Well It's Democracy

[vidcc]

source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/04/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html)


Missouri approves same-sex marriage ban


JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri (AP) -- Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.

With nearly all precincts reporting, the amendment had garnered 71 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results for Tuesday's vote.

It was the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there.

Also Tuesday, Missouri voters dumped embattled Gov. Bob Holden in favor of state Auditor Claire McCaskill in the state's Democratic primary. (Full story)

Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as at least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, vote on similar amendments this year.

Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.

"I'm very gratified and encouraged and thankful that the people of this state understand our current policy's a wise public policy and they want to see it protected from a legal challenge," said Vicky Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri.

Opponents said the amendment was unnecessary and discriminatory, but knew they faced an uphill battle in Missouri.

"We're already reaching out to these other states, sharing with them what we learned, what worked, what didn't work, and we'll move on," said Doug Gray, campaign manager for the Constitution Defense League. "Ultimately we're right and they're simply wrong."

Supporters and opponents of the amendment have used grassroots campaigns, knocking on doors and making phone calls to tell people about the issue. The group fighting the amendment, the Constitution Defense League, raised more than $360,000, largely from national gay-rights groups, and ran a television ad in the final days before the vote.

The group favoring the amendment, the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, spread the word through churches and community events, raising just a few thousand dollars but saying public sentiment in Missouri was on their side.

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment September 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue November 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada -- already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

Well it's democracy but it's shameful that a country that touts freedom and even uses it as an excuse to go to war with other countries should deny it to a minority.
We don't need to deny freedom to protect marriage. If marriage is at risk it's because people that get married don't take it seriously enough.

This does indeed reflect the true definition of hypocracy.

[clocker]

Pathetic.

I have yet to see/hear a shred of evidence that allowing gay marriage ( the whole enchilada...NOT a "civil union") in any way diminishes the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
To me this is just politically correct homophobia.

An interesting aside...
Here in Colorado, Pete Coors (yes, THAT Coors..."Supreme Swillmiester"), is running for the Senate as a Republican ( no surprise there).
Humorously, The Coors Brewing Company, after a nationwide gay boycott several years ago, has become one of the most progressive "gay-friendly" companies around...a fact that poor Pete is desperately trying to avoid/justify to Colorado's conservative electorate.
We are the state after all, who inflicted Marilyn Musgrave on the rest of the nation.

The contortions that Coors is employing to distance himself from the company that HE runs ( and who's progressive policies he was so proud of up until his campaign began) would qalify him for a position with the Cirque du Soliel.

Ah, politics....

[hobbes]

Actually, I see this as more a problem with failure to separate church from state.

Marriage or civil union is not something that should be voted on. I don't remember any vote on whether it should be legal for a man and woman to marry. They can call it "civil union" if the the church feels that it has a corner on the use of the word "marriage", but whatever the label chosen, it should provide the same LEGAL priveldges that traditional marriages provide.

This quibbling over a word, is a way of dodging the real issue. And it is religion which makes this an issue at all. Religion should not be used to define the rights of an individual.

[Busyman]

I believe that marraige should have nothing to do with governement then.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Busyman@4 August 2004 - 23:14
I believe that marraige should have nothing to do with governement then.
What about tax status?

[hobbes]

Marraige has nothing to do with government, so there you go.

Marraige two facets:

1) A union under God, but as an aside, atheists and agnostic "marry", what's up with that? Should that be called something else, too?

2) It establishes a legal relationship between the 2 parties which has relevance to personal property and tax laws and such. That is all gays want, a way to get the legal benefits that straight folks do.

What should we call the union between gay athiests?

You know Busy, we could have a vote on whether black men can have white wives. In so many states, that would be democratically banned. That is not a victory for the democratic way, but an out and out violation of civil rights.

I see this gay marraige thing as something very similar. Instead of being fueled by racism, the fight against gays is fueled by religion.

[Arm]

Democracy dont work. At least not in this country. ;) Tyranny of the Majority. :01:

But eh at least the fucking rednecks in this state(Missouri) voted down building a casino in a little town called Rockaway Beach. B)

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Arm@5 August 2004 - 00:38
Democracy dont work. At least not in this country. ;)
You can always move to China... :unsure:

[Arm]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+4 August 2004 - 19:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny &#064; 4 August 2004 - 19:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Arm@5 August 2004 - 00:38
Democracy dont work. At least not in this country. ;)
You can always move to China... :unsure: [/b][/quote]
I was thinking about Canada. Alot closer to democracy then America. :clover: :smoke:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Arm@4 August 2004 - 22:38
Democracy dont work. At least not in this country. ;) Tyranny of the Majority. :01:

But eh at least the fucking rednecks in this state(Missouri) voted down building a casino in a little town called Rockaway Beach. B)
If we could only get rid of mind warping music and that indecent dancing, we might all have a chance to be free of the devil.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 17:35

What about tax status?
same as hetro couples...the point is that it&#39;s discriminating.

@ busy

With you 100%..to the point where i feel government at all levels should not be able to outlaw in a discriminatory manner...it goes against everything the USA is supposed to stand for.

I think it&#39;s fine for anyone, even the government to use their religious beliefs to conduct their own lives, but not to conduct the lives of others.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+4 August 2004 - 18:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 4 August 2004 - 18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Arm@5 August 2004 - 00:38
Democracy dont work. At least not in this country. ;)
You can always move to China... :unsure: [/b][/quote]
Hmm...you spout the merits of changing other countries to our brand of democracy yet if someone from our own country challenges our own you suggest they leave...... interesting <_<

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by vidcc+5 August 2004 - 01:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 5 August 2004 - 01:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 18:45
<!--QuoteBegin-Arm@5 August 2004 - 00:38
Democracy dont work. At least not in this country. ;)
You can always move to China... :unsure:
Hmm...you spout the merits of changing other countries to our brand of democracy yet if someone from our own country challenges our own you suggest they leave...... interesting <_< [/b][/quote]
Seriously vidcc; buy a sense of humor.

Its my simple belief that the United States is the best country in the world...apparently you have a problem with that.

Ahh well; You can go ahead and move to China, and thats said with a perfectly straight face.

@Arm; You better tell the millions lining up to get into this country that its not what its cracked up to be.

[Arm]

Millions lining up to get into this country? When? :blink: Americas economy is in the toilet. Immigrations down and alot of the Indian high-tech workers left. Ill tell all the Indians to go to Mexico like what my moms husband/my stepdad wanna go. It&#39;s hot and blantly corrupt just like India. B)

[spinningfreemanny]

Dang; I can&#39;t keep out of an arguement on this board...lol

We&#39;re entering the 14th straight month of economic growth, The lowest interest rates in decades (I just got a house for under 5% interest...How great is that?), and productivity has grown in the last three years in more then half a decade...not exactly a economy in the toilet.

I just visited Mexico City this last May; believe me, it&#39;s not pretty.

I live in Arizona; people are literally killing themselves in order to get into this country.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Arm@5 August 2004 - 04:51
Millions lining up to get into this country? When? :blink: Americas economy is in the toilet. Immigrations down and alot of the Indian high-tech workers left.
Come on Arm, reality check time. Let&#39;s not go off the deep end.

As Manny said, and living in South Texas, I can verify, people are literally killing themselves to get in the US.

Did you know that for foreign doctors, if they want to practise here, they must be completely retrained. So if a fully qualified Indian neurosurgeon wants to work here, he must repeat 7 years of residency and THEN must somehow convince the US government that he is exceptional and should be allowed to practice in the US.

Imagine going to Canada and they ask you to repeat k-6 grades. That is called a major disincentive. Guess what, they are coming in droves to do this.

We still have a decent country, perhaps you need to travel the world, as I have, to appreciate what you&#39;ve got.

Sounds to me like an attitude adjustment would do your whole world-view a great benefit.

[J'Pol]

If gay couples (male or female) wish to have a ceremony where they make promises towards one and other and have this witnessed by a registrar and friends, then the best of luck to them.

They should then get the same legal rights as any other couple, the same tax breaks pension rights etc should be available.

If it makes them happy to describe themselves as married, fine by me it&#39;s only a word after all.

[MicroScreen2]

in response to the first post (havent read the rest yet)

marriages were invented to keep couples commited for the sake of the children. Even for hetrosexuals these days marriage is pointless because society accepts divorce as an everyyday thing for couples who fell out of love or whatever reason with no regards for the welfare of the children. in this light i cant really say i&#39;m dead set against same sex marriage but its pointless IMO because i believe same sex parents are immoral cos the kids will get bullied and wont learn about proper family life.

before anybody brings it up i think its disgusting to justify a possible generation of broken kids so the next generation can have same sex couples as the norm.

[Biggles]

This topic has been well aired before.

However, Arm did raise an interesting point re: the tyranny of the majority.

It is the tyranny of the majority that persecutes Christians in Iran. It was the tyranny of the Christian majority that burned Pagans at the stake. A truly civilised country is not one where the majority get to do what they like to a minority but rather where the rights of all individuals are respected equally, getting to elect the government comes second imho.

Marriage is failing because the people who are married don&#39;t want to be. To blame another Group who does want to be married is frankly insane.

On a separate note I have never really understood the breast-beating accompanied by a certain type of patriotism. I am a Scot, it is in my blood, I belong to the land of my fathers. It does not matter to me whether Scotland is the "greatest country" in the world or not. It is simply where my heart is. I would expect a Greek or a French person or an American to feel the same. For any to claim to be "best" sounds like insecurity.

Would it not be fair to say that many of those who seek to live in the USA are exhibiting cupboard love (which according to my daughter is under-rated). They come, they work and they stick to their own language and send the money home. This is different to the settlers of the 19th and early 20th century who saught a new life as Americans. I appreciate that there are still immigrants of the latter sort too. However, economic migration has nothing to do with values or lifestyle and everything to do with putting bread on the table without a hand grenade coming through the window.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 13:26
in response to the first post (havent read the rest yet)

marriages were invented to keep couples commited for the sake of the children. Even for hetrosexuals these days marriage is pointless because society accepts divorce as an everyyday thing for couples who fell out of love or whatever reason with no regards for the welfare of the children. in this light i cant really say i&#39;m dead set against same sex marriage but its pointless IMO because i believe same sex parents are immoral cos the kids will get bullied and wont learn about proper family life.

before anybody brings it up i think its disgusting to justify a possible generation of broken kids so the next generation can have same sex couples as the norm.
interesting idea about the invention of marriage.

I would like to address the children being beaten up point...... This only happens because of discriminatory and biggoted ethics taught to the children that do the beating.

[MicroScreen2]

Marriage is failing because the people who are married don&#39;t want to be. To blame another Group who does want to be married is frankly insane.

was that aimed at me?

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by vidcc+5 August 2004 - 20:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 5 August 2004 - 20:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 13:26
in response to the first post (havent read the rest yet)

marriages were invented to keep couples commited for the sake of the children. Even for hetrosexuals these days marriage is pointless because society accepts divorce as an everyyday thing for couples who fell out of love or whatever reason with no regards for the welfare of the children. in this light i cant really say i&#39;m dead set against same sex marriage but its pointless IMO because i believe same sex parents are immoral cos the kids will get bullied and wont learn about proper family life.

before anybody brings it up i think its disgusting to justify a possible generation of broken kids so the next generation can have same sex couples as the norm.
interesting idea about the invention of marriage.

I would like to address the children being beaten up point...... This only happens because of discriminatory and biggoted ethics taught to the children that do the beating. [/b][/quote]
i wasnt thinking about beatings, i was thinking of the psychological stuff like name calling and that they&#39;ll be made to feel like an outcast, but beatings do happen.


whether its discriminatory or not, forcing kids to go through it wont stop it.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:10

Marriage is failing because the people who are married don&#39;t want to be. To blame another Group who does want to be married is frankly insane.

was that aimed at me?
I don&#39;t think so. :blink:

I was referring to the political comments regarding banning same sex marriage as protecting and promoting different sex marriage. I fail to see the connection.

If you fall into that camp and feel the shoe fits then by all means wear it. :)

[J'Pol]

So we are saying that people&#39;s rights should be diminished because of the ramifications of them getting them.

Tell that to Martin Luther King, tell him that a wee woman refusing to give up a seat on the bus will lead to riots in the street. Tell him civil disobedience will cause all sort of bother for his people and ask him if their civil rights and equality are worth it.

