perhaps you have a penchant for tick boxes on forms?

[NotoriousBIC]

Originally posted by j2k4+26 February 2004 - 06:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 26 February 2004 - 06:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-haxor41789@26 February 2004 - 03:14
Just because we don&#39;t accept something doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s wrong.

In my opinion, this is almost the very same thing as McCarthyism or racism.
Then I&#39;m sure you can see the point of those who wish the term marriage to remain as it is, yes?

It would follow (from your statement) that, even though gays would prefer the term "marriage", that they would have to accede to this wish, I think. [/b][/quote]
I think you&#39;re confusing marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense.
Gays want the same rights as hetero couples. The rights being the same legal advantages which come from marriage.
I think they don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass (Sorry RF) about how it&#39;s called, so why is it so important to you?

That&#39;s why they&#39;re focusing on the Civil Union and that it&#39;s essentially the same as marriage in the legal sense.

[atiVidia]

if its their environment that is corrupt then QUARANTINE ALL KIDS OF GAY PARENTS&#33;&#33;&#33;


but i kno that some of it is hormone based




if it is an environmental issue, then it CAN be fixed MORE EASILY&#33;




yes, i AM a homophobe so... I believe that homosexuality is against god. I also believe that it is impossible to have a homosexual loyal to god.


I rest my case.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by NotoriousBIC+26 February 2004 - 09:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (NotoriousBIC &#064; 26 February 2004 - 09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@26 February 2004 - 06:41
<!--QuoteBegin-haxor41789@26 February 2004 - 03:14
Just because we don&#39;t accept something doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s wrong.

In my opinion, this is almost the very same thing as McCarthyism or racism.
Then I&#39;m sure you can see the point of those who wish the term marriage to remain as it is, yes?

It would follow (from your statement) that, even though gays would prefer the term "marriage", that they would have to accede to this wish, I think.
I think you&#39;re confusing marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense.
Gays want the same rights as hetero couples. The rights being the same legal advantages which come from marriage.
I think they don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass (Sorry RF) about how it&#39;s called, so why is it so important to you?

That&#39;s why they&#39;re focusing on the Civil Union and that it&#39;s essentially the same as marriage in the legal sense.[/b][/quote]
I am not confusing anything, Notorious.

Do you propose splitting the definition somehow to reflect a difference between a religious and a non-religious marriage?

If I read your post correctly, you say gays (you don&#39;t think; actually, neither do I) don&#39;t give a Rat&#39;s ass (once again: sorry, Rat Faced) about what their union is called; if this is true, why is it they insist on "marriage"?

I think the rhetorical leaders of this advocacy are taking the gay population for a bit of a ride on this point, much as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (Reverends, both :lol: ) insist on telling blacks what is good for them without prior consult.

ilw-

1. A possible (and legitimate, these days) reason for wishing to keep marriage "as is" might be purely wishing it to remain so.

2. Why should gays settle for a slang term to describe their relationships? For the record, if such a term does arise to popular use, rest assured I will remain in favor of whatever term is used for legal description.

3. I have an abiding aversion to both tick boxes and forms; would you like to start a movement to outlaw them?

I will enlist the gay crowd in this effort if you will take care of the rest. :)

[ilw]

if its their environment that is corrupt then QUARANTINE ALL KIDS OF GAY PARENTS&#33;&#33;&#33;
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

But seriously

I also believe that it is impossible to have a homosexual loyal to god.

Is this anyone who has homosexual urges or just practicing homosexuals?
Whatever its cause, are homosexual people not innocent, should they be doomed to live repressed lives or go to hell (or the equivalent punishment in your religion)?


Edit:

[clocker]

Originally posted by atiVidia@26 February 2004 - 10:09





yes, i AM a homophobe so... I believe that homosexuality is against god. I also believe that it is impossible to have a homosexual loyal to god.


I rest my case.
Know many priests?

Your case isn&#39;t resting.
It is comatose.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by NotoriousBIC@26 February 2004 - 08:35
Gays want the same rights as hetero couples. The rights being the same legal advantages which come from marriage.
I think they don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass (Sorry RF) about how it&#39;s called, so why is it so important to you?

That&#39;s why they&#39;re focusing on the Civil Union and that it&#39;s essentially the same as marriage in the legal sense.
Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.



btw, If gay couples are granted marriage then marriage has no gender barrier.

When does it end?

Polygamists will argue then that marriage should not have a number attached to it.
Why can&#39;t I marry more than one wife?
What rationale would you come up with as to why not?
If this is then granted, then is there a limit to the number?

[vidcc]

Busyman

your response was just being pedantic. we could go into all kinds of examples about "what if"
the point of my post was that there is no choice to be WHATEVER you are but there is a choice as to acting on it.
I am not pigeon holeing anyone but on this topic we are talking specifically about gay people
All this apart we are getting off the topic which was Bush wanting to use the constitution to deny equal rights to American citizens..wheather you agree with the rights or not doesn&#39;t matter, he is still going against everything the American freedom way of life stands for

[vidcc]

J2 my question was because of your insistance that the word marriage should not be used and if a "civil union" is not marriage for gays then any hetrosexual couple participating in such a union would not be married. ( civil union being exactly the same but not in the form of a religious ceromony)

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman
Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.

How?

btw, "single heterosexual single couples" doesnt make sense. I&#39;m assuming you mean "heterosexual couples"?

[ilw]

Anyone got any good reasons why polygamy shouldn&#39;t be allowed? Seems like just another religious hangup to me.
Imo if you want more than one wife and the wives consent to it then whats the problem?

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by Busyman+26 February 2004 - 19:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 26 February 2004 - 19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NotoriousBIC@26 February 2004 - 08:35
Gays want the same rights as hetero couples. The rights being the same legal advantages which come from marriage.
I think they don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass (Sorry RF) about how it&#39;s called, so why is it so important to you?

That&#39;s why they&#39;re focusing on the Civil Union and that it&#39;s essentially the same as marriage in the legal sense.
Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.



btw, If gay couples are granted marriage then marriage has no gender barrier.

When does it end?

Polygamists will argue then that marriage should have a number attached to it.
Why can&#39;t I marry more than one wife?
What rationale would you come up with as to why not?
If this is then granted, then is there a limit to the number? [/b][/quote]
How so, people choose to get married?


Where does it end?

Well it doesn’t, people should have equal rights and two consenting adults no matter what sexuality gay, bisexual, transsexual ect should have the right to Marriage...

Civil Union (marriage) and Religious marriage are just the same thing except for the religous content; marriage is not an exclusive term that only religious people can use ;)

[Agrajag]

To me, my marriage is primarilly a religious thing. My wife and I made certain promises before God. The secular issues with regard to rights over property etc are at best a secondary issue.

On topic, for your president to want to amend your constitution to include a specific part which takes away rights / privilages from a minority group of American citizens, surely this must worry you ? Institutionalised bigotry, enshrined in your most sacred non-religious document. It would scare the beejezus out of me.

I have no particular issue with what gay people wish to call their union. I take j2&#39;s point re marriage currently having a specific meaning, so why change it. Why not use something else, can I propose garriage ?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@26 February 2004 - 19:40
Anyone got any good reasons why polygamy shouldn&#39;t be allowed? Seems like just another religious hangup to me.
Imo if you want more than one wife and the wives consent to it then whats the problem?
Ian-

Thank you for pointing this out; I meant to, but managed to sidetrack myself.

vidcc-

Is it your contention that a heterosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, are vested with this power), not be termed a marriage?

