Nader To Run Again

[hobbes]

Because J2, this particular section of our forum does not reflect the intelligence or insight of the average poll taker.

As you said,

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

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

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

I don't think gays are primarily fighting to seize the word "marriage", but actually fighting for a status which is a marriage equivalent.

It would seem that a "civil" union would imply that gays are "godless", which is nonsense. As Jpol mentioned, his union with his wife was more important to him in regard to standing before God and commiting himself to her than the legal impact of said union.

Gays who have different religious beliefs from the common Christian, may seek the same type of dual (spiritual and legal) committment and can obtain one in a unitarian church.

It seems more appropriate to let term "marriage" define people joined under their God and State and amend it as your religion deems necessary.

Christian marriage
Unitarian marriage

Even so, I don't think the commandeering of the word "marriage" is the force that drives these gay individuals. The whole "use of the word marriage" is just a political tool, of those who oppose it because of their religion, but don't want to just come right out and say it.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 February 2004 - 14:13
Even so, I don't think the commandeering of the word "marriage" is the force that drives these gay individuals. The whole "use of the word marriage" is just a political tool, of those who oppose it because of their religion, but don't want to just come right out and say it.

I was trying to leave out the religious aspect, one of the reasons being many marriages do not take place in, or under the auspices of, a church.

Just trying to keep things on the correct PC plane.

In any case, I don't regard the attempt to withhold use of the term "marriage" to be an example of religious oppression.

Also, I don't think this aspect is what commands the thoughts of the average gay, whose thoughts, in turn, I don't necessarily see reflected in the rhetoric of the politicians and advocates who comment for the media.

Apart from that, refer, if you must, to this movement to keep marriage as it is purely selfish-So what?

Many minorities have similarly selfish motivations, entitlements, etc.

What if the person seeking to stay the definition of marriage is a black female?

She might take umbrage at being lumped in with the "white, religious, oppressing majority": she might even be disoriented at being considered part of a majority at all, don't you think?

BTW-I share your assessment of the intellectual capacity of most of those who post here, relative to the average poll respondent.

That doesn't mean they (we?) are right.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4@26 February 2004 - 18:57
In any case, I don't regard the attempt to withhold use of the term "marriage" to be an example of religious oppression.

What you say is true, although that is NOT what I said and you have just highlighted the political obfuscation surrounding this entire issue. A delightful twisting of my words, which are bleow:

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

The issue has 2 clearly defined parts:

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

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

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


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

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

[j2k4]

Bleow?

Bleow what?

Sorry-couldn't let that pass.

I would accede to your last; I don't really see what all the fuss is about, either, though it would seem to behoove the gay population, rather than the straights, to move this thing along.

What, then, is the reason for their intransigence in the face of the opposition?

I thought they were after a legal sanction, not a fucking word.

It's as if they are saying, We want to be like you in every way!

Well, sorry, they can't, and not just because I want it that way-words mean things, and we have changed too many of them already.

[hobbes]

Back to Clockers topic- Ralph Nader.

i agree with your implication that merely electing a "renegade" for president wouldn't have much of an impact at all in a system like the u.s., which requires a consensus of thought/agenda between the three branches in order to accomplish anything. having someone like ralph nader or ross perot as president would just create a stalemate between him and the business-as-usual congress.

This is basically the defining reason for my disinterest in politics in general, other than that they are all liars.

I coined the political expression "weebles wobble but they don't fall down" to express the locked in nature of our current system. Weight may shift about, but no forward progress is ever made.

In general, I sympathize with Clocker and his ilk for attempting to address a situation before it becomes an overt necessity, but politics just doesn't work that way.

A microcosm would be the large company I work for. We had one section that complained that they were understaffed, overworked and underpaid. They complained for about 2 years but the "suits" refused to listen. They liked their 6 figure incomes and watching others do the work. They claimed that the well was dry, sorry.

Well, one day that section just up and left, all of them. Now we are unable to provide full customer service. As a patch, we have temps helping to keep minimal services available and we are paying TWICE the money to ensure this. Where did this money come from, hmmm?

This is called "the crisis management mentality" and it is pathetic.

This is analogous to our political structure. Things in America could be better and people may be angry at Bush, but for most of us, day-to-day life is no different than it was 5 years ago, but we are sensing the strain in the system.

In order to effect real change I fear that something must collapse wholeheartly to awaken the populace that it is "crisis management time". Meanwhile, they sleep and dream of nothing but a cold beer this Friday.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4@26 February 2004 - 20:12



What, then, is the reason for their intransigence in the face of the opposition?

I thought they were after a legal sanction, not a fucking word.

Forgive my ignorance, but in my limited web page perusal, I was struck by the fact that civil unions were NOT equivalent to marriage in the legal sense and this issue was what the fuss was about for the gay population and NOT the use of the word "marriage".

Civil union vs Marriage

If this site is dated and civil unions are now exactly equivalent, legally, with marriages, then I must stand behind those who want to retain a word that has both religious and legal facets and tell the gays to get over it already.

[ilw]

Originally posted by hobbes
Call gay unions "garriage"or "fairiage"

i'm voting for the garriage one, it