I make this as a general point, not just in relation to the topic at hand.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by Biggles+5 August 2004 - 20:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 5 August 2004 - 20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:10

Marriage is failing because the people who are married don&#39;t want to be. To blame another Group who does want to be married is frankly insane.

was that aimed at me?
I don&#39;t think so. :blink:

I was referring to the political comments regarding banning same sex marriage as protecting and promoting different sex marriage. I fail to see the connection.

If you fall into that camp and feel the shoe fits then by all means wear it. :) [/b][/quote]
:rolleyes: i&#39;m poor at stringing sentances together so i thought my post may have come across wrong.


j&#39;pol. i think this is a little different. martin luther king never employed a third party against their will and welfare to suffer because he wanted the opportunity to do something unnatural.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2+5 August 2004 - 20:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 5 August 2004 - 20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Biggles@5 August 2004 - 20:17
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:10

Marriage is failing because the people who are married don&#39;t want to be. To blame another Group who does want to be married is frankly insane.

was that aimed at me?
I don&#39;t think so. :blink:

I was referring to the political comments regarding banning same sex marriage as protecting and promoting different sex marriage. I fail to see the connection.

If you fall into that camp and feel the shoe fits then by all means wear it. :)
:rolleyes: i&#39;m poor at stringing sentances together so i thought my post may have come across wrong.


j&#39;pol. i think this is a little different. martin luther king never employed a third party against their will and welfare to suffer because he wanted the opportunity to do something unnatural. [/b][/quote]
No problem

I think by playing the "unnatural card" you show your hand too much. :)

Those who opposed the blacks in the 1950s thought, for example, mixed marriages between black and white unnatural and an evil abomination. A black lad courting a white girl was liable to wake up dead.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 14:14
i wasnt thinking about beatings, i was thinking of the psychological stuff like name calling and that they&#39;ll be made to feel like an outcast, but beatings do happen.



I used beatings in a general term, name calling and any other action can be taken in that term. i didn&#39;t misunderstand your usage.

whether its discriminatory or not, forcing kids to go through it wont stop it
I have no doubt that human nature won&#39;t be changed i merely pointed out that it is because of biggoted attitudes that it happens at all.

I&#39;ve been beaten to the post in pointing out that one shouldn&#39;t forego ones human rights because of the "cost", However you have raised a different topic to marriage...not all Gay couples want to have children.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 21:28

j&#39;pol. i think this is a little different. martin luther king never employed a third party against their will and welfare to suffer because he wanted the opportunity to do something unnatural.
The most telling word above is unnatural. It speaks more than any cogent argument you may have provided.

Employ is indeed another one, as it suggests it is the gay people who are deliberately using children to further their own ends. Surely it is the bullies who should be blamed for their abhorrent actions.

However is is good to hear that Black Children were not bullied either physically or mentally as a direct result of the civil liberties campaigns. I had always thought they were victims as well.

[MicroScreen2]

sex is natural between different races but not for same sexes, if it were, girls could have kids with girls and bos could have kids with boys. so yeah i stand by the idea that its unnatural.


what word should i have used instead of "employ"?.. "take"? "victimise"? "hire?"



Surely it is the bullies who should be blamed for their abhorrent actions

if i were to force someone into the lion&#39;s den and they get killed, am i entirely without blame?





I&#39;ve been beaten to the post in pointing out that one shouldn&#39;t forego ones human rights because of the "cost", However you have raised a different topic to marriage...not all Gay couples want to have children.



my idea of marriage is solely or the welfare of children, apart from a big party all it does for the couple is put them i wedlock

[J'Pol]

If you were to stand quietly holding a banner saying that just because you were Black did not mean you were entitled to less rights.

Then someone punched you in the face for doing it, whose fault would that be.

Martin Luther King and The Mahatma before him advocated passive resistance. They risked themselves, their families and their children when they did this.

As a direct result of this the world is a better place. Because they said no, we shall not take this, neither shall we lower ourselves to the level of those who would attack us.

We shall overcome.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@5 August 2004 - 20:59
If you were to stand quietly holding a banner saying that just because you were Black did not mean you were entitled to less rights.

Then someone punched you in the face for doing it, whose fault would that be.

Martin Luther King and The Mahatma before him advocated passive resistance. They risked themselves, their families and their children when they did this.

As a direct result of this the world is a better place. Because they said no, we shall not take this, neither shall we lower ourselves to the level of those who would attack us.

We shall overcome.
it would be my choice if i hold the banner. if i get punched its my partly fault because i knew the risk when i did it. that doesn&#39;t mean it was the wrong thing to do though.

what if i held up the banner and my kid got punched in the face for it?

[hobbes]

Where the hell are we going with this thread?

[Biggles]

Presumably those who marry for love are misguided and those who cannot have children should divorce.

The actions of bullies and those of a wild carnivore are not comparable. I would be interested in your opinions of the bullies that intimidate the Catholic and Protestant children of Northern Ireland. What should their parents do? Change religion, leave the country or try to educate the bigots? We cannot live or lives according to the whims of the most base members of society.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 21:07
Where the hell are we going with this thread?
:)

Not sure, but I am oiling the wheels on the hand cart just in case. ;)

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by Biggles@5 August 2004 - 21:08
Presumably those who marry for love are misguided and those who cannot have children should divorce.

The actions of bullies and those of a wild carnivore are not comparable. I would be interested in yor opinions of the bullies that intimidate the catholic and protestant children of Northern Ireland. What should their parents do? Change religion, leave the country or try to educate the bigots? We cannot live or lives according to the whims of the most base members of society.
as far as i know the kids in northern ireland often get on regardless of religion. its the parents that hate each other.

in an ideal world the kids of gays wouldn&#39;t be bullied
in an ideal world catholics and protestants in northern ireland would forget the past and get along



try to recognise the line between the real world and an ideal world. rather than call me bad cos this isnt an ideal world

[Biggles]

MS

You misunderstand, I don&#39;t think you are bad because you disagree. I am simply putting the other side of the argument. We can leave things as they are or try and improve them. The bullying of children because of who their parents are is something that should be improved not avoided or left as it is.

However, I am inclined to agree with Hobbes, I am not sure where this is going. Increasingly heterosexual parents are not married and gay couples do not need to be married to have children either. The linkage between a commitment to marry and whether there are children is loose to say the least and possibly a red herring.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 15:15
as far as i know the kids in northern ireland often get on regardless of religion. its the parents that hate each other.


As far as i know kids with gay parent figures often get along with kids of hetro parents regardless of sexual preference....

[hobbes]

Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit.

If two men or women wish to legally unite, that is a matter for them to decide. This decision in no way infringes on the rights of others to carry on their lives as they see fit.

The point is that legal union is a right, and putting a "right" up to majority vote is an infringement of that right.

Would a ban on inter-racial marriages win the majority vote? Sadly "yes", but fortunately all can see that people have the right to marry who they choose.

As for the purpose of marriage, it defines a commitment of two people to one another. What should a woman do if she is living with a millionaire and he leaves her. She becomes a talentless pauper. The instituition of marriage was invented to give each partner a sense of stability and security.

How does marriage effect children at all, the support of the children comes from the love of the parents not from a legal document.

The argument that gay marriages should not be allowed because their children may get bullied a bit Big Brotherian if you ask me.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 15:07
Where the hell are we going with this thread?
Well it appears that gay people should be denied the right to human rights because of biggoted actions towards children.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc+5 August 2004 - 19:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 5 August 2004 - 19:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@5 August 2004 - 15:07
Where the hell are we going with this thread?
Well it appears that gay people should be denied the right to human rights because of biggoted actions towards children. [/b][/quote]
Yes, see post above.

That is the core element I felt we were wandering away from with all this talk about children and bullies.

[MicroScreen2]

sorry for drifting off topic :huh:


my main point was nowadays marriage is just a title. you dont even need to be commited anymore cos divorce is just a signature away :(

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 22:26
Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit.

I believe that every human has these rights, whether they happen to be an American or not.

Indeed in Europe we have a convention which lays the rights out. ECHR (http://www.pfc.org.uk/legal/echrtext.htm)

That aside, your post is full of goods points, well presented. You are to be congratulated on it.

[hobbes]

Unfortunately these days, the only time this forum shows any life at all is when a disagreement ensues.

[clocker]

I sometimes wonder if the folks most stidently against gay marriage aren&#39;t just a tad worried that perhaps gays might show themselves to be more adept at the institution than they.
After all, an openly gay person has already exposed themself to the slings and arrows of the bigotted, for a pair of them to aggressively seek a recognized union would seem to require a desire far in excess of that demanded of a "normal" couple.
For a tradition pair, a pulse and an birth certificate are all that is needed to enter into holy matrimony.
A gay couple must suffer the scorn and dismay of the masses to do the same thing.

As an aside...
Here in Colorado, home of Marilyn Musgrave, author of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, we have the rather humorous affair of Gov. Bill Owens...a Republican, eagerly pandering to his conservative constituancy by trumpeting "family values" whilst divorcing his wife.

Only in America...

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 21:53
Unfortunately these days, the only time this forum shows any life at all is when a disagreement ensues.
no it isnt. :P


sorry this aint the lounge :rolleyes:



How does marriage effect children at all, the support of the children comes from the love of the parents not from a legal document.

this is idealistic crap though


The argument that gay marriages should not be allowed because their children may get bullied a bit Big Brotherian if you ask me.

and this makes no sense to me :blink:

[hobbes]

sorry this aint the lounge :rolleyes:



How does marriage effect children at all, the support of the children comes from the love of the parents not from a legal document.

this is idealistic crap though


It means that the "support" that comes from the parents is both financial and emotional.

A marriage license in no way ensures that the parents will be supportive of the children. It does not require this.

If the parents, love the children financial and emotional support will naturally flow from this. This support can continue after mom and dad no longer want to be together.

So you see, a legal document really plays no role in "supporting" the children.

If you want to bring up "child support", do you really think this responsibility ever was the hinge that kept a divorce from taking place?

Idealistic crap, I think not&#33;

BTW, as an aside, if you are going to make a statement, please attempt to support it.

"That is idealistic crap because.....".

After all, this is NOT the lounge.


As for you second point, change "big brotherian" to "paternalistic", does it make sense now?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@5 August 2004 - 19:58


we have the rather humorous affair of Gov. Bill Owens...a Republican, eagerly pandering to his conservative constituancy by trumpeting "family values" whilst divorcing his wife.

Only in America...
Perhaps his wife had poor family values and he was necessarily distancing himself from her?http://www.rikk-cowsys.com/html//emoticons/confused.gif

[clocker]

Hobbes, I&#39;m sure you have just earned a position in his campaign staff.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@5 August 2004 - 22:58
holy matrimony.

I beg to differ.

I have, as previously stated no problem whatsoever with gay couples making a lifelong commitment to one and other, to do this in front of a registrar and witnesses.

I fully support their right to equal legal status to any other couple and to have the same tax breaks, pension rights etc.

I have no problem with them describing themselves as being married and thinking of themselves as such.

However I do not consider their status to be that of holy matrimony.

[MicroScreen2]

marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.


i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:30
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.


i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
So status quo it is then.

Change nothing, no matter how heinous. Let&#39;s not rock the boat.

[MicroScreen2]

i mean society isnt ready, i dont know how you can make everybody accept homosexuality, but sending in the first wave to get fucked up so the next generation will seem a normal part of society is not the way.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:39
i mean society isnt ready, i dont know how you can make everybody accept homosexuality, but sending in the first wave to get fucked up so the next generation will seem a normal part of society is not the way.
Like I said earlier ask the Black people of America, or the Indians who wished freedom from the British. Or perhaps ask the Suffragettes.

These people decided to stand up for what was right and to oppose what was wrong. They accepted that they themselves would suffer, however those that came after them would benefit from their courage.

Given that you consider homosexuality to be un-natural I am sure they are willing to make their altruistic decision without reference to your good self.