I&#39;m having difficulty sussing your point. :huh:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Agrajag@26 February 2004 - 16:27

On topic, for your president to want to amend your constitution to include a specific part which takes away rights / privilages from a minority group of American citizens, surely this must worry you ? Institutionalised bigotry, enshrined in your most sacred non-religious document. It would scare the beejezus out of me.


This has been my main point all along, which you are the first to kind of take up on.
Everyone that is anti gay "marriage" seems to be so set on that point that they have missed the whole issue here...Human rights and equality... that or they just don&#39;t want gay people to have any.
My president took us into a war under the thin viel of fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people to live without repression...now he is trying to repress his own people.
I haven&#39;t yet seen a valid arguement as to the harm gay marriage would do to others apart from the mental anguish of knowing that something they don&#39;t like could be legal

i really couldn&#39;t care less if a gay couple want to get married, good luck to them, it won&#39;t affect my life one little bit. However the president wanting to change the constitution to remove liberty and justice from any section of society when it is specifically ment to protect ALL is possibly the worst thing that could happen to the USA

p.s. are you jpol incognito?

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by j2k4+27 February 2004 - 00:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 27 February 2004 - 00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@26 February 2004 - 19:40
Anyone got any good reasons why polygamy shouldn&#39;t be allowed? Seems like just another religious hangup to me.
Imo if you want more than one wife and the wives consent to it then whats the problem?
Ian-

Thank you for pointing this out; I meant to, but managed to sidetrack myself.

vidcc-

Is it your contention that a heterosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, are vested with this power), not be termed a marriage?

I&#39;m having difficulty sussing your point. :huh: [/b][/quote]
I think the big problem with polygamy is the whole family lines thing. Just now it is difficult enough to do an audit trail on who begat whom and who is your second cousin ? Imagine if men were to marry 7 wives, or Women 7 husbands (an option seldom envisaged in discussions such as this). I pick the number 7 in an arbitrary manner, with a view to making the point.

Now imagine that several people were inter-married. So the wife had 7 husbands, the husband had 7 wives, some of whom were also married to one another.

I think this would be a recipe for the banjo becoming the instrument of choice in very few generations.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@26 February 2004 - 16:44

vidcc-

Is it your contention that a heterosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, are vested with this power), not be termed a marriage?

I&#39;m having difficulty sussing your point. :huh:
no it&#39;s not my contention at all, it&#39;s asking if you are making that contention. Let me make it even clearer

heterosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, are vested with this power)...you call this marriage even though it has no religious connection...

homosexual union, conducted by a civil authority (mayors, for example, could be vested with this power)...you don&#39;t want to call it marriage.

Well if one isn&#39;t then the other isn&#39;t
the question was do YOU call a marriage that was conducted as a civil union a marriage or would you expect them to fill out the forms where it asks for marrital status...civil union?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman@26 February 2004 - 20:14


Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.

You could not defend this statement the first time you said it, repeating yourself does not make it correct this time. How is it descriminatory against heterosexual couples?

From my response the first time:

The origin of the "civil union" was to give gays the same rights as heterosexual married couples but without using the word "married", which the Christian church feels to have proprietary rights over. It actually doesn&#39;t give the same rights, it gives less.

A homosexual couple cannot get married, a heterosexual couple can get married or have a civil union. Since a civil union has many disadvantages and NO advantages over marriage, why would they?

Just because 2 gay men live together, it is not just a cost free option to take advantage of the system, it comes with certain obligations as well. This is why both gay and hetero couples who are not sure about their devotion are not "united", they want to be able to leave free and clear, if they desire.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More importantly, I think Vidcc is right on the money here. I attempted to express the same point, a bit off topic in the Nader thread:


It seems that people cannot seem to unburden themselves of their religious beliefs in regard to this issue and understand that preventing gay unions (which is equivalent to marriage) is an act of religion-based oppression in a country which touts itself as having a separation between the church and state.

Sometimes the shepards, although fewer in number, need to pull out their crooks and make the sheep do the right thing. Just because most sheep don&#39;t like the "black" ones, it does not mean that the "black" ones should not be allowed equal grazing opportunity. It is a matter of individual rights, not personal likes

The issue has 2 clearly defined parts:

1) Under our constituition, same sex unions and hetero unions should be granted the same rights and privledges.

2) An absolute quibble- What should homosexual unions be called. Who cares, point 1 is all that matters, a recognition of constitutional rights.

Politicians like to use the terminalogy, marriage vs union vs whatever to footdrag and nitpick, but do anything but out and out declare that they are against it. They would have no grounds on which to defend this issue other than admitting that their politcal decisions are being corrupted by their religious convictions.


So take care of #1, and let the political foil, called #2, work itself out.

To state that I was saying that the withholding of the word "marriage" is religious oppression is ridiculous. It is the failure to grant equal rights that is the oppression. Call gay unions "garriage"or "fairiage", but just get it done.

BTW, did anyone notice that I had been plagiarized and by whom?

[whiterook-2]

If I elect my Representative to one house or the other, I expect him/her to represent my ME, MY STATE, MY VIEWS.

If someone in Vermont decides to allow a marriage between same sexes, I then am forced to uphold those laws in MY State.

Is that fair?

I guess, that&#39;s probably why President Bush will take it up with OUR houses, and let them decide for the whole of the Union.

I&#39;m not against the marriages, but I do draw a line against the anti-discrimination acts trying to be implemented into various States. What happens is, the bill places gays into a "minority" class in order to protect them. Now then...what about the affirmative action? Will we then need to have X amount of gays per straights in the work place?

which brings me to another question...Will the "feminine" side of a gay marriage get the benefits of being "gay" and of being "the lady of the house"?

(btw...j/k)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 February 2004 - 17:23

BTW, did anyone notice that I had been plagurized and by whom?
i&#39;m going off topic. Sorry

sorry to hear that...hope condoms were used :D i&#39;m here for you dude :D

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by vidcc+27 February 2004 - 01:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 27 February 2004 - 01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@26 February 2004 - 17:23

BTW, did anyone notice that I had been plagurized and by whom?
i&#39;m going off topic. Sorry

sorry to hear that...hope condoms were used :D i&#39;m here for you dude :D[/b][/quote]
Don&#39;t worry about it. He has created a new word, plagurized. As and when he supplies a definition then people can post a meaningful reaction.

[clocker]

Whiterook, the situation you describe happens every day, in every state.

Are you equally as outraged when a gun from a laxly controlled state ( say Virginia) is used to commit a crime where you live?
How about when a divorced husband from another state moves to yours but is still forced to pay an onerous alimony that wouldn&#39;t have been imposed in your state?

States honor other state&#39;s laws.
Live with it.

BTW, when this married gay couple moves to your hometown in what specific way are you inconvenienced at all?

[Agrajag]

Bring me your .... WASPs. Sorry I thought you were going for something different.

I believe the concept was originally intended as somewhere between tolerance and acceptance. A new world where a man was judged by his deeds and not by the colour of his sexuality.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag@27 February 2004 - 04:08
Bring me your .... WASPs. Sorry I thought you were going for something different.

I believe the concept was originally intended as somewhere between tolerance and acceptance. A new world where a man was judged by his deeds and not by the colour of his sexuality.
You mean "acts" like plagiarizing another, most reprehensible.

This post proffred and opproved by Fugley

[whiterook-2]

I was only playing "devils advocate" here.... I could really care less what other people do with each other. If that&#39;s all I have to worry about, weather or not two people of the same sex get married, then I guess I&#39;m pretty lucky.


The point I was trying to make was....

A marriage in one state is by law, recognized through out the United States. So, if one state says a marriage is lawful, every state must recognize that union.

Could you explain to me, what your point of a gun crossing state lines to commit a murder, and my statement have in common?


How about when a divorced husband from another state moves to yours but is still forced to pay an onerous alimony that wouldn&#39;t have been imposed in your state?
So you feel some bum that doesn&#39;t want to pay for his children, should be able to move out of state to avoid a debt that shouldn&#39;t need a law? (onerous)


Again, I say.... This isn&#39;t an issue for me, so don&#39;t feel I&#39;m "outraged". It really is mox nix to me. Sry I was bored, and really shouldn&#39;t have posted. Your post made me look as if I&#39;m a bigot, when I&#39;m only an asshole.

[Alex H]

A couple of people have mentioned homosexuality as being "against God".

How? God is supposed to be the omnipoten sexless one right? If you accept that God created men and women, fine. God created one of each to procreate, etc.

Why? What was God&#39;s ultimate purpose in creating us? Amusement? What if God was a poof and just threw women in as a social experiment? More fun&#33;

Unless you can come up with God&#39;s actual reason for creating men and women, you can&#39;t say what is or is not God&#39;s position on the issue.

[clocker]

Originally posted by whiterook&#045;2@26 February 2004 - 17:26
If I elect my Representative to one house or the other, I expect him/her to represent my ME, MY STATE, MY VIEWS.

If someone in Vermont decides to allow a marriage between same sexes, I then am forced to uphold those laws in MY State.

Is that fair?



Could you explain to me, what your point of a gun crossing state lines to commit a murder, and my statement have in common?

MY views and those of MY state call for stricter regulation of the sale of weapons than many others.
If some bozo who would not be able to purchase a gun here can cross state lines and legally obtain the gun then I guess I just have to live with it.

BTW, alimony and child support are NOT the same thing.

[whiterook-2]

my view on gun control you&#39;ll notice them on the ends of the barrels :o

Have a nice day :D

edited to remove the link to the video... just wanted to mess w/ clocker and my job here is done :bye:

[atiVidia]

Originally posted by junkyardking@26 February 2004 - 19:12
Civil Union (marriage) and Religious marriage are just the same thing except for the religous content; marriage is not an exclusive term that only religious people can use ;)
well help me out here: arent couples wed with help from god?

that seems pretty religious to me. marriage should not be raped by the anals of society. God did not create gays, society did, and society will fix the problems which came from it.

btw I decide when I rest my case and NO one else&#33;

[hobbes]

Originally posted by atiVidia+27 February 2004 - 06:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atiVidia @ 27 February 2004 - 06:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@26 February 2004 - 19:12
Civil Union (marriage) and Religious marriage are just the same thing except for the religous content; marriage is not an exclusive term that only religious people can use ;)
well help me out here: arent couples wed with help from god?

that seems pretty religious to me. marriage should not be raped by the anals of society. God did not create gays, society did, and society will fix the problems which came from it.

btw I decide when I rest my case and NO one else&#33; [/b][/quote]
A fool is counted amongst the wise when he is silent.

BTW, when you present a case, you must give evidence not an opinion. You are resting on your own ignorance.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by atiVidia@26 February 2004 - 21:17
well help me out here: arent couples wed with help from god?


I didn&#39;t get married in church and i am a doubter of gods existance...are you suggesting that all these years i have not been married to my wonderful wife and my 3 children and the one on the way are illigitimate?
i have asked on another topic if someone can tell me just how a gay marriage not involving you could be detrimental to YOUR life personally, apart from something happening that you don&#39;t like....perhaps you could answer that one for me
Also i stated this topic is not about you agreeing with gay marriage, it is about the use of the constitution to deny freedom, liberty and justice to a group of tax paying americans

[clocker]

Ooooo, how very impressive.
All part of a "well regulated militia", no doubt.

Wonder if any of &#39;em are gay?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by clocker@26 February 2004 - 21:43
Ooooo, how very impressive.
All part of a "well regulated militia", no doubt.

Wonder if any of &#39;em are gay?
huh???? :helpsmile: :lol:

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by atiVidia@27 February 2004 - 05:17

well help me out here: arent couples wed with help from god?

that seems pretty religious to me. marriage should not be raped by the anals of society. God did not create gays, society did, and society will fix the problems which came from it.

btw I decide when I rest my case and NO one else&#33;
Well no.....

Civil unions (marriage) are related to law....

There&#39;s also alot of other religions which have marriage and have nothing to do with god, pagans for instance and no, pagans don’t worship the devil no matter how many Christians like to think so, they believe in the forces of nature.....


And thirdly I am an atheist, so there is no god.......

[clocker]

Originally posted by vidcc+26 February 2004 - 21:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 26 February 2004 - 21:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@26 February 2004 - 21:43
Ooooo, how very impressive.
All part of a "well regulated militia", no doubt.

Wonder if any of &#39;em are gay?
huh???? :helpsmile: :lol: [/b][/quote]
I was commenting on Whiterook&#39;s link regarding his views on gun control.
Sometimes this forum moves too quickly for my deliberately ponderous posting pace ( kinda catchy, no?).

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+26 February 2004 - 21:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 26 February 2004 - 21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@26 February 2004 - 20:14


Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.

You could not defend this statement the first time you said it, repeating yourself does not make it correct this time. How is it descriminatory against heterosexual couples?

From my response the first time:

The origin of the "civil union" was to give gays the same rights as heterosexual married couples but without using the word "married", which the Christian church feels to have proprietary rights over. It actually doesn&#39;t give the same rights, it gives less.

A homosexual couple cannot get married, a heterosexual couple can get married or have a civil union. Since a civil union has many disadvantages and NO advantages over marriage, why would they?

Just because 2 gay men live together, it is not just a cost free option to take advantage of the system, it comes with certain obligations as well. This is why both gay and hetero couples who are not sure about their devotion are not "united", they want to be able to leave free and clear, if they desire.

[/b]
hobbes dude.........what are you talking about?

I answered the first time in the Pro-Gay Marriage Thread&#33;&#33;&#33;
Are you reading or what?

Here was my response ...again for the blind, hearing impaired, or whatever&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman @ 20 February 2004 &#045; 01:29
A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE. My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays. Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick[/quote]

Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick. :lol: :lol:

[Alex H]

Does it scare anyone else that there are people out there with that kind of hardware?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Alex H@27 February 2004 - 03:49
Does it scare anyone else that there are people out there with that kind of hardware?
No because the same gun laws have been in place for ages.

I got a stray bullet in my car while at a stop light. That&#39;s scary&#33;&#33;&#33;

[leftism]

Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE. My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays. Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick[/b]

Why would a heterosexual couple not be allowed to have a civil union? Unless they amend the constitution to outlaw that as well, there&#39;s no reason why a heterosexual couple wouldnt be allowed to have one.

I mentioned this in the in the Pro-Gay Marriage Thread&#33;&#33;&#33;
Are you reading or what?

Here was my response ...again for the blind, hearing impaired, or whatever&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
Theres no reason why a heterosexual couple shouldnt be able to have a civil union if they wish. I think it would be a good idea. Non-christians being married in a church has always seemed a bit illogical to me, but they did this because there was no viable alternative. If we have legally binding civil unions then gay couples can enjoy the same rights straight couples do and the Church doesnt have to compromise on its position.