If you chose to take the path of least resistance that is a matter entirely for you. However some people choose to stand up for what they believe in, irrespective of the consequences.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 22:30
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.


i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Actually Big Brotherian has more resonance as it refers to George Orwell&#39;s book "1984". Big Brother was the friendly name given to the ever-snooping government officials who were only looking out for the citizens&#39; best interests - depressing and scary book.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+5 August 2004 - 22:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 5 August 2004 - 22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:39
i mean society isnt ready, i dont know how you can make everybody accept homosexuality, but sending in the first wave to get fucked up so the next generation will seem a normal part of society is not the way.
Like I said earlier ask the Black people of America, or the Indians who wished freedom from the British. Or perhaps ask the Suffragettes.

These people decided to stand up for what was right and to oppose what was wrong. They accepted that they themselves would suffer, however those that came after them would benefit from their courage.

Given that you consider homosexuality to be un-natural I am sure they are willing to make their altruistic decision without reference to your good self.

If you chose to take the path of least resistance that is a matter entirely for you. However some people choose to stand up for what they believe in, irrespective of the consequences. [/b][/quote]
its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.

i&#39;m talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.

[Biggles]

What is exactly the same is the mentality of those who would abuse others for what they are or who they are related to. The people J&#39;Pol refers to were oppressed and ill treated simply by dint of who they were. If the children of a Gay couple are attacked because of their parents then those who have abused them are as low and vile as those who abused the Blacks and Indians. It is solely the responsibility of the abusers.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by Biggles@5 August 2004 - 23:02
What is exactly the same is the mentality of those who would abuse others for what they are or who they are related to. The people J&#39;Pol refers to were oppressed and ill treated simply by dint of who they were. If the children of a Gay couple are attacked because of their parents then those who have abused them are as low and vile as those who abused the Blacks and Indians. It is solely the responsibility of the abusers.
its no justification to let it happen though

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@5 August 2004 - 20:21
Hobbes, I&#39;m sure you have just earned a position in his campaign staff.
Clocker,

Please do not make light of the subject.

In a personal correspondance, Bill offered me a peek into his soul.

He wrote,

"When the news was brought to me that my wife was married to an adulterer, my mind was thrown into a detached and gray world of disbelief. After many days, nay weeks, of soul searching and introspection, I realized that I must divorce my wife of 15 years. It was a tough choice, but the right thing to do. I owe as much to the fine people of Colorado. They deserve a man, willing to make the tough decisions."



If a picture of Dave Chappelle pops into your head after reading the above, then you are definitely tuned to the right frequency.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2+5 August 2004 - 23:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 5 August 2004 - 23:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@5 August 2004 - 23:02
What is exactly the same is the mentality of those who would abuse others for what they are or who they are related to. The people J&#39;Pol refers to were oppressed and ill treated simply by dint of who they were. If the children of a Gay couple are attacked because of their parents then those who have abused them are as low and vile as those who abused the Blacks and Indians. It is solely the responsibility of the abusers.
its no justification to let it happen though [/b][/quote]
:)

True - the abusers need to be dealt with.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by Biggles+5 August 2004 - 23:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 5 August 2004 - 23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:05
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@5 August 2004 - 23:02
What is exactly the same is the mentality of those who would abuse others for what they are or who they are related to. The people J&#39;Pol refers to were oppressed and ill treated simply by dint of who they were. If the children of a Gay couple are attacked because of their parents then those who have abused them are as low and vile as those who abused the Blacks and Indians. It is solely the responsibility of the abusers.
its no justification to let it happen though
:)

True - the abusers need to be dealt with. [/b][/quote]
i dont know howit can be done. all i say is it should be sorted before it starts :blink:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:30
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Oh well, since you have been uniquely blessed with this type of insight, please keep us posted when the right time arrives, Big Brother.

Look up "irony", now.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by hobbes+5 August 2004 - 23:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 5 August 2004 - 23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:30
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Oh well, since you have been uniquely blessed with this type of insight, please keep us posted when the right time arrives, Big Brother.

Look up "irony", now. [/b][/quote]
wow. you missed the point <_<

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles+5 August 2004 - 20:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 5 August 2004 - 20:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 22:30
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.


i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Actually Big Brotherian has more resonance as it refers to George Orwell&#39;s book "1984". Big Brother was the friendly name given to the ever-snooping government officials who were only looking out for the citizens&#39; best interests - depressing and scary book. [/b][/quote]
Biggles,

Did you get the jist of what I was saying? I know the source of "Big Brother" and I was using a little artist license for the art of my post.

Please don&#39;t make me throw my smock at you&#33;

[hobbes]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2+5 August 2004 - 21:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 &#064; 5 August 2004 - 21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 23:12
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:30
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Oh well, since you have been uniquely blessed with this type of insight, please keep us posted when the right time arrives, Big Brother.

Look up "irony", now.
wow. you missed the point <_< [/b][/quote]
No, I did not.

The point is that there is no right time.

Just ask any couple having a baby, particularly if they both are working. There is no right time to have a baby, you just have the baby and make adjustments.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by hobbes+5 August 2004 - 23:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 5 August 2004 - 23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 21:15

Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 23:12
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 20:30
i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Oh well, since you have been uniquely blessed with this type of insight, please keep us posted when the right time arrives, Big Brother.

Look up "irony", now.
wow. you missed the point <_<
No, I did not.

The point is that there is no right time. [/b][/quote]
well you dont know what irony is then


after edit: :blink: wtf?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes+5 August 2004 - 23:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 5 August 2004 - 23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Biggles@5 August 2004 - 20:48
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 22:30
marriage <s>is</s> was like an extra bond to keep parents together for the sake of the children, so yeah a legal document does help support.


i looked up paternalistic and now i understand the arguement. its stupid.

i think theres a time for people mind their own business and a time for people to intervene. society cant allow kids to be bullied for a few peoples&#39; selfish wishes. maybe in a few years, but not yet.
Actually Big Brotherian has more resonance as it refers to George Orwell&#39;s book "1984". Big Brother was the friendly name given to the ever-snooping government officials who were only looking out for the citizens&#39; best interests - depressing and scary book.
Biggles,

Did you get the jist of what I was saying? I know the source of "Big Brother" and I was using a little artist license for the art of my post.

Please don&#39;t make me throw my smock at you&#33; [/b][/quote]
:lol:

Apologies my good Hobbes. I merely took the liberty of elucidating for MS2.

I would not contemplate teaching a rabbit to suck eggs. :blink:

[MicroScreen2]

oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn&#39;t. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:21
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn&#39;t. when kids with gay parents can accepted the&nbsp; same as any other kid. then is the right time
Make up your mind, either be good with expresing yourself in English or not.

It&#39;s cool either way, but just try to be consistent, it&#39;s more fun that way.

The following is not really consistent with someone who finds English difficult.


its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.

i&#39;m talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.

Like I said, one way or the other old bean.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2+5 August 2004 - 23:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 5 August 2004 - 23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@5 August 2004 - 22:47
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 23:39
i mean society isnt ready, i dont know how you can make everybody accept homosexuality, but sending in the first wave to get fucked up so the next generation will seem a normal part of society is not the way.
Like I said earlier ask the Black people of America, or the Indians who wished freedom from the British. Or perhaps ask the Suffragettes.

These people decided to stand up for what was right and to oppose what was wrong. They accepted that they themselves would suffer, however those that came after them would benefit from their courage.

Given that you consider homosexuality to be un-natural I am sure they are willing to make their altruistic decision without reference to your good self.

If you chose to take the path of least resistance that is a matter entirely for you. However some people choose to stand up for what they believe in, irrespective of the consequences.
its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.

i&#39;m talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer. [/b][/quote]
Or is it just me.

[hobbes]

Let me clarify the "irony"


You stated that gays should not be allowed to marry because their children would bear the burden of punishment (bullied).

I stated that you were being Paternalistic, meaning that you were making a decision for them, not because it was right, but because you thought someone could get hurt. You didn&#39;t think that they would be able to handle the situation themselves, so you intervened.

Your response was "that&#39;s stupid" (my saying that you were being paternalistic) and then you stated that there is a "time to mind your own business and a time to intervene" and "now is not the right time".

That is my exact point, you are being paternalistic, you want to make decisions for someone else.

There is the irony. You thought you weren&#39;t being paternalistic and that my calling you paternalistic was "stupid". In truth, you were being exactly that, and not even realizing it.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+5 August 2004 - 23:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 5 August 2004 - 23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:21
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn&#39;t. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time
Make up your mind, either be good with expresing yourself in English or not.

It&#39;s cool either way, but just try to be consistent, it&#39;s more fun that way.

The following is not really consistent with someone who finds English difficult.


its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.

i&#39;m talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.

Like I said, one way or the other old bean. [/b][/quote]
to me they say the same thing :(

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 23:36
Let me clarify the "irony"


You stated that gays should not be allowed to marry because their children would bear the burden of punishment (bullied).

I stated that you were being Paternalistic, meaning that you were making a decision for them, not because it was right, but because you thought someone could get hurt. You didn&#39;t think that they would be able to handle the situation themselves, so you intervened.

Your response was "that&#39;s stupid" (my saying that you were being paternalistic) and then you stated that there is a "time to mind your own business and a time to intervene" and "now is not the right time".

That is my exact point, you are being paternalistic, you want to make decisions for someone else.

There is the irony. You thought you weren&#39;t being paternalistic and that my calling you paternalistic was "stupid". In truth, you were being exactly that, and not even realizing it.
i meant as in it would be stupid not to intervene as you said it as critisism

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2+6 August 2004 - 00:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MicroScreen2 @ 6 August 2004 - 00:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@5 August 2004 - 23:34
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:21
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn&#39;t. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time
Make up your mind, either be good with expresing yourself in English or not.

It&#39;s cool either way, but just try to be consistent, it&#39;s more fun that way.

The following is not really consistent with someone who finds English difficult.


its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.

i&#39;m talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.

Like I said, one way or the other old bean.
to me they say the same thing :( [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is that really the best you can do.

You disappoint me.

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+5 August 2004 - 23:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 5 August 2004 - 23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:37

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@5 August 2004 - 23:34
<!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:21
oh i think i understand now. the selfish is selfish because its putting other peope in tthe firing line. if theres no firing line the selfishness isnt there so much, or at least the suffering isn&#39;t. when kids with gay parents can accepted the same as any other kid. then is the right time
Make up your mind, either be good with expresing yourself in English or not.

It&#39;s cool either way, but just try to be consistent, it&#39;s more fun that way.

The following is not really consistent with someone who finds English difficult.


its just not the same. your examples are oppressed people that decided they want freedom irrespective of the consequences and accepted they may suffer.

i&#39;m talking about people who want to do something irrespective of how they will make someone else suffer.

Like I said, one way or the other old bean.
to me they say the same thing :(
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is that really the best you can do.

You disappoint me. [/b][/quote]
first quote means its not fair for gay parents to have kids when they will suffer

second quote says its not fair to do something that makes someone else suffer.



ok, not exactly the same but not contradictory

[J'Pol]

The contradiction is the style, not the content. I think that is self-evident.

ttfn.

[MicroScreen2]

so what if i dont break out the thesaurus every post. <_<

[vidcc]

Ok micro lets see if we can get a yes or no answer to see just where you really stand.

Gay people because of their sexual habits don&#39;t have children and so your arguement for banning gay marriage is a completely different issue to gay marriage itself.
So the question is in 2 parts.

Should gays be given the right to marry ?

Yes or no

but not the right to adopt ?

Yes or no

I am skipping the examples where gay people have children from hetrosexual relationships to spare you any confusion as that will be a whole new debate and one which even with a vote you will never be able to change.

[j2k4]

You guys were touting this thread (last page) as "idealistic crap".

In truth, it does not quite rise to that level.

Please keep trying-

Sincerely,

j2

[MicroScreen2]

Should gays be given the right to marry ?

yes


but not the right to adopt ?

not yet

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 August 2004 - 18:09
You guys were touting this thread (last page) as "idealistic crap".

In truth, it does not quite rise to that level.

Please keep trying-

Sincerely,

j2
HUH ?

[Arm]

Originally posted by hobbes@5 August 2004 - 10:26
Come on Arm, reality check time.&nbsp; Let&#39;s not go off the deep end.

As Manny said, and living in South Texas, I can verify, people are literally killing themselves to get in the US.

Did you know that for foreign doctors, if they want to practise here, they must be completely retrained.&nbsp; So if a fully qualified Indian neurosurgeon wants to work here, he must repeat 7 years of residency and THEN must somehow convince the US government that he is exceptional and should be allowed to practice in the US.