So putting the issue into this context, are you still against civil unions, and if so, why?
[/quote]

You claimed you answered the question in that thread as well but, as ususal, you didnt . <_<

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 08:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 27 February 2004 - 08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE. My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays. Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick[/b]

Why would a heterosexual couple not be allowed to have a civil union? Unless they amend the constitution to outlaw that as well, there&#39;s no reason why a heterosexual couple wouldnt be allowed to have one.

I mentioned this in the in the Pro-Gay Marriage Thread&#33;&#33;&#33;
Are you reading or what?

Here was my response ...again for the blind, hearing impaired, or whatever&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:


Originally posted by leftism
Theres no reason why a heterosexual couple shouldnt be able to have a civil union if they wish. I think it would be a good idea. Non-christians being married in a church has always seemed a bit illogical to me, but they did this because there was no viable alternative. If we have legally binding civil unions then gay couples can enjoy the same rights straight couples do and the Church doesnt have to compromise on its position.

So putting the issue into this context, are you still against civil unions, and if so, why?


You claimed you answered the question in that thread as well but, as ususal, you didnt . <_< [/b]
How can you say I didn&#39;t answer hobbes question when YOU just put it in the beginning of YOUR post?
WTF IS WRONG HERE? WHERE IS THE READING COMPREHENSION?

Do you live in America or just bad-mouth it for fun?
You guys claim I say shit over and over yet the damn answer is there OVER AND OVER AND YOU SEEM TO SKIP IT YET QUOTE IT.

Question:

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@
You could not defend this statement the first time you said it, repeating yourself does not make it correct this time. How is it descriminatory against heterosexual couples? [/quote]

Answer:

<!--QuoteBegin-busyman
A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE. My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays. Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick[/quote]



Why would a heterosexual couple not be allowed to have a civil union?

In Vermont, where civil unions ARE allowed, it is only allowed for same sex couples not related to one another.

I really don&#39;t understand WHAT you don&#39;t understand.


I will not answer this question again.

[Agrajag]

Bet you do :huh:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@27 February 2004 - 09:01
Bet you do :huh:
:lol: :lol: It seems I may huh?

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How can you say I didn&#39;t answer hobbes question when YOU just put it in the beginning of YOUR post?[/b]

You didnt answer the question. :frusty: :frusty:


Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
WTF IS WRONG HERE? WHERE IS THE READING COMPREHENSION?[/b]

Good question :)


Originally posted by Busyman

Do you live in America or just bad-mouth it for fun?


wtf? When did I bad mouth America?It seems to me that its your reading comprehension that needs to be improved. Either that or you&#39;re hallucinating.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
In Vermont, where civil unions ARE allowed, it is only allowed for same sex couples not related to one another.[/quote]

Aha&#33; AT LAST&#33;&#33; Thats more like it. I dont know why it took you 50 posts to mention it but finally, we get the REAL answer.

Onto the next question.

Why would civil unions have to be based on the Vermont model?

Why cant they be for everybody? Since I wont get an answer, I&#39;ll answer it for you. Theres no reason why they shouldnt be for everybody. If they were introduced nationwide they could easily change the model of civil unions to allow straight couples to have them. In fact if they didnt, it would be unconsitutional because then you would not be treating people equally.

Therefore civil unions would not discriminate against heterosexual couples.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I really don&#39;t understand WHAT you don&#39;t understand.[/quote]

Perhaps thats because your not very bright? No-one else seems to have the same trouble you&#39;re experiencing.

Heres an easy one for you.

If they introduced civil unions for everyone, so there was no discrimination, would you still have a problem with them , and if so why?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 11:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 27 February 2004 - 11:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In Vermont, where civil unions ARE allowed, it is only allowed for same sex couples not related to one another.[/b]

Aha&#33; AT LAST&#33;&#33; Thats more like it. I dont know why it took you 50 posts to mention it but finally, we get the REAL answer.

Onto the next question.

Why would civil unions have to be based on the Vermont model?

Why cant they be for everybody? Since I wont get an answer, I&#39;ll answer it for you. Theres no reason why they shouldnt be for everybody. If they were introduced nationwide they could easily change the model of civil unions to allow straight couples to have them. In fact if they didnt, it would be unconsitutional because then you would not be treating people equally.

Therefore civil unions would not discriminate against heterosexual couples.


Originally posted by Busyman
I really don&#39;t understand WHAT you don&#39;t understand.

Perhaps thats because your not very bright? No-one else seems to have the same trouble you&#39;re experiencing.

Heres an easy one for you.

If they introduced civil unions for everyone, so there was no discrimination, would you still have a problem with them , and if so why? [/b]
Aha at last?

The proposal for civil unions in other states is like the one in Vermont. Got it?

I can propose alot of what if&#39;s all day.
The fact is you were ignorant of the facts. :lol:

So now your saying what I&#39;ve been saying.


Originally posted by leftism
In fact if they didnt, it would be unconsitutional because then you would not be treating people equally.


sounds curiously similiar too


Originally posted by Busyman
Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.

and further

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays.[/quote]

If you were aware of the subject matter or the proposals on the table you wouldn&#39;t appear so dense and I wouldn&#39;t have to "mention it"............again&#33;&#33;&#33; <_<

As a matter of fact I did "mention it" before. Take a look..........again.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE.[/quote]

...........?



It seems YOU are not so bright. READ

Oh and to answer your last question........probably not.

[leftism]

I was talking about civil unions in principle.

The current proposals are not set in stone. They could easily be amended to include heterosexual couples and, assuming Bush doesnt get his own way and civil unions are allowed, I suspect they will.

In fact if civil unions are legalised it will HAVE to happen to avoid being unconstitional.

Very few laws ever get passed in the same form they were introduced, its how your system works.

You see you havent been arguing about this specific implementation of civil unions being wrong. You have been arguing that civil unions are wrong in principle no matter what the implementation. Big difference.

Trying to make out that your only against the specifics of civil unions as they currently stand and not the principle of them is more than a little disingenious. What happened to those religious reasons you were talking about in the other thread, eh?

If we were to take you at face value, you actually agree with civil unions in principle yet you&#39;ve never said that before. Very strange...

PS where did I "bash America"? Or is that another question your never going to answer? :D

[j2k4]

If I might, lefty:

You propose alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you, for example:

1. Civil unions for straights, who don&#39;t want to be "married", due to any perceived undesirable religious blessing or connotation.

2. Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions, or, alternatively, creating a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony by which gays (and others) might become "married".

This is as close as I can come to discerning the reason(s) for your post(s).

BTW-If you are going to participate here, do us all a favor and drop your urge to question the relative brightness of others; it does you no credit, and raises the temperature in here, which is always an impediment to reasoned discourse.

I&#39;m sure you agree. :)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 12:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 27 February 2004 - 12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Trying to make out that your only against the specifics of civil unions as they currently stand and not the principle of them is more than a little disingenious. What happened to those religious reasons you were talking about in the other thread, eh?

If we were to take you at face value, you actually agree with civil unions in principle yet you&#39;ve never said that before. Very strange...
[/b]
READING COMPREHENSION CLASS 101:



Originally posted by Busyman@
1. I am a Christian so of course I&#39;m against gay marriage and civil unions.

Now considering my later posts I&#39;ll buy that the quote could be confusing but ...uh oh........the next sentence comes&#39;a rearing tha corner and it was further clarified-

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I&#39;m against civil unions because it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.[/quote]


quotes from The Pro Gay Marriage Thread.

Don&#39;t take it at face value, just read, then try, just try to comprehend.

Ok lefty?

[Agrajag]

"it does you no credit" what a nice turn of phrase. A picture in words.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You propose alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you, for example:[/b]

No I am not proposing anything of the sort. I am proposing one non-religious ceremony for everyone.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1. Civil unions for straights, who don&#39;t want to be "married", due to any perceived undesirable religious blessing or connotation.[/b]

This seems pretty straightforward to me and it is not about "undesirable" religious blessing or connotations. If homosexuals are not allowed to be married then there are 2 choices. We either deny them any kind of official union or we create an alternative. If we create an alternative then that has to be open to everyone otherwise we are discriminating against those who are excluded.

With regards to religion the idea of an aethiest taking part in a religious ceremony seems quite illogical to me, but that is not the primary reason for creating civil unions for everyone.


Originally posted by j2k4
2. Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions, or, alternatively, creating a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony by which gays (and others) might become "married".

Again, I havent proposed any such thing. In fact my idea of a civil unions is to avoid "twisting the arms" of various religions. A civil union open to everyone is the only way we can provide gays with an official union without demanding the religions change their stance on homosexuality (Ive already stated Im against this) and without treating people differently.

edit: It wouldnt be "quasi-religious", it would be non-religious.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
BTW-If you are going to participate here, do us all a favor and drop your urge to question the relative brightness of others; it does you no credit, and raises the temperature in here, which is always an impediment to reasoned discourse.[/quote]

Well....

First of all when someone is incapable of arguing a point without repeating themselves 5 times and then repeating themselves in capitals another 5 times, it does lead me to question their intelligence.

Second, you are not averse to questioning the relative brightness of others either.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I listen to people spout off every day about things they know nothing about; the ignorance they evince is nothing short of astonishing, but you won&#39;t get anywhere thrashing them with logic or truth, as they will find offensive that you trample their "right to free speech" or some such nonsense.

Some (most) people just refuse to be relieved of their ignorance.

Not speaking generally about the board, but you have to admit, 3RA1N1AC, there are a few real mush-melons who should just be quiet.
[/quote]

At least I am specific and thus allow the &#39;accused&#39; a defence. btw based on some of your past posts I simply dont believe you were not speaking "generally about the board".

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
1. I am a Christian so of course I&#39;m against gay marriage and civil unions.
[/b]

We&#39;ve been through this before, but lets do it again if we must.....

Being a Christian explains why you are against gay marriages. It doesnt explain why you are against civil unions in principle.

Unless.. you are against people being gay in general? If this is the case you should just say so.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman

I&#39;m against civil unions because it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.
[/quote]

We&#39;ve been here before as well....

Lets be clear about this.

Your against the proposed implementation of civil unions because they discriminate against "heterosexual single couples" <---- and hes lecturing me about reading comprehension??.

Two points here.

1. This argument only works if you dont view marriage as a "civil union"

2. It still doesnt explain why you are against civil unions in principle. i.e civil unions for everyone that do not discriminate against heterosexual couples.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 16:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 27 February 2004 - 16:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@

1. I am a Christian so of course I&#39;m against gay marriage and civil unions.


We&#39;ve been through this before, but lets do it again if we must.....

Being a Christian explains why you are against gay marriages. It doesnt explain why you are against civil unions in principle.

Unless.. you are against people being gay in general? If this is the case you should just say so.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman

I&#39;m against civil unions because it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.


We&#39;ve been here before as well....

Lets be clear about this.

Your against the proposed implementation of civil unions because they discriminate against "heterosexual single couples" <---- and hes lecturing me about reading comprehension??.

Two points here.

1. This argument only works if you dont view marriage as a "civil union"

2. It still doesnt explain why you are against civil unions in principle. i.e civil unions for everyone that do not discriminate against heterosexual couples. [/b][/quote]
Dude I&#39;ve repeated myself numerous times and I&#39;m done.
Other folks reading my posts most likely and at the very least, get where I&#39;m coming from.

With every one of your posts claiming I didn&#39;t answer the question, the damn question was answered. You ma&#39;am, are not very bright at all. You try to put the "proposed implemention" crap in there because YOU were ignorant of the facts.

The questions were answered and I was clear.

You don&#39;t even have a point anymore. YOU ARE POINTLESS.
Nitpick someone else because I&#39;m through answering the same damn questions over and over. My girlfriend looked at one of my posts recently and said, "Why are you bothering. This woman leftism is probably asking the same shit on purpose to see how many times you answer it."
You remind me of the geek that argues over grammatical or spelling errors :lol: .
Challenge the mind.

You will probably post a response but I won&#39;t bother answering, rebutting, or quoting for you anymore.

leftism (er 1234?) BLACKBALLED

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman
Dude I&#39;ve repeated myself numerous times

This, above all else, is certainly true. :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Agrajag@27 February 2004 - 15:34
"it does you no credit" what a nice turn of phrase. A picture in words.
I borrowed it from a friend just for such an occasion. :)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 17:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 27 February 2004 - 17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You propose alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you, for example:[/b]

No I am not proposing anything of the sort. I am proposing one non-religious ceremony for everyone.


Originally posted by j2k4
1. Civil unions for straights, who don&#39;t want to be "married", due to any perceived undesirable religious blessing or connotation.

This seems pretty straightforward to me and it is not about "undesirable" religious blessing or connotations. If homosexuals are not allowed to be married then there are 2 choices. We either deny them any kind of official union or we create an alternative. If we create an alternative then that has to be open to everyone otherwise we are discriminating against those who are excluded.

With regards to religion the idea of an aethiest taking part in a religious ceremony seems quite illogical to me, but that is not the primary reason for creating civil unions for everyone.


Originally posted by j2k4
2. Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions, or, alternatively, creating a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony by which gays (and others) might become "married".

Again, I havent proposed any such thing. In fact my idea of a civil unions is to avoid "twisting the arms" of various religions. A civil union open to everyone is the only way we can provide gays with an official union without demanding the religions change their stance on homosexuality (Ive already stated Im against this) and without treating people differently.

edit: It wouldnt be "quasi-religious", it would be non-religious.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
BTW-If you are going to participate here, do us all a favor and drop your urge to question the relative brightness of others; it does you no credit, and raises the temperature in here, which is always an impediment to reasoned discourse.

Well....

First of all when someone is incapable of arguing a point without repeating themselves 5 times and then repeating themselves in capitals another 5 times, it does lead me to question their intelligence.

Second, you are not averse to questioning the relative brightness of others either.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I listen to people spout off every day about things they know nothing about; the ignorance they evince is nothing short of astonishing, but you won&#39;t get anywhere thrashing them with logic or truth, as they will find offensive that you trample their "right to free speech" or some such nonsense.

Some (most) people just refuse to be relieved of their ignorance.

Not speaking generally about the board, but you have to admit, 3RA1N1AC, there are a few real mush-melons who should just be quiet.
[/quote]

At least I am specific and thus allow the &#39;accused&#39; a defence. btw based on some of your past posts I simply dont believe you were not speaking "generally about the board".[/b][/quote]
I was merely attempting to assay your intent by delineating it myself; apparently I failed to do so to your liking.