Imagine going to Canada and they ask you to repeat k-6 grades.&nbsp; That is called a major disincentive.&nbsp; Guess what, they are coming in droves to do this.

We still have a decent country, perhaps you need to travel the world, as I have, to appreciate what you&#39;ve got.

Sounds to me like an attitude adjustment would do your whole world-view a great benefit.
Well the Mexicans sure. America may be crappy but still better then being poor in Mexico.

And spinningfreemanny, your so full of shit. Theres no economic growth. Just because a few hundred thousand Mcjobs are appearing doesnt mean economic growth. What about all the millions of high-tech, high paying jobs that are lost? Lost and arent coming back but are going straight to India. Progress my ass. <_<

And foreign doctors having to be retrained once they get here, maybe having some extra training by a year or 2 but repeating med school again sounds like bullshit to me.

And no we got a shitty country. All our so-called freedoms(which the government and corporations are working hard to take away and have won) we can get in any other developed country in the world, plus more.

And sure ill go to other countries. B) Some time this year or later hopefully ill go to Iran and see how the Persians are. :01: The Iranian youth is starting to like heavy metal you know. :o

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Arm@6 August 2004 - 00:26
And spinningfreemanny, your so full of shit. Theres no economic growth. Just because a few hundred thousand Mcjobs are appearing doesnt mean economic growth. What about all the millions of high-tech, high paying jobs that are lost? Lost and arent coming back but are going straight to India. Progress my ass.
lol, I didn&#39;t make up the words economic growth by myself. Its actually documented and scientifically proved through mathmatics. I guess you can always try to prove math wrong. :huh:


Edit: A poll came out with 79% of small business owners voting for Bush and 15% for Kerry. Why do you think that is? maybe it&#39;s actually going good for them and a basic economics class will tell you that small business dictates true economic growth.

[Arm]

It&#39;s still complete fantasy.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 18:12

Should gays be given the right to marry ?

yes


but not the right to adopt ?

not yet
thanks for clearing that up, you where getting lost in the debate and i for one am fine with your viewpoint.

I wouldn&#39;t want to ban gay adoptions personally but on this issue i can see both sides as valid.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Arm@6 August 2004 - 00:35
It&#39;s still complete fantasy.
Well refuted...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+5 August 2004 - 19:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 5 August 2004 - 19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@5 August 2004 - 18:09
You guys were touting this thread (last page) as "idealistic crap".

In truth, it does not quite rise to that level.

Please keep trying-

Sincerely,

j2
HUH ?[/b][/quote]
mutter, mutter, murmur, buzz, mutter...

People continually insist on broadening and/or outright changing the definitions of words.

Guess what?

My Toyota is now a Ferrari.



Here&#39;s what I want:

I want someone here to justify appropriating the term "marriage" for use by our gay population, when everything else has been profferred under the term "civil union"?

Keep in mind that, in light of the extra-special specialness of a gay coupling, any other wordings arising from whatever creative constructs can be arranged through full access to all 26 letters of the alphabet would be allowed.

I hereby submit "clopnoferrowiage" as a possible term.

[MicroScreen2]

unholy matrimony?

[spinningfreemanny]

lol

Unritualistic antiagnostic matrimony.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@6 August 2004 - 00:42
unholy matrimony?
translates too easily to demonic matrimony

[MicroScreen2]

neutral matrimony

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4+5 August 2004 - 22:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 5 August 2004 - 22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@5 August 2004 - 19:12
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@5 August 2004 - 18:09
You guys were touting this thread (last page) as "idealistic crap".

In truth, it does not quite rise to that level.

Please keep trying-

Sincerely,

j2
HUH ?
mutter, mutter, murmur, buzz, mutter...

People continually insist on broadening and/or outright changing the definitions of words.

Guess what?

My Toyota is now a Ferrari.



Here&#39;s what I want:

I want someone here to justify appropriating the term "marriage" for use by our gay population, when everything else has been profferred under the term "civil union"?

Keep in mind that, in light of the extra-special specialness of a gay coupling, any other wordings arising from whatever creative constructs can be arranged through full access to all 26 letters of the alphabet would be allowed.

I hereby submit "clopnoferrowiage" as a possible term.[/b][/quote]
J2,

To the penalty box you go. Nobody here cares about a simple little word. Keep it, cherish it, it has no bearing on the concept of violation of civil rights discussed here.

It has been stated over and over that no one cares about the word used to define the joining of a same sex couple. They simply want the same legal rights as those who have this thing called "marriage".

Call it civil union, call it "nachos and cheese", just let us stop the religious people from defining what is allowed because of their Bible.

We need to separate Church from State, and stop infringing on people&#39;s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If a gay union infringes on your rights, please let me know how?

The word "marriage" can be left to hetero couples, just allow non-hetero&#39;s an equal legal union.

You didn&#39;t read the thread, did you? For shame.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 August 2004 - 18:40

My Toyota is now a Ferrari.




where do you put the gunrack in a Ferrari? :unsure: :lol: :lol:

Call it what you will everyone is going to say married... they are going to say "this is my husband" or "this is my wife" and nobody is going to say "this is my gay civil union partner". the&#39;re just words.

There is a tunnel under the thames in England called the "dartford tunnel" and it was found to be insufficient for the job as time went by. So they built a bridge over the river at the same location and that bridge is called the queen elizabeth the 2nd bridge. How many people call it that?....close to bugger all....they call it the dartford bridge. It&#39;s just what will happen

BTW as we are raising words, "gay" never used to mean homosexual so please don&#39;t use it :nono: :lol: :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 17:11
all i say is it should be sorted before it starts :blink:
And how do you propose to make that happen?

@JP,
I understand your reluctance to accept the term "holy matrimony", but there are already several churches willing to marry same sex partners.
Maybe not "holy" by your definition, but it seems to suffice for them.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Arm@5 August 2004 - 22:26
Well the Mexicans sure. America may be crappy but still better then being poor in Mexico.

And foreign doctors having to be retrained once they get here, maybe having some extra training by a year or 2 but repeating med school again sounds like bullshit to me.

And no we got a shitty country. All our so-called freedoms(which the government and corporations are working hard to take away and have won) we can get in any other developed country in the world, plus more.

And sure ill go to other countries. B) Some time this year or later hopefully ill go to Iran and see how the Persians are. :01: The Iranian youth is starting to like heavy metal you know. :o
The point is that they are fully qualified to practice medicine. There is no attempt to justify the request that they repeat their training, it is simply a way to tell them that they are not wanted.

Despite this, they do it anyway.

That is how wonderful we have it here.

As for Iran, please go there, and when you return, you will find that you would have been killed there for the defiance that you post here.

And to be clear, what freedoms can you get abroad that you can&#39;t have here. Iran would be a nice example. In fact, please tell me which country you are talking about. Or is this just an emotional rant. Thought so.

What is a "developed country", or do you mean a "free society" as Iran sure as hell ain&#39;t that.

You just don&#39;t have any perspective.

You&#39;re just an angry little boy.

[Arm]

Arm no angry. :angel1: He happy like James Brown (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/jamesbrown.wmv). :smoke:

And no I wasent talking about Iran being a free country. Sure, before the CIA overthrew their democratic president they had a democracy but not anymore. Good food though. :) My dads Iranian and he wants to go back to you know, see his home country and let me see it.

The "free countries" I was talking about was Canada and Western Europe. Definetly not perfect but have alot more sanity then here in the States. :book:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 August 2004 - 22:40
Here&#39;s what I want:

I want someone here to justify appropriating the term "marriage" for use by our gay population, when everything else has been profferred under the term "civil union"?

J2,

The crux is that "civil unions" are in no way equal legally to "marriage"

The word "Marriage" is of no interest to anyone, and distracts from the violation of civil rights, which is core interset of this thread.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Arm@6 August 2004 - 02:13
Arm no angry. :angel1: He happy like James Brown (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/jamesbrown.wmv). :smoke:

And no I wasent talking about Iran being a free country. Sure, before the CIA overthrew their democratic president they had a democracy but not anymore. Good food though. :) My dads Iranian and he wants to go back to you know, see his home country and let me see it.

The "free countries" I was talking about was Canada and Western Europe. Definetly not perfect but have alot more sanity then here in the States. :book:
Arm,

Have you not read your own posts?

Obviously you are angry.

What exactly can you do in Canada or Western Europe which is prohibited here?

I want specific examples.

[Arm]

Bah all this gay marriage talk is just a distraction from the real problems in the world. Soldiers are getting killed in Iraq left and right, nations are withdrawing their troops and this is after the war was declared over. Americas support is growing cold and were worrying about 2 guys or 2 chicks who wanna marry. <_<

Let the gay people get married. If it pisses off the rednecks then it&#39;s awesome. :D

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Arm@6 August 2004 - 02:23
Bah all this gay marriage talk is just a distraction from the real problems in the world. Soldiers are getting killed in Iraq left and right, nations are withdrawing their troops and this is after the war was declared over. Americas support is growing cold and were worrying about 2 guys or 2 chicks who wanna marry. <_<

Let the gay people get married. If it pisses off the rednecks then it&#39;s awesome. :D
Well, at least you make no pretense of posting on topic :lol:

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 August 2004 - 18:40


I want someone here to justify appropriating the term "marriage" for use by our gay population, when everything else has been profferred under the term "civil union"?


J2,
Your use of the word "appropriate" seems to imply that some cherished component of your marriage is diminished when the term "marriage" is used by others.
What might that be?
Seems to me that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc, etc.

Certainly, the emotional bonds can be just the same no matter the sex of the partners, so that leaves the trivial mechanics of sex itself as the only significant difference.

[Arm]

I know gay marriage is just a bunch of bullshit thats a distraction. Just like that crap with the Super Bowl and the million oversensationalized media stories before.

[hobbes]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by clocker+6 August 2004 - 02:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 6 August 2004 - 02:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@5 August 2004 - 17:11
all i say is it should be sorted before it starts :blink:
And how do you propose to make that happen?
[/b][/quote]
i dont know. that may be why a said i dont know how twice and ended with a :blink:

[Biggles]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+6 August 2004 - 00:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 6 August 2004 - 00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Arm@6 August 2004 - 00:26
And spinningfreemanny, your so full of shit. Theres no economic growth. Just because a few hundred thousand Mcjobs are appearing doesnt mean economic growth. What about all the millions of high-tech, high paying jobs that are lost? Lost and arent coming back but are going straight to India. Progress my ass.
lol, I didn&#39;t make up the words economic growth by myself. Its actually documented and scientifically proved through mathmatics. I guess you can always try to prove math wrong. :huh:


Edit: A poll came out with 79% of small business owners voting for Bush and 15% for Kerry. Why do you think that is? maybe it&#39;s actually going good for them and a basic economics class will tell you that small business dictates true economic growth. [/b][/quote]
It does? :huh: :huh:

I must have slept through that bit. In fact, the first thing you learn in advanced economics is that if you put three economists into a room with the same data they will come out with four different answers.

In a democracy the economy is judged by how much people are paying for goods and whether they feel confident about their jobs. Basically, do they feel better or worse off under the current policies? If there are more winners than losers then Bush could reasonably hope to garner votes, if there are more losers than winners then he will lose votes (something he can ill afford). The unknowable variable is the war and security. A Republican on UK radio this morning said that if there was an election today then Kerry would probably win. However, he was hopeful that the Republican Convention and some easing on economic worries about oil etc., should make November an open game. A reasonable assessment I thought.

[3RA1N1AC]

somebody&#39;s gonna be in for a shock when they hear about these newfangled things called "creative math" and "creative accounting." they can be used to make it appear that something exists, even though it really doesn&#39;t... and that something doesn&#39;t exist, even though it really does.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@6 August 2004 - 18:01
In fact, the first thing you learn in advanced economics is that if you put three economists into a room with the same data they will come out with four different answers.

I heard that about Irish men. If you put three into a room you get four arguments.

Three double and a treble.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes+5 August 2004 - 23:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 5 August 2004 - 23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@5 August 2004 - 22:40
Here&#39;s what I want:

I want someone here to justify appropriating the term "marriage" for use by our gay population, when everything else has been profferred under the term "civil union"?