As to my admonitions, and your ideas as to my own peccadilloes, I refer you to the first quote in my sig; I don&#39;t imagine you will find it satisfactorily answers your exception, but if you re-read the post you quoted, you will see I have chosen not to name any member I find to be intellectually offensive.

If you don&#39;t see the difference between what I did and what you did, I am satisfied that others do, and that is enough for me.

:)

[Agrajag]

Does anyone ever actually debate anything here, or is it always just point scoring, obtuseness, pedantry or rhetoric? It seems rare that people actually argue anything, preferring to re-iterate their own point of view, in spite of what the other person may have posted, or mis-quoting / misunderstanding in an effort to cause tension.

I have to confess it was initially rather amusing, however as it goes on and on it just starts to seem sad.

[vidcc]

yes, but the rule is you must avoid the topic at all costs and never reply when you realise someone elses point might be detrimental to your own view :lol:

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I was merely attempting to assay your intent by delineating it myself; apparently I failed to do so to your liking.[/b]

You should have been honest and started that sentence with "I was merely attempting to misrepresent your intent...".

I have clarified my intent and outlined the areas that you did not accurately represent. I dont know whether this is to your liking or whether you agree or disagree with my ideas as you havent pursued it further. I can only assume you&#39;ve lost interest in the topic, which leads me to wonder why you bothered to write that post.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

As to my admonitions, and your ideas as to my own peccadilloes, I refer you to the first quote in my sig; I don&#39;t imagine you will find it satisfactorily answers your exception, but if you re-read the post you quoted, you will see I have chosen not to name any member I find to be intellectually offensive.

If you don&#39;t see the difference between what I did and what you did, I am satisfied that others do, and that is enough for me.[/quote]

Oh I see the difference quite clearly. I just think your approach is cowardly. It&#39;s extremely easy to throw ambiguous criticism at nebulous individuals because then one doesnt have to worry about such inconveniences as backing up ones claims or dealing with any &#39;defence&#39;. The differences between our &#39;styles&#39; can probably be explained by the fact that I, unlike you, value the quality of forthrightness.

Given that 80% of your post doesnt refer to the topic, I find the first quote in your sig more ironic than I usually do.

:)

[hobbes]

Busy,

Ok, so civil unions descrimate against heterosexual couples because they cannot have one.

Civil unions were created exclusively because homosexuals are excluded from marriage by the laws of Vermont.

Civil Unions fail to meet the same level of benefits (none of the 1049 federal benefits including social security spouse benefits) and portability (if you move out of state all benefits and legal protections lost) that a regular marriage license gives making it an inferior "product".


Is this just marriage by another name?
No. This law represents a difficult compromise for advocates of full and genuine equality for same-sex couples. A couple in a civil union will face tremendous legal obstacles if they ever move from Vermont. Although parties to a civil union will have greater access to family health insurance than gay and lesbian couples presently have, they will still have less access to such coverage than they would if they could legally marry. Also, while federal law provides many important legal protections to married couples, our federal government takes the position that those protections are not available to couples joined in civil union.

And you are against civil unions because heterosexual people can&#39;t get one?

So at this juncture, it is not a problem for you that marriage descriminates against gays, but that an inferior product, that no heterosexual couple would want, is not available to them.

It is not available because no one is asking for one. What hetero couple has been refused a "civil union", is there is single case out there? How many gays have been refused marriage. Oh, right, all of them.

So by being against "civil unions" you are against any means for gays to be "coupled".

I don&#39;t get your logic?

If "civil unions" were, in fact, marriage equivalents, then this may draw some interest to the heterosexual crowd and we would both agree that all (homo and hetero) should have equal access.

At this point, there are no heterosexual couples suffering because they can&#39;t get a civil union, in fact, they get them everyday but for them it is pronounced "marriage".

http://my.execpc.com/~zapcom/photos/images/guitarist.jpg

Please contribute generously, I am looking to go to night school and improve my reading comprehension.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 21:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 27 February 2004 - 21:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I was merely attempting to assay your intent by delineating it myself; apparently I failed to do so to your liking.

You should have been honest and started that sentence with "I was merely attempting to misrepresent your intent...".

[/b][/quote]
Okay, lefty-

You must go OT to do this, but please try to find any malicious intent in my post and re-iterate your post so that we all might once again gaze upon it&#39;s clarity with the awe and wonder it deserves.

I really wish I knew how it is that you take offense at nothing, or insist on taking offense in lieu of others.

This would indicate you are used to being wrong, and, being presumptive and argumentative to your very core, you feel you must compensate by obfuscation.

Now, if you feel compelled to respond to this post, please try not to imagine I have insulted you, because I have not done so.

My post is merely a diagnosis of your problem, and I took proper care to render it as clinically as possible.

Nonetheless, feel free to report this post if you feel I have given genuine offense.

;)

BTW-Have you developed a crush on Busyman, too?

[leftism]

I wouldnt feel so mortally wounded by my accusation that you intentionally tried to twist my words. You see I could only come up with 2 explanations as to why you would produce an analysis of my argument which was completely wrong.

1. You are so stupid that you could not understand what I was saying and got confused

2. You knew what I was saying and decided to twist my words round.

So you see I am actually crediting you with a little intelligence by going for explanation 2.

However you seem determined to argue that you werent intentionally twisting my words so explanation number 1 looks more promising than before.

Unless... you can quote my words and show how you arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting;

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony"

If you cant do this, (and you wont be able to because i never suggested any of these things) then your left with explanation 1 or 2. Which would you prefer?

As for the rest... a quick re-arrangement of your post...


Originally posted by section1+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (section1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I really wish I knew how it is that you take offense at nothing, or insist on taking offense in lieu of others.[/b]


Originally posted by j2k4
Now, if you feel compelled to respond to this post, please try not to imagine I have insulted you, because I have not done so.[/b]

Ok your arguing that your not trying to insult me...


Originally posted by j2k4
You must go OT to do this, but please try to find any malicious intent in my post and re-iterate your post so that we all might once again gaze upon it&#39;s clarity with the awe and wonder it deserves.

Then quickly move onto sarcasm and condescension...


Originally posted by j2k4
My post is merely a diagnosis of your problem, and I took proper care to render it as clinically as possible.

more condescension...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
This would indicate you are used to being wrong, and, being presumptive and argumentative to your very core, you feel you must compensate by obfuscation.[/quote]

more condescension and another typical cowardly baseless accusation which I&#39;ve come to expect from you.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
BTW-Have you developed a crush on Busyman, too?[/quote]

a quick playground taunt and your done&#33; :lol:

No, of course your not trying to insult me j2k4 :rolleyes:

Is this your idea of a "cunning plan"? :lol: :lol:

Its ironic that I mentioned forthrightness in my last post. You obviously dont know the meaning of the word. Let me help you out.

Forthrightness: Direct and without evasion

I dont see what satisfaction these little &#39;games&#39; bring you, but as they say, simple things please simple minds...

An interesting choice here isnt it j2k4? You can either stay on topic and admit you are so stupid you didnt understand any of my posts (explanation 1), or admit that you were twisting my words (explanation 2) or come up with some quotes from me that explain how you arrived at your incorrect analysis (impossible)..

You could ignore all that and go 100% off topic with more of your "playground games" and ambiguous cowardly accusations. Not much of a choice is it?

Based on past experience I reckon you&#39;ll go for the "playground games" option with a double helping of obfuscation and evasion. Its the only way you&#39;ll be getting out of the corner I&#39;ve backed you into.