J2,

The crux is that "civil unions" are in no way equal legally to "marriage"

The word "Marriage" is of no interest to anyone, and distracts from the violation of civil rights, which is core interset of this thread.

QUOTE: Clocker:

J2,
Your use of the word "appropriate" seems to imply that some cherished component of your marriage is diminished when the term "marriage" is used by others.
What might that be?
Seems to me that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc, etc.

Certainly, the emotional bonds can be just the same no matter the sex of the partners, so that leaves the trivial mechanics of sex itself as the only significant difference. [/b][/quote]
Hobbes-

The so-called "violation" seems to stem, ultimately, from the resistance to expansion of the term marriage to include gay unions, with the religious aspect of marriage interjected somewhat inappropriately in order to delegitimize the heterosexual claim to the term.

I guarantee you that non-religious heterosexuals do not buy that argument, but may wish to retain exclusivity just the same; that is to say the religious aspect is relevant only insofar as it creates a (mis)perception impacting the "Church and State" facet of the debate.

Anent your post:

If the legislature(s) (with the acquiescence of the people) say that Civil Unions are to be the equivalent of Marriage for legal purposes, rest assured it will be so.

Also: If, as your post first suggests, "Marriage" trumps "Civil Union" (and is therefore desirable, or important, how then can the word "Marriage" be "...of no interest to anyone..."?

The Marriage/Civil Rights argument is a scarlet aquatic creature.

Clocker-

I meant "appropriate" as a verb, not a modifier.

If I, as a heterosexual practitioner of the institution or marriage, an adherent to the standard male/female formulation, desire to, via whatever religious or secular reasonings occur to me to present, build a fence around the definition of marriage, so what?

I grant your statement re: "emotional bonds", but how does lack of access to the term marriage adulterate/damage those bonds as they exist between gays?

And what do the ducks have to do with anything?

[hobbes]

J2, do you needlessly adorn your pooch with a sweater and beret as you do your posts.

If you can&#39;t convince them with logic, do you just try to confuse them?

The points are simple:

Civil rights is what are being violated. Gays are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". By being denied the same legal rights as those able to marry, their rights, as Americans are being violated. Gay union in no way infringes on the rights of others.

A Civil union is a fine term to define a legal union between same sex individuals. If the religiously inclined wish to hold on to the word "marriage", fine.

Marriage trumps civil union ONLY because it grants greater legal rights. For instance, if a gay couple moves to another state, that civil union is null and void. This is just a small example of the difference between the 2 entities. There are many many more.

Civil rights should not be denied because a select group wishes to hold on to a "word". Call it what you want, the label is irrelevant, the content is paramount.

[lynx]

Originally posted by hobbes@7 August 2004 - 02:01
Marriage trumps civil union ONLY because it grants greater legal rights. For instance, if a gay couple moves to another state, that civil union is null and void. This is just a small example of the difference between the 2 entities. There are many many more.
That&#39;s an interesting concept.

Many states have different laws on divorce, yet AFAIK it is possible to go to (for example) Reno and get a quickie divorce which is recognised throughout the US. The couple may still have to go through various legal procedures in their home state to reconcile property issues etc, but the divorce still stands.

Surely such a civil union would have to be universally recognised too, after all it is simply a form of legal contract.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by lynx+6 August 2004 - 23:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx &#064; 6 August 2004 - 23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@7 August 2004 - 02:01
Marriage trumps civil union ONLY because it grants greater legal rights.&nbsp; For instance, if a gay couple moves to another state, that civil union is null and void.&nbsp; This is just a small example of the difference between the 2 entities.&nbsp; There are many many more.
That&#39;s an interesting concept.

Many states have different laws on divorce, yet AFAIK it is possible to go to (for example) Reno and get a quickie divorce which is recognised throughout the US. The couple may still have to go through various legal procedures in their home state to reconcile property issues etc, but the divorce still stands.

Surely such a civil union would have to be universally recognised too, after all it is simply a form of legal contract.[/b][/quote]
What I meant is that if they move to a different state, they are no longer recognized as a "married" couple.

Imagine if a married couple moved to another state and that state simply did not acknowledge their union.

That&#39;s happens with civil unions.

[j2k4]

Wait, wait-

Hobbes-

Granting that I probably put too much lipstick on the pig, do you mean simply that whatever individual states decide to term such unions, that their legal status be transferable?

If your proffer presupposes my old State&#39;s Rights case, then I certainly agree with your position, which I take to mean if a couple is granted a "Marriage" in Massachusetts (with all due legal standing), that they would enjoy similar status in Texas (though in Texas it be termed a Civil Union)?

I would think there would continue to be places considered unfriendly to gays; possibly even entire states, insofar as they might choose to withhold sanction.

In any case, I would prefer to see State&#39;s Rights revisited, if for no other reason than to re-open public debate on certain issues which have been trampled by judicial overstep. ;)

BTW-you seem to have forgotten my tendency towards obfuscation; I find it useful, when exists the possibility I might be misunderstood, I can forestall same by elimination of the likelihood of any understanding whatsoever.

A distinction so fine as to be wasted, probably.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx@6 August 2004 - 20:38
Surely such a civil union would have to be universally recognised too, after all it is simply a form of legal contract.
PRECISELY&#33;&#33;&#33;

Thank you, lynx; a 200 proof distillation, that. ;)

[vidcc]

Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA :(

[spinningfreemanny]

Well, there are "two Americas" B)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 03:47
Wait, wait-

Hobbes-

Granting that I probably put too much lipstick on the pig,
That Sir is a picture in words. A disturbing picture and one which causes me great concern as to where you dredged it from, but a picture none the less.

Oh and I believe the right thinking sort have pretty much reached a consensus on this matter. It&#39;s just the usual smoke and mirrors now. I quite like that bit, there are some excellent conjurers here. I look forward to your cunning stunts.

[Snee]

Originally posted by hobbes@6 August 2004 - 06:20
What exactly can you do in Canada or Western Europe which is prohibited here?

I want specific examples.
I suppose you have the rights to do a lot more than us.

For instance, if there&#39;s a traffic accident, and you can prove it was the other bloke&#39;s fault, then you can proceed to sue him for all he&#39;s got, if your lawyer can persuade the jury to feel sorry enough for you.

*you can&#39;t sue someone for very much around here at all <_<

And if you happen to be sitting in a car with someone, and that someone leaves the car to rob someone or something, then you have the right to go to prison for a very long time, if the prosecutor can convince the jury you knew he was going to do it.

*Even if the prosecutor could prove it to the jury, which has to be done using a whole lot more than just clever rethorics and dodgy witnesses, you wouldn&#39;t be in prison for half as long here.

Oh and if you get convicted for murder, then you have the right to get executed in certain states. (better hope you did it, &#39;cos there&#39;s no taking back an execution)

*We don&#39;t do executions here, last dude that did get offed, a very long time ago, was proven innocent, which kinda&#39; killed the concept, if nothing else had.

In other places you might have the right to get shot while crossing someone&#39;s lawn. And that someone might have the right to get away with shooting you, if his lawyer can convince the jury he had reason to think you meant him harm.

*You have to have a very good reason to have a gun at all, and shooting someone....you have to prove he was like a foot away from you and about to kill you, pretty much.

And so forth.



To be honest, the american legal system scares the hell out of me.

The scariest thing as of late is the damn patriot law though, which, once you get down to it, gives american federal law officers the right to abduct me from here, should I commit what they consider a crime, say by sending information or pictures, illegal in the US, in an e-mail routed over an american server, even if the recipient is in my own country, and the content of said e-mail isn&#39;t illegal here.

EDits: clarity, form.

[J'Pol]

hobbes

In Western Euope (and several other parts) we have the ECHR, I have spoken of it on several occasions.

This gives us certain rights, some of which are absolute and others which are not.

As 2 examples :

The right to life is absolute and it cannot be taken away, by anyone including the State.

The right to privacy is part of the convention. It can be breached (otherwise you could not investigate crime). However on each occasion it is breached this must be justified. The investigating agency must show that it was necessary, proportionate to the crime and that it did not violate other people&#39;s right to privacy as well. If it does then that nust also be justified.

This must be done every time a breach is to take place, not just once per investigation.

What these two things mean is that 1, How can we have a death penalty, as that would take away the right to life and 2, it&#39;s a damn site harder to investigate things like file sharng, since people have a right to their privacy.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA :(
No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not. ;)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4+7 August 2004 - 00:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 7 August 2004 - 00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-lynx@6 August 2004 - 20:38
Surely such a civil union would have to be universally recognised too, after all it is simply a form of legal contract.
PRECISELY&#33;&#33;&#33;

Thank you, lynx; a 200 proof distillation, that. ;)[/b][/quote]
Exactly Lynx, perhaps this is the confusion.

As it ACTUALLY functions now, a civil union is only recognized by the State that grants it. It is not recognised by the Federal government and therefore no federal benefits are available, which are quite a few.

The Surely is the sticking point, because it Sure Isn&#39;t, at the moment.

I don&#39;t think any of us would be here talking about this if a civil union provided equal benefits and was as equally portable as a marriage.

I&#39;m not here as a gay advocate, but I do believe in ensuring that each individual is given his or her civil rights.

The word "marriage" is not the issue, civil unions and marriages can happily co-exist if they are made equal in the legal sense.

That, however, is not the reality of the civil union today.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 06:26
I look forward to your cunning stunts.
Jpol,

Isn&#39;t this a bit over the top&#33; Get a grip man&#33;

Whoop, actually I mis-read those last 2 words. A bit of a transposition error on my part. Secretly though, I was kinda looking forward to seeing those as well.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes+7 August 2004 - 09:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 7 August 2004 - 09:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 06:26
I look forward to your cunning stunts.
Jpol,

Isn&#39;t this a bit over the top&#33; Get a grip man&#33;

Whoop, actually I mis-read those last 2 words. A bit of a transposition error on my part. Secretly though, I was kinda looking forward to seeing those as well. [/b][/quote]
J&#39;Pol is obviously a big fan of Leslie Neilson. :D

Although it is a groaner, it is also exemplary.

Hats off. ;)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes+7 August 2004 - 15:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 7 August 2004 - 15:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 06:26
I look forward to your cunning stunts.


A bit of a transposition error on my part. [/b][/quote]
More of a Spoonerism, however the point is well made as is your comment that both the actual words or the perceived would be gratefully received.

I agree the important thing is that everyone should have the same rights, provided that in order to receive them others rights are not erroded. Or if they are that a fair and equitable balance be struck.

The words are not important, the rights are.

As ever you bring soap to my hole.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 August 2004 - 12:32
As ever you bring soap to my hole.
Wow, all my wonderful prison memories came flooding back, after reading that.

I&#39;m definitely going to have to slide this one into casual conversation at work.

Well done.

It is quite the rare occassion that I actually get startled by a response. My initial reaction was "what the feck did he just say, has he gone daft". Then I processed it. Guess I&#39;m still a little green when it comes to clever Spoonerisms.

Spoonerism: a transposition of usually initial sounds of two or more words (as in tons of soil for sons of toil)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+7 August 2004 - 07:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 7 August 2004 - 07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA :(
No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not. ;) [/b][/quote]
Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.
Either way it makes for a sad day for human rights in a country that touts it&#39;s freedoms to the world and says "look at how much better we are than you".

Make it a civil union, but make the rights that go with it identical to a "marriage" WHATEVER STATE ONE MOVES TO.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes@7 August 2004 - 15:47
Spoonerism: a transposition of usually initial sounds of two or more words (as in tons of soil for sons of toil)
I know, I was just being more specific, sorry for any offence my pit nicking may have caused

I am sure you will get to grips with the Spoonerism thing quickly enough. You are as mean as custard when it comes to learning new things.

I&#39;m glad it tickled your bunny phone btw.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+7 August 2004 - 10:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 7 August 2004 - 10:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 07:30
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA :(
No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not. ;)
Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.
[/b][/quote]
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+7 August 2004 - 19:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 7 August 2004 - 19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@7 August 2004 - 10:04

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 07:30
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@6 August 2004 - 23:01
Perhaps we need to remove the "united" part from the USA :(
No.

It should suffice to note the word which follows.