Enjoy ;)

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 February 2004 - 23:44
yes, but the rule is you must avoid the topic at all costs and never reply when you realise someone elses point might be detrimental to your own view :lol:
With you, thanks.

[j2k4]

For clarity&#39;s sake, lefty, I reiterate your post (in response to Busyman) which led to my confusion.

Herewith:

QUOTE: leftism

I was talking about civil unions in principle.

The current proposals are not set in stone. They could easily be amended to include heterosexual couples and, assuming Bush doesnt get his own way and civil unions are allowed, I suspect they will.

What, exactly, you mean by "current proposals" is not absolutely clear, but your statement about amending them to include heterosexual couples is, insofar as it applies to the general subject; i.e., alternative legal unions referred to, for purposes here, as "Other-than-Marriage", or OTM.

I don&#39;t believe, at this point, Bush is pursuing or suggesting anything other than a Federally constituted DOMA.

I expect that, rather than incorporate language expressly in aid of including heterosexual couples, they would be able to avail themselves of such a union by virtue of no exclusionary language, that is to say, the law/amendment/statute would, to this end, not be written as a "gay-only" law.

To do this any other way would be, as you allude, discriminatory against heterosexuals.

In fact if civil unions are legalised it will HAVE to happen to avoid being unconstitional.

Agreed.

We here know our constitution almost as well as you think you do.

Very few laws ever get passed in the same form they were introduced, its how your system works.

Really?

Hmmm....

Us ignint &#39;merkans din&#39; no dat&#33;

You see you havent been arguing about this specific implementation of civil unions being wrong. You have been arguing that civil unions are wrong in principle no matter what the implementation. Big difference.

I think you just twisted Busyman&#39;s words&#33;

For shame, lefty&#33;

Trying to make out that your only against the specifics of civil unions as they currently stand and not the principle of them is more than a little disingenious. What happened to those religious reasons you were talking about in the other thread, eh?

How could he be against the "specifics of...and not the principle of..." something that doesn&#39;t yet exist in any form worth commenting on, given that it is "...not set in stone...", as you say?

What&#39;s more, how can [i]you comment on it with such assuredness?

If we were to take you at face value, you actually agree with civil unions in principle yet you&#39;ve never said that before. Very strange...

More twisting&#33;

Where do you come off assigning to someone else&#39;s post a "face value" that exists only in your mind?

PS where did I "bash America"? Or is that another question your never going to answer?

Unless I miss my guess, his comment may come in response to the unremitting, presumptive and altogether off-putting contempt you continually express for America and also any member of this board or his/her opinions.

Now, as to your last post, I immediately was able to determine that no such "corner" as you described indeed existed, or at least, I was not in the vicinity of same.

You will also note that, while I admit to showering you (rather liberally, at that&#33;) with sarcasm and scorn, I have not called you "stupid". nor "cowardly", nor resorted to anything resembling an out-and-out insult.

BTW-Where is your buddy 1234?

Carrying someone else&#39;s water these days?

Weren&#39;t you two here to "run me off this board" or leave me in need of a cyber-"ambulance", or some such nonsense? :lol:

Now, I&#39;m done with you-any more/further off topic is your doing, lefty.

EDIT: Clarity

[leftism]

j2k4... what are we going to do with you eh? :lol:

1st, you have failed to show how you came to the conclusion that I was suggesting:

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony"

I expected this and you did not fail to come up with the goods. Thank you :)

2nd, you&#39;ve gone straight back to your playground games.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BTW-Where is your buddy 1234?

Carrying someone else&#39;s water these days?

Weren&#39;t you two here to "run me off this board" or leave me in need of a cyber-"ambulance", or some such nonsense?[/b]

Thanks again :)

1234 is not my buddy, nor is 56789 or 20/5 for that matter. I dont have a clue what your referring to about "running you off the board" or "cyber ambulances".

All I can see is that your floundering :)

Now... lets deal with that your chaotic mess which purports to be a post.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What, exactly, you mean by "current proposals" is not absolutely clear, but your statement about amending them to include heterosexual couples is, insofar as it applies to the general subject; i.e., alternative legal unions referred to, for purposes here, as "Other-than-Marriage", or OTM.[/b]

WHAT???? Could someone translate this from gobbledygook into English for me?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

(Im glad I didnt see that sentence before you edited it for "clarity"&#33; What a mess&#33;)

You appear to be saying that "My statement about amending the current proposals" (subject of sentence) is..... "Other than marriage"???????

Good strategy though :) Write &#39;sentences&#39; that are painful to read, long winded and dont make any sense.

This serves the double purpose of making them impossible to answer and provides more opportunity for playground games, such as "HA&#33; You didnt understand that?? You must be dumb&#33; HA&#33;".

Cunning... your as sharp as a spoon j2k4 :)

I cant be bothered to deal with the rest of your inane questions. What I will say is that they show you havent been following this thread at all.


Originally posted by j2k4
Unless I miss my guess, his comment may come in response to the unremitting, presumptive and altogether off-putting contempt you continually express for America and also any member of this board or his/her opinions.

More ambiguous non-specific, cowardly, yes thats right COWARDLY :D accusations.

If you had provided an example of my "off-putting contempt for America" you would not be a coward. As usual however you prefer to hide behind non-specific accusations that cant be answered due to their ambiguity.

Thats your choice j2k4, I&#39;ve re-iterated multiple times what you must do to avoid this appearance of being a coward, but I cant make you do it. You make your own bed, you lie in it. Its got nothing to do with me :).


Originally posted by j2k4
Now, as to your last post, I immediately was able to determine that no such "corner" as you described indeed existed, or at least, I was not in the vicinity of same.

"not in vicinity of same". "insofar as it applies to the general subject".. :sleeping:

I can only be thankful that we are not using dead trees to conduct this &#39;debate&#39;. Your obsession with unnecessary phrases, long windedness and pompousness would have devoured half of Brazil by now.

At least lawyers get paid by the page, they have an excuse for this kind of posturing. :lol:

The "corner" was quote my words that caused your confusion, with regards to, insofar much as to be or not to be, vis a vis , referred to, for purposes here, as not in the vicinity of same, Mr Spoon, Button Moon, intent&#33; (dramatic pause)

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
You will also note that, while I admit to showering you (rather liberally, at that&#33;) with sarcasm and scorn, I have not called you "stupid". nor "cowardly", nor resorted to anything resembling an out-and-out insult.[/quote]

I called you cowardly because you are. You have shown this to be the case, yet again, in this post. I did not call you stupid however, I just pointed out that there are only 2 explanations (which I consider feasible) as to why you misprepresented my case.

1. You are so stupid that you could not understand what I was saying and got confused

2. You knew what I was saying and decided to twist my words round.

The 3rd option (which I consider completely unfeasible) would be to: "show how you arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting;

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony""

You have failed to provide an explanation to satisfy option 3 so I stand by my original decision, option 2.

So fear not, I dont think your stupid, I just think your a cowardly, disingenious , hypocritical individual who is desperate to be perceived as an intellectual and who enjoys causing trouble online, safe in the knowledge that you will not be held to account for your actions in real life.

PS

Having trouble with the quotes facility? Its not that hard , as you yourself are so fond of pointing out....

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Hate also has problems with the quote function, elementary as it is.[/quote]

hehe, you didnt think I was going to accuse you of hypocrisy without offering at least 1 example did you? I leave such cowardly behaviour in your capable hands :)

PPS

I&#39;ll add "clarity" to the list of words you dont understand, just after "forthrightness" :)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by j2k4@28 February 2004 - 19:01
Now, I&#39;m done with you-any more/further off topic is your doing, lefty.


Apparently you missed the part I added (for clarity?) ;)

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
Apparently you missed the part I added (for clarity?)

No. I &#39;caught&#39; it. I just translated it as "please dont reply, pleeeease" and chose to ignore it.

btw I thought you were "done with me"? Apparently not... :rolleyes:

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by leftism+28 February 2004 - 23:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 28 February 2004 - 23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>j2k4... what are we going to do with you eh?&nbsp; :lol:

1st, you have failed to show how you came to the conclusion that I was suggesting:

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony"

I expected this and you did not fail to come up with the goods. Thank you :)

2nd, you&#39;ve gone straight back to your playground games.


Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BTW-Where is your buddy 1234?

Carrying someone else&#39;s water these days?

Weren&#39;t you two here to "run me off this board" or leave me in need of a cyber-"ambulance", or some such nonsense?[/b]

Thanks again :)

1234 is not my buddy, nor is 56789 or 20/5 for that matter. I dont have a clue what your referring to about "running you off the board" or "cyber ambulances".

All I can see is that your floundering :)

Now... lets deal with that your chaotic mess which purports to be a post.


Originally posted by j2k4
What, exactly, you mean by "current proposals" is not absolutely clear, but your statement about amending them to include heterosexual couples is, insofar as it applies to the general subject; i.e., alternative legal unions referred to, for purposes here, as "Other-than-Marriage", or OTM.

WHAT???? Could someone translate this from gobbledygook into English for me?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

(Im glad I didnt see that sentence before you edited it for "clarity"&#33; What a mess&#33;)

You appear to be saying that "My statement about amending the current proposals" (subject of sentence) is..... "Other than marriage"???????

Good strategy though :) Write &#39;sentences&#39; that are painful to read, long winded and dont make any sense.

This serves the double purpose of making them impossible to answer and provides more opportunity for playground games, such as "HA&#33; You didnt understand that?? You must be dumb&#33; HA&#33;".

Cunning... your as sharp as a spoon j2k4 :)

I cant be bothered to deal with the rest of your inane questions. What I will say is that they show you havent been following this thread at all.


Originally posted by j2k4
Unless I miss my guess, his comment may come in response to the unremitting, presumptive and altogether off-putting contempt you continually express for America and also any member of this board or his/her opinions.

More ambiguous non-specific, cowardly, yes thats right COWARDLY :D accusations.

If you had provided an example of my "off-putting contempt for America" you would not be a coward. As usual however you prefer to hide behind non-specific accusations that cant be answered due to their ambiguity.

Thats your choice j2k4, I&#39;ve re-iterated multiple times what you must do to avoid this appearance of being a coward, but I cant make you do it. You make your own bed, you lie in it. Its got nothing to do with me :).


Originally posted by j2k4
Now, as to your last post, I immediately was able to determine that no such "corner" as you described indeed existed, or at least, I was not in the vicinity of same.

"not in vicinity of same". "insofar as it applies to the general subject".. :sleeping:

I can only be thankful that we are not using dead trees to conduct this &#39;debate&#39;. Your obsession with unnecessary phrases, long windedness and pompousness would have devoured half of Brazil by now.

At least lawyers get paid by the page, they have an excuse for this kind of posturing. :lol:

The "corner" was quote my words that caused your confusion, with regards to, insofar much as to be or not to be, vis a vis , referred to, for purposes here, as not in the vicinity of same, Mr Spoon, Button Moon, intent&#33; (dramatic pause)

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
You will also note that, while I admit to showering you (rather liberally, at that&#33;) with sarcasm and scorn, I have not called you "stupid". nor "cowardly", nor resorted to anything resembling an out-and-out insult.

I called you cowardly because you are. You have shown this to be the case, yet again, in this post. I did not call you stupid however, I just pointed out that there are only 2 explanations (which I consider feasible) as to why you misprepresented my case.

1. You are so stupid that you could not understand what I was saying and got confused

2. You knew what I was saying and decided to twist my words round.

The 3rd option (which I consider completely unfeasible) would be to: "show how you arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting;

a. "alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you
b. "Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions"
c. "a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony""

You have failed to provide an explanation to satisfy option 3 so I stand by my original decision, option 2.

So fear not, I dont think your stupid, I just think your a cowardly, disingenious , hypocritical individual who is desperate to be perceived as an intellectual and who enjoys causing trouble online, safe in the knowledge that you will not be held to account for your actions in real life.

PS

Having trouble with the quotes facility? Its not that hard , as you yourself are so fond of pointing out....

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Hate also has problems with the quote function, elementary as it is.[/quote]

hehe, you didnt think I was going to accuse you of hypocrisy without offering at least 1 example did you? I leave such cowardly behaviour in your capable hands :)

PPS

I&#39;ll add "clarity" to the list of words you dont understand, just after "forthrightness" :)[/b][/quote]

Leftism

That is the biggest load of self satisfied shite I have read in years. You really should get someone to read these things before you post them, they do you no credit. With apologies to hobbes for my plagiarism, even if it wasn&#39;t him I was "plagurizing"

[leftism]

Originally posted by agrajag
Leftism

That is the biggest load of self satisfied shite I have read in years. You really should get someone to read these things before you post them, they do you no credit. With apologies to hobbes for my plagiarism, even if it wasn&#39;t him I was "plagurizing"

Yet again.. we must agree to disagree :D

A couple of points though.. you have an eagle as part of your sig, you also make ambiguous accusations which lack specifics.

Are you... could you be.... j2k4 in disguise????

:fear2: :fear2: :fear2:

(cue stabbing violins ala psycho style)

:helpsmile:

[clocker]

Leftism,
Resorting to ominous, emotive music to enhance your posts is a tactic unworthy of you.

More my style, really.

[leftism]

Originally posted by clocker
Leftism,
Resorting to ominous, emotive music to enhance your posts is a tactic unworthy of you.

More my style, really.

You have to understand that I&#39;ve always held your style in high regard. I just couldnt resist the temptation to emulate it.

Even if you are a "scoundrel" :lol:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@29 February 2004 - 01:55
Leftism,
Resorting to ominous, emotive music to enhance your posts is a tactic unworthy of you.

More my style, really.
Without meaning to be presumptive Clocker, I believe this is more your style for dramatic effect.

http://www.aros.net/~chuckles/pic/t2201lg.gif

It certainly does resonate your philosophies spot on. Cuckoo&#33;

[clocker]

Good find, hobbes.

I&#39;ve never, ever seen a cuckoo clock with a dolphin in it.
Amazing.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by leftism+29 February 2004 - 00:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 29 February 2004 - 00:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-agrajag
Leftism

That is the biggest load of self satisfied shite I have read in years. You really should get someone to read these things before you post them, they do you no credit. With apologies to hobbes for my plagiarism, even if it wasn&#39;t him I was "plagurizing"

Yet again.. we must agree to disagree :D

A couple of points though.. you have an eagle as part of your sig, you also make ambiguous accusations which lack specifics.

Are you... could you be.... j2k4 in disguise????

:fear2: :fear2: :fear2:

(cue stabbing violins ala psycho style)

:helpsmile: [/b][/quote]
What is ambiguous about me describing your post as self satisfied shite ?