That word is STATES, not PEOPLE, a concession made necessary by the fact that while people are mobile, borders are not. ;)
Here we have a debate on human rights. This should not be state level, it should be federal.
But what do we have? A president that wants to change our constitution to deny the human rights of a minority across all the USA and a pretender to the throne that wants the individual states to decide for themselves.

Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s what I was going to say :blink:

Leave that feckin pig alone, too much lipstick mate. Way too much lipstick.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 12:30
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.
How is it a "clusterfuck"?

Who says Kerry is forcing bush to do anything.
The fact is bush wishes to change the constitution to deny equal human rights. period. And i care not if you have a distaste for the minority that he wishes to deny the rights of, it is still unjust. The constitution is there to protect rights not take them away. I wonder if you would support Bush&#39;s actions if he wanted to make the change that gay "civil unions/marriage" be regognised.
You are not being forced to marry another man and giving gay unions full equal rights recognised IN ALL STATES will not diminish your rights one bit.
Kerry knows what a political hotbed this is and chooses to cower away from the issue and take the easy road by just saying let each state decide.
You don&#39;t like the idea of a judge making a ruling in favor of a group that you dissaprove of...so what...human rights are supposed to be just, not popular. That said why should it be the case that in the land of the free a judge had to make this ruling in the first place? doesn&#39;t that worry you?

I stand for freedom .... human rights and equality for all.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+7 August 2004 - 15:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 7 August 2004 - 15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 August 2004 - 12:30
Not quite right, vid-

Here we have not a debate, but a clusterfuck:

A President who has a felt need to put boots to the issue for once and all by Constitutuional fiat, not because of his challenger (who, in order to absent himself from the actual debate, insincerely espouses the proper idea), but because the judiciary has interjected itself into a debate in which it has no constitutional entree.

This should be decided by the states if the gay lobbies could find the right venue, but their maps have been stolen by those who favor the judicial shortcut, which leads to societal strife.

Period.
How is it a "clusterfuck"?

[/b][/quote]
Did you read my post?

I did NOT say Bush was brandishing an amendment because of Kerry (who wants no part of the debate, believe me), but because he wants the legislature to get it&#39;s head out of it&#39;s ass long enough to re-read the Constitution and act appropriately on the question-the legislature has pussed out on the issue so far, and doesn&#39;t even have the nerve to challenge the court&#39;s intrusion into Congressional purview.

Bush is merely trying to urge the legislature to step up to the plate and do it&#39;s duty.

I don&#39;t know how much clearer I can make this.

Why are you trying so hard to paint me as the bad guy here?

I&#39;m not even expressing an opinion, I&#39;m just saying the Constitution ought to be observed.

You have a problem with the Constitution?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 August 2004 - 20:37
I&#39;m not even expressing an opinion, I&#39;m just saying the Constitution ought to be observed.

You have a problem with the Constitution?
i agree. the constitution should be observed and this unjust action be righted...grant equal rights... not change it to deny them and states should observe the USA constitution above their own local constitutions

[spinningfreemanny]

The idea is is that the judicial branch has no right to erase and rewrite state laws and constitutions; Thats why we have a legislature.

[J'Pol]

For the non-Americans, could someone please explain the whole marriage / constitution thing.

Is there something in your constitution which specifically precludes same sex marriages. Or is it implied by discussing the marriage of man and woman (or vice versa).

It may help us in the developing world to understand the problems you are having.

[j2k4]

J&#39;Pol-

The U.S. Constitution currently contains no language such as a DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Bush&#39;s original idea was to threaten to amend the document (this is not done lightly) in order that the individual state legislatures might address the issue via referendum, as is Constitutionally correct, their Right, and indeed their obligation.

The legislators, in turn, are loathe to voice an opinion or cast a vote which could bear so heavily on their re-elections (it is a visceral issue, no?), and so do nothing.

The Judiciary, on the other hand, feels no such pressure (appointed for life, not subject to ornery voters), and so by fiat decided to "solve" the problem for a society seething for/with debate.

There are two problems:

1) The Supreme Court (in this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court) steps out of it&#39;s own Constitutionally defined arena, and into the legislature&#39;s.

2) Society is not afforded the opportunity to have it&#39;s debate and address the issue in the polling place; it continues to seethe, much as it does over the abortion issue.

The Constitution provides for the states to handle precisely such issue via referendum, but, due to the real possiblity of non-uniform result (the likelihood of which is one of the underpinnings of the document), people like vid wish to flout the Constitution by improperly and illegally trumping State&#39;s Rights with a Supreme Court vote, because of the nature of the question.

The Federal Constitution isn&#39;t the organ for determining quality of life issues; the State Constitutions are.

To have it any other way would require?

You guessed it: A Constitutional Amendment&#33;

You&#39;ll never know how much I hate typing such a post upon awakening-I haven&#39;t even had a cuppa, yet. :angry:

[lynx]

I fail to see how you can argue that a fundamental issue such as a person&#39;s rights should fall to individual states to implement. If the issue is one of rights, they apply universally and as such should be taken up at a Federal level, otherwise they are not rights but options.

It seems to me that it must be first decided at a Federal level whether these are rights, and it is usual for the Judiciary (probably the Supreme Court in the US) to determine such issues by examining current laws and constitutions. Interpretation of the laws is their function. If they interpret a law in a way which was not the intention of the legislature, it is the legislature which is at fault for not being more explicit.

Once the Judiciary has made such a determination, then if it has decided they are rights there is nothing for the individual states to discuss, the Federal legislature also need do nothing with regard to those rights (unless it feels there is a need to remove them) but it will have to do something in respect of other legislation in order to enact those rights.

On the other hand, if the judicial system determines that they are not rights, it is then that individual states can decide whether they wish to allow the options available to them.

[j2k4]

The judiciary has attempted to make law relative to the question of gay union.

The making of law is the exclusive province of the legislature.

The function of the judiciary is to determine the Constitutionality of such law as the legislature formulates and enacts.

No government body may make law in place of the legislature.

The legislature is currently loathe to address the situation, owing to it&#39;s potential impact on re-election.

Bush is attempting to remedy this legislative impasse.

BTW, lynx-the Constitution grants the States the Right to make such law; it is not for us to debate the wisdom of the founders, but if this issue is decided any other way than by the states, and is not supplemented by an amendment(&#33;) to pave the way for that decision, the issue will not have been legally decided and will not go away.

That&#39;s it for me; this is turning into a real headache.

[lynx]

I doubt very much that the judiciary has attempted to make law, they (probably more than the legislature) would be only too aware of the folly of that course of action. What is more likely is that those who disagree with the ruling of the judiciary are trying to argue that this is what is happening. It may well be that the originators of the laws did not foresee the possible interpretation now being put on the laws, I imagine they were made quite some time ago and possibly at a time when homosexuality itself was illegal in which case the subject of same-sex civil union could not be an issue.

I disagree with your interpretation of the role of the judiciary, although what you describe is a (small) part of it&#39;s function. I am sure the legal profession would disagree too, they make their best money on cases where the legislature has not left things cut and dried. But it is right that the legislature do not always tidy everything up, they cannot possibly consider every possible case and if they attempted to do so no laws would ever be passed. If they could then every option would have been covered and there would be no need for the judiciary.

If the legislature is loathe to address the situation it may be as you say because of re-election concerns, alternatively it may be because it thinks that the ruling of the judiciary is just fine and sees no need to intervene.

I&#39;m not sure of the heirarchy of US laws, but I was under the impression that if the Federal Supreme Court made a ruling then it would be binding on an individual state&#39;s Supreme Court. Otherwise what is the point of having a Federal Supreme Court? Similarly doesn&#39;t the Constitution of the United States outrank the Constitution of an individual state? If not, why have it, it is useless.

And any amendment is only necessary if the current constitution does not address the issue. Bush is threatening to introduce the Defense of Marriage Act. The question is whether such an act would be constitutional, and that falls back to the judiciary and I&#39;m pretty sure they&#39;ve indicated they believe it would not be.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 06:33
For the non-Americans, could someone please explain the whole marriage / constitution thing.

Is there something in your constitution which specifically precludes same sex marriages. Or is it implied by discussing the marriage of man and woman (or vice versa).

It may help us in the developing world to understand the problems you are having.




THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America and keep away from the pooper, you sickos.


Guess I should have done my homework, the answer is right there. I see no point in discussing this further as the lines have been drawn.

BTW, how many of you can sing the pre-amble above from those old "Schoolhouse Rock" cartoons.

Coming soon: "Me, I just a bill, just a bill up on Capitol hill......" and "Conjunction junction what&#39;s your function? Hookin&#39; up words and makin&#39; "clauses"".

[clocker]

Jeez j2, you make Bush out to be a scholar or sumpin.
You are aware that prior to becoming President, Bush was foursquare AGAINST a Constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage.
Hopping on the bandwagon now seems to me to be little more than a political move pandering to the religious right wing constituancy he so desperately needs to claim another term.
Even if such an amendment were to clear the Congress ( and, embarrassingly enough for the Republicans, it didn&#39;t even come close) it would take YEARS for the required 36 states to ratify it.
That would be years during which another minority would be deprived of benefits and legal standing.
At the end of this interminable process I think the Amendment would fail anyway.
Times are &#39;achangin and this diversionary tactic can&#39;t stop them.

[J'Pol]

Thank you chaps.

I suppose the question really is whether or not marriage, or the civil advantages it endows, is a basic human right.

I myself have a tendency towards equality of treatment. As such it seems right to me that same sex unions (whatever we wish to call them) should have the same rights as traditional married couples. It would also seem to me that it should be the same for all of the states.

However when one thinks about it, that would depend on how other matters are dealt with. For example I believe you have federal taxes and state taxes, so any tax breaks would be decided on (at least partly) by the individual State.

I think the bottom line is that, if marriage is considered a basic human right, then it should be the same treatment for the whole of the USA. However if the argument purely relates to things like tax, pensions etc then is should be down to the individual States to decide as they do with other related issues.

If the latter is the case then I believe that gay couples should be treated equally to traditional couples, within the state itself. However that is more likely to happen in some places than in others.

Surely then it would be a matter for federal government to decide that all couples would be treated equally. Then for state government to decide exactly what that treatment will be.

[vidcc]

I have been once again overtaken by posters with less distractions than i. :lol:

J2 you say that "people like me".."wish to flout the Constitution by improperly and illegally trumping State&#39;s Rights with a Supreme Court vote, because of the nature of the question."

That&#39;s bull. I am not supporting gay rights..i am supporting HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY...the nature of the question is irrelivent. I am able to do this even though i find the homosexual act repulsive.

I believe that the laws we have which protect from discrimination are adequate and were used properly in the rulings. The rulings being the finding that a law that exists has been broken. The courts are there to make rulings on the laws. A certain party in government didn&#39;t like the ruling and made an attempt to change the laws...this failed...and rightly so i.m.o.
My original post was making the point that although it&#39;s democracy it&#39;s not what the USA tells everyone it stands for when it spouts the virtues of freedom.


you stated earlier that you made no opinion so to clear it up for us lets see where you do stand on the issue. yes or no answers please.

1. Do you think that equality is a right in the USA?

2. Homosexuals should have the right to a "union" that grants them the same rights as hetrosexual marriages ?

3. should a specific amendment to the constitution be put in place to ban gay "unions".

Edit: here are my answers.

1. yes

2. yes

3. no

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@8 August 2004 - 11:28

you stated earlier that you made no opinion so to clear it up for us lets see where you do stand on the issue. yes or no answers please.

1. Do you think that equality is a right in the USA?

2. Homosexuals should have the right to a "union" that grants them the same rights as hetrosexual marriages ?

3.&nbsp; should a specific amendment to the constitution be put in place to ban gay "unions".

Edit: here are my answers.

1. yes

2. yes

3. no
I&#39;ll do this backwards.

3) No. It isn&#39;t necessary.

2) Yes. I see no harm.

1) Herein lies the bugaboo.

In the abstract, who could say no?

The fact is that equality cannot be legislated; equality can only exist as an aim, or a provision of opportunity.

An imperfect example would be access for the handicapped; we build wheelchair ramps so certain people can access certain buildings or facilities.

Does this make them "equal" to "fully-abled" persons?

Certainly not in any fuller sense of the word.

I am struck also by the notion that access the the term "marriage" seems to signify the key to turning that particular trick, when [I]everything else is being offered, and on a silver platter to boot.

To posit that the deal is untenable absent the term is preposterous.

[J'Pol]

It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@8 August 2004 - 11:05
Jeez j2, you make Bush out to be a scholar or sumpin.
You are aware that prior to becoming President, Bush was foursquare AGAINST a Constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage.
Hopping on the bandwagon now seems to me to be little more than a political move pandering to the religious right wing constituancy he so desperately needs to claim another term.
Even if such an amendment were to clear the Congress ( and, embarrassingly enough for the Republicans, it didn&#39;t even come close) it would take YEARS for the required 36 states to ratify it.
That would be years during which another minority would be deprived of benefits and legal standing.
At the end of this interminable process I think the Amendment would fail anyway.
Times are &#39;achangin and this diversionary tactic can&#39;t stop them.
As I have said many times, in many places:

Bush is executing a tactical maneuver; the amendment will never come to pass, and he and everyone else (including me, but excluding you, apparently) knows it.

It&#39;s an election year, for crissakes-this isn&#39;t your first one&#33; :huh:

[vidcc]

Jpol has hit on the point very well and i applaud the post...

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 15:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.
This post is as intellectually pleasing to the mind as a damn fine hat is to the head.

http://www.costumeuniverse.com/prodspics/sherlock_hat_GC143.jpg

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 12:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.
Bush isn&#39;t creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now&#33;

I&#39;m sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this? :huh:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4@8 August 2004 - 16:30
Bush isn&#39;t creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now&#33;

I&#39;m sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this? :huh:
How is recognising basic human rights to be compared with "indulgance".

Gays should never have been barred from a legally recognized union and, in fact, there is nothing in the constituition that makes it illegal in the first place.

It is the "indulgance" of the church by our government that strikes me.

It is like stating that freeing the slaves was a political indulgance. It was a situation that should NEVER have occurred in the first place.



edit- fixed a bizarre typo

[MicroScreen2]

if they get the same tax breaks and so on, will divorce be as diffficult and looked upon the same as it is for straight couples. so it isn&#39;t exploited to give gay couples a tax break for the sake of a tax break?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+8 August 2004 - 19:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 8 August 2004 - 19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 12:36
It is perhaps true that equality cannot be legislated.

However inequality certainly can. Apartheid being the classic example.

I think that is the point old bean. The creation of laws which support inequality, rather than failing to create laws which prevent it.
Bush isn&#39;t creating any law, and there will be no amendment.

The difficulty is that the gay lobby has decided it wishes this right, and desires it be etched in stone, right bloody now&#33;

I&#39;m sure they will be accorded these rights in time, but I do not favor riding roughshod over the Constitution in order to indulge them and save the wait, you see?

Could I be any clearer on this? :huh: [/b][/quote]
I take this from the post which opened this thread


Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.


Now you may say that amending constitutions, state or federal is not creating legislation. Other than that patently specious argument, I really don&#39;t understand where you are coming from.

Positive action is being taken to discriminate against a group of people. I can&#39;t really make it any clearer than that. Or am I missing something.

[vidcc]

Hobbes was quicker than i in the post.

MicroScreen2
same rights, same playing field, so same rules with divorce.
We are not arguing for anything different for anyone and we are not approving of a lifestyle, we are arguing for equality.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 August 2004 - 14:05
I take this from the post which opened this thread


Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.


Now you may say that amending constitutions, state or federal is not creating legislation. Other than that patently specious argument, I really don&#39;t understand where you are coming from.


What is going on in Missouri (regardless of which side of the argument is taken) is, like it or not, constitutionally correct, the Mass. Supreme court&#39;s decision is not.

I have said that Bush is taking his stance in order to force the issue, one way or the other.

If Bush suddenly and magically had a clear path to his "proposed" amendment he&#39;d drop it like the political hot potato it is.

He is "rock-solid" behind it because he knows it won&#39;t go anywhere&#33;

Throw out the word "marriage" for a moment; gays want a nationally legislated right to a civil and legal bond, no matter what it is called, correct?

The Constitution says such questions are to be decided at the state level, and, believe it or not, it is not my fault that this is the case.

I do favor state&#39;s rights, and fie on me if I deem that issue to be of greater importance than the gay-union issue, ESPECIALLY when there is a viable proposal (gay unions) within reach.

All this bullshit over the fact of their coveting the term marriage.

[hobbes]

People are being denied freedom simply because of the church and you talk about constituitional correctness.

This is some sort of logical disconnect, to me. It is a bigoted imposition of the Church upon our Government, get it out, it should never have been there.

The Constituition grants freedom, and does not deny them, because some Religion gets favoritism by the Government.

Separation of Church and State.

Why do people need to vote on something that has never been illegal and is a human right and NOT a matter of public opinion.

This is not an issue that need to be voted on.

[Biggles]

Indeed, if there is a legal move to define marriage in some sort of quasi-religious way will it outlaw divorce (willfully removing the bread from thousands of lawyers mouths) and will it return women to being the property of their husbands?

The direction and extent needs to be clear.


:ph34r:

Although I tend to agree with J2, this is going nowhere in a hurry and it is merely throwing sops to those who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than Bush anyway.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@8 August 2004 - 15:13
...constituitional correctness...


Oh, well-if that&#39;s all it is, then fine-Marry away&#33;

Find for me please any references I have made to religion?

You people are asking "Why not?"

All I&#39;m doing is giving what you ask for.

Besides which, if you are afraid to give the people voice, what are you all but people?

If their voice differs from yours, are they to be silenced?

If they are somehow more bigoted than you, are they to be silenced?

If they are religious, and their religion informs their opinion, are they to be silenced?

Damned intolerant attitude, if you ask me.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@8 August 2004 - 18:20
Indeed, if there is a legal move to define marriage in some sort of quasi-religious way will it outlaw divorce (willfully removing the bread from thousands of lawyers mouths) and will it return women to being the property of their husbands?

The direction and extent needs to be clear.


:ph34r:

Although I tend to agree with J2, this is going nowhere in a hurry and it is merely throwing sops to those who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than Bush anyway.
Nobody on this thread cares about "going anywhere", just establishing equal rights for the citizens of our country.

I have not mentioned word one about Bush or politics. I look at this from a philosophical perspective, not a political one.

If we had forbidden Scottish Americans from buying food because the Christian Church didn&#39;t approve, then realised that the Church should not be involved in civil rights and that this practise was a clear cut violation of civil rights, wouldn&#39;t it be absurd to say that a vote would be needed to allow the Scottish to buy food and equally absurd that it be a decision made by the individual States.


To J2, you are free to voice your opinions. No problems there. But they are tainted by a religion that should have no say in our Government and its ability to sanctify civil unions and it never should.

Quite frankly, we are not telling you to be silent, we are just telling you that you may be wrong on this one, from the stand point of a free society.

[J'Pol]

j2

The fact that you think this is political machinations does not really make a lot of difference in my view. All it means is that your President is being duplicitous and misleading his people in order to get re-elected.

So in the world&#39;s eye we have a country which is taking positive steps to discriminate against a section of it&#39;s people. Led by a President who is willing to lie to all of it&#39;s people, in order to further his career.

This a country with a proud tradition of not only accepting huddled masses, but welcoming them.

I&#39;m sorry but it reflects badly on you. It also sounds just a tad "Nuremberg", sorry we are persecuting people, but rules is rules dontcha know.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes+8 August 2004 - 20:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 8 August 2004 - 20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@8 August 2004 - 18:20
Indeed, if there is a legal move to define marriage in some sort of quasi-religious way will it outlaw divorce (willfully removing the bread from thousands of lawyers mouths) and will it return women to being the property of their husbands?

The direction and extent needs to be clear.


:ph34r:

Although I tend to agree with J2, this is going nowhere in a hurry and it is merely throwing sops to those who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than Bush anyway.
Nobody on this thread cares about "going anywhere", just establishing equal rights for the citizens of our country.

I have not mentioned word one about Bush or politics. I look at this from a philosophical perspective, not a political one.

If we had forbidden Scottish Americans from buying food because the Christian Church didn&#39;t approve, then realised that the Church should not be involved in civil rights and that this practise was a clear cut violation of civil rights, wouldn&#39;t it be absurd to say that a vote would be needed to allow the Scottish to buy food and equally absurd that it be a decision made by the individual States. [/b][/quote]
Every road goes somewhere and as Bugs Bunny noted very few of them are Alberque.

Looking from the outside as it were, politics and vote catching seem to be the driving force here. I believe a great many unions or weddings have already taken place showing that the mechanism is in place. It is the negative "stop it" campaign and why the current Administration has got on board that is, in part at least, the issue.

If re-elected will Bush really give this issue much time and space?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@8 August 2004 - 15:33

To J2, you are free to voice your opinions. No problems there. But they are tainted by a religion that should have no say in our Government and its ability to sanctify civil unions and it never should.

Quite frankly, we are not telling you to be silent, we are just telling you that you may be wrong on this one, from the stand point of a free society.
I&#39;m not giving voice to the opinion that offends you, and I wasn&#39;t objecting that you were trying to silence me, Hobbes.

I haven&#39;t once attempted to interject religion into this thread, and I don&#39;t think my interpretation of the Constitution indicates this.

Basically, I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re on about.

I feel like the broad at the license bureau who must inform you with regret that your license won&#39;t be mailed for a month.

I didn&#39;t write the Constitution, I just read it.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles+8 August 2004 - 18:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles &#064; 8 August 2004 - 18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by hobbes@8 August 2004 - 20:33
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@8 August 2004 - 18:20
Indeed, if there is a legal move to define marriage in some sort of quasi-religious way will it outlaw divorce (willfully removing the bread from thousands of lawyers mouths) and will it return women to being the property of their husbands?

The direction and extent needs to be clear.


:ph34r:

Although I tend to agree with J2, this is going nowhere in a hurry and it is merely throwing sops to those who are unlikely to vote for anyone other than Bush anyway.
Nobody on this thread cares about "going anywhere", just establishing equal rights for the citizens of our country.

I have not mentioned word one about Bush or politics. I look at this from a philosophical perspective, not a political one.

If we had forbidden Scottish Americans from buying food because the Christian Church didn&#39;t approve, then realised that the Church should not be involved in civil rights and that this practise was a clear cut violation of civil rights, wouldn&#39;t it be absurd to say that a vote would be needed to allow the Scottish to buy food and equally absurd that it be a decision made by the individual States.
Every road goes somewhere and as Bugs Bunny noted very few of them are Alberque.

Looking from the outside as it were, politics and vote catching seem to be the driving force here. I believe a great many unions or weddings have already taken place showing that the mechanism is in place. It is the negative "stop it" campaign and why the current Administration has got on board that is, in part at least, the issue.

If re-elected will Bush really give this issue much time and space?[/b][/quote]
No Biggles,

There are no (zero)civil unions that grant even a hint of the same priviledges that "marriage" grants.

That is the point.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4+8 August 2004 - 18:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 8 August 2004 - 18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@8 August 2004 - 15:33

To J2, you are free to voice your opinions. No problems there. But they are tainted by a religion that should have no say in our Government and its ability to sanctify civil unions and it never should.

Quite frankly, we are not telling you to be silent, we are just telling you that you may be wrong on this one, from the stand point of a free society.
I&#39;m not giving voice to the opinion that offends you, and I wasn&#39;t objecting that you were trying to silence me, Hobbes.

I haven&#39;t once attempted to interject religion into this thread, and I don&#39;t think my interpretation of the Constitution indicates this.

Basically, I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re on about.

I feel like the broad at the license bureau who must inform you with regret that your license won&#39;t be mailed for a month.

I didn&#39;t write the Constitution, I just read it. [/b][/quote]
Show me where in the Constituition it states that gay people cannot be married. That was decided by Christians, not the Constitution.

Lots of freedoms enjoyed under our Constituition are things we may not agree with, but that is something we must accept if we truly care about having a free society.

What I am "on about" is that a subset of our population is being controlled by a popularity contest and their civil rights are being ignored.

Why, the penetrance of Religion upon our Government.

You may not have mentioned it, but I will. Why, because it is the key to why this an issue at all.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

Fair enough

Then the issue looks like it is going to be long and messy.

I do not know enough about the US constitution to contribute much more. I am a little surprised though - I thought Gay Rights were more advanced in the US.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@8 August 2004 - 21:52
Hobbes

Fair enough

Then the issue looks like it is going to be long and messy.

I do not know enough about the US constitution to contribute much more. I am a little surprised though - I thought Gay Rights were more advanced in the US.
It&#39;s not about Gay Rights.

It&#39;s about Equal Rights.

[Biggles]

Fair point.

I have never been a fan of positive discrimination.

Equal Rights for everyone - on the house, I&#39;m buying&#33;

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@8 August 2004 - 21:57
Fair point.

I have never been a fan of positive discrimination.

Equal Rights for everyone - on the house, I&#39;m buying&#33;
Slainte

:beerchug:

[MicroScreen2]

you cant really have equal rights when its a whole other kettle of fish

[spinningfreemanny]

I have a question...

is the tax status what gays need?: is that the reason they want marriage? because as far as government is concerned that should be the only thing that should be supplied if that is the only thing about marriage that government is concerned with.

I really don&#39;t know; I&#39;m asking a real question. Maybe there is something else I&#39;m overlooking.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@8 August 2004 - 19:13
I have a question...

is the tax status what gays need?: is that the reason they want marriage? because as far as government is concerned that should be the only thing that should be supplied if that is the only thing about marriage that government is concerned with.

I really don&#39;t know; I&#39;m asking a real question. Maybe there is something else I&#39;m overlooking.
Manny,

Tax status is one of many things. As discussed earlier, they simply want equal rights.

Some are advocating States rights on this issue.

Imagine if you had to get married in every single State in the Union. You move jobs to another State, your union is null and void. That is absurd.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@8 August 2004 - 22:01
you cant really have equal rights when its a whole other kettle of fish
If you had a point to make you would have made it.

You are just trolling again and it&#39;s obvious.

[spinningfreemanny]

So J&#39;pol, are you saying that a nationally recognized civil union be developed?

a hetersexual marriage license is valid in another state right?

[MicroScreen2]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+8 August 2004 - 21:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 8 August 2004 - 21:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MicroScreen2@8 August 2004 - 22:01
you cant really have equal rights when its a whole other kettle of fish
If you had a point to make you would have made it.

You are just trolling again and it&#39;s obvious. [/b][/quote]
trolling for what?

i&#39;m saying equivilent rules have to be made because gay marriage and traditional aren&#39;t the same thing, and you know it.

you&#39;ve said yourself it can&#39;t be holy. so what happens to the vows? does the lack of commitment to god mean a lack of commitment to each other? does it mean divorce is even easier?

if you think i&#39;m trolling i thought youud be above rising for the bait. but you dont do you, you&#39;re just trying to put me down for whatever dumb vendetta you&#39;ve got against me

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@8 August 2004 - 22:40
So J&#39;pol, are you saying that a nationally recognized civil union be developed?

a hetersexual marriage license is valid in another state right?
I am saying that I believe "All men are created equal" and that as such everyone has the same rights. Regardless of Creed, Colour or Sexual Orientation.

Someone once said

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I believe that people are born with equal rights, they are entitled to be treated in a manner which is equal to all of their neighbours. Without fear or favour.

I do not recognize gay unions as a marriage in the eyes of God. However I recognize them to be of equal civil value as any other traditional marriage (or whatever word you want to use). I differentiate between my religious beliefs and my belief that all men are born equal, with the right to self-determination and freedom of expression.

I believe that if two men wish to make a legal commitment to one and other then they are as entitled as a man and woman to have this recognized by the State (I use that in the larger sense of the word).

I find this to be self evident and am not impressed by any argument which is based on the phrase "there just isn&#39;t anything we can do about it" or similar. If something is wrong you change it. See quote above with regard to change or abolish.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by MicroScreen2@8 August 2004 - 15:50
i&#39;m saying equivilent rules have to be made because gay marriage and traditional aren&#39;t the same thing, and you know it.

you&#39;ve said yourself it can&#39;t be holy. so what happens to the vows? does the lack of commitment to god mean a lack of commitment to each other? does it mean divorce is even easier?

The vows don&#39;t have to be religious. A hetrosexual couple can get married without any religious reference yet that holds the same standing of recognition as a church wedding...The same goes with divorce proceedings. A Gay "marriage" would be under the same rules.
You have asked questions before and the answer is and always be....they want the same rules for all....Equal...no better, no worse.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@8 August 2004 - 14:29


Find for me please any references I have made to religion?

If they are religious, and their religion informs their opinion, are they to be silenced?

Damned intolerant attitude, if you ask me.
It seems to me that the entire opposition to "gay marriage" is driven by religious attitudes.
Very few are capable of separating their religious and moral opinions as JP seems able to do.
Were his attitude more prevalent, this whole debate would be a non-issue.

J2, it&#39;s fine if religion informs people&#39;s opinion, the problem occurs when that religious opinion then becomes law.
Jerry Falwell can believe anything he damn well pleases...when his belief curtails my ability to to marry then he has exceeded his right to practice religion and instead assumed the right to project it upon anyone he pleases.
Even assuming that your beloved "majority" agrees with him ( and I&#39;m only ceding this for the sake of debate) that does not make it correct...either legally or morally.

[spinningfreemanny]

Ultimately J&#39;pol I think you&#39;ve convinced me. I wince though at the idea of activist judges to make these social decisions; I think the U.S. Supreme court feelsthe same way due to their "hands off" rulings that they have had lately (ie. the "under God" ruling).

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Busyman@28 February 2004 - 07:44
believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.
I can&#39;t think of anything in the Constitution that takes rights away. You didn&#39;t have to put the racial card in there.

At the same time I doubt there will be an amendment to give gays the right TO marry in the Constitution either but the Constitution should not take away any rights.

[Snee]

Random thought...

I figure homosexuals should be allowed to marry by law anywhere, I don&#39;t quite see the problem, equality and all that.

But if a religion dictates it isn&#39;t allowed, then that should be respected too. Which means that they should be allowed all the legal status, tho&#39; not the church-wedding before god-part, I suppose. Seeing as how freedom of religion is something that is also meant to be treasured, which means a church shouldn&#39;t be forced to rewrite the rules for the benefits of a select group of people.

If they want to do the church-wedding-thing, and it isn&#39;t allowed by their religion, I think they are free to pull a Luther, and start their own church, right?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by SnnY@9 August 2004 - 16:05
Random thought...

I figure homosexuals should be allowed to marry by law anywhere, I don&#39;t quite see the problem, equality and all that.

But if a religion dictates it isn&#39;t allowed, then that should be respected too. Which means that they should be allowed all the legal status, tho&#39; not the church-wedding before god-part, I suppose. Seeing as how freedom of religion is something that is also meant to be treasured, which means a church shouldn&#39;t be forced to rewrite the rules for the benefits of a select group of people.

If they want to do the church-wedding-thing, and it isn&#39;t allowed by their religion, I think they are free to pull a Luther, and start their own church, right?
I have said as much in another thread mate.

Legal rights absolutely, my 100% support. However my Church does not recognize gay marriage, so it should not be coerced into performing one. I expect my rights to be upheld as much as the next man&#39;s.

Anyhow, why would people wish to belong to a Church which believed their lifestyle to be wrong.

If another Church is happy to perform such a ceremony. Then best of luck to the couple and the Church.

[Snee]

Oh sorry :">

It&#39;s the right way to go about it tho&#39;.

[vidcc]

I Don&#39;t think anyone is trying to force churches to perform the service. So why raise the subject ? Churches have free will and their own rules The state cannot force a church to marry anyone.
A divorced person may find it hard to marry a second time in church. The catholic church denys divorce unless given special permission. So any catholic that divorces and re-marries is considered a bigamist by the church but not by law.
There has been instances where the law has overuled a religious practice and forced a change. One example is the mormon religion and multiple wives. But i cannot imagine any religion being forced to perform a ceromony that goes against the ethics of that religion.
I agree that many people use their religious beliefs as an objection and the church has through its spokesmen/women voiced objections. However many that object have no religion and just object to homosexuals so i don&#39;t see this as a religious issue rather an intollerance issue.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by SnnY@9 August 2004 - 18:00
Oh sorry :">

It&#39;s the right way to go about it tho&#39;.
No need to apologise mate, I was just agreeing with you. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@9 August 2004 - 13:09
I Don&#39;t think anyone is trying to force churches to perform the service. So why raise the subject ? Churches have free will and their own rules The state cannot force a church to marry anyone.
A divorced person may find it hard to marry a second time in church. The catholic church denys divorce unless given special permission. So any catholic that divorces and re-marries is considered a bigamist by the church but not by law.
There has been instances where the law has overuled a religious practice and forced a change. One example is the mormon religion and multiple wives. But i cannot imagine any religion being forced to perform a ceromony that goes against the ethics of that religion.
I agree that many people use their religious beliefs as an objection and the church has through its spokesmen/women voiced objections. However many that object have no religion and just object to homosexuals so i don&#39;t see this as a religious issue rather an intollerance issue.
The problem is people may object to homosexuality but objections won&#39;t stop it.

I say remove the word marriage from the wording in the law books.

Allow civil unions to "any couple".

Case closed.

Churches don&#39;t have to perform the ceremonoies. Just have a judge do it.

Churches that are Christian, Muslim, etc and do perform the unions go against their own rules but it ain&#39;t illegal.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman+9 August 2004 - 11:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 9 August 2004 - 11:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@9 August 2004 - 13:09
I Don&#39;t think anyone is trying to force churches to perform the service. So why raise the subject ? Churches have free will and their own rules The state cannot force a church to marry anyone.
A divorced person may find it hard to marry a second time in church. The catholic church denys divorce unless given special permission. So any catholic that divorces and re-marries is considered a bigamist by the church but not by law.
There has been instances where the law has overuled a religious practice and forced a change. One example is the mormon religion and multiple wives. But i cannot imagine any religion being forced to perform a ceromony that goes against the ethics of that religion.
I agree that many people use their religious beliefs as an objection and the church has through its spokesmen/women voiced objections. However many that object have no religion and just object to homosexuals so i don&#39;t see this as a religious issue rather an intollerance issue.
The problem is people may object to homosexuality but objections won&#39;t stop it.

I say remove the word marriage from the wording in the law books.

Allow civil unions to "any couple".

Case closed.

Churches don&#39;t have to perform the ceremonoies. Just have a judge do it.

Churches that are Christian, Muslim, etc and do perform the unions go against their own rules but it ain&#39;t illegal. [/b][/quote]
Is there an echo in here? :lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+9 August 2004 - 13:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 9 August 2004 - 13:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@9 August 2004 - 11:49
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@9 August 2004 - 13:09
I Don&#39;t think anyone is trying to force churches to perform the service. So why raise the subject ? Churches have free will and their own rules The state cannot force a church to marry anyone.
A divorced person may find it hard to marry a second time in church. The catholic church denys divorce unless given special permission. So any catholic that divorces and re-marries is considered a bigamist by the church but not by law.
There has been instances where the law has overuled a religious practice and forced a change. One example is the mormon religion and multiple wives. But i cannot imagine any religion being forced to perform a ceromony that goes against the ethics of that religion.
I agree that many people use their religious beliefs as an objection and the church has through its spokesmen/women voiced objections. However many that object have no religion and just object to homosexuals so i don&#39;t see this as a religious issue rather an intollerance issue.
The problem is people may object to homosexuality but objections won&#39;t stop it.

I say remove the word marriage from the wording in the law books.

Allow civil unions to "any couple".

Case closed.

Churches don&#39;t have to perform the ceremonoies. Just have a judge do it.

Churches that are Christian, Muslim, etc and do perform the unions go against their own rules but it ain&#39;t illegal.
Is there an echo in here? :lol: [/b][/quote]
Is there an echo in here? :lol:

[Snee]

First the one other thread degenerates into a debate on who smells.

Now this thread becomes the next echo thread.


Strange days.

[vidcc]

A father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was. Suddenly, she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating. "Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked. "They&#39;re mating," her father replied. "What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked. "That&#39;s a Daddy Longlegs," her father answered. "So, the other one is Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked. "No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs." The little girl thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat. "Well, that might be O.K. in California and Massachusetts, but we&#39;re not having any of that crap in Texas&#33;"

thanks bigbob (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=121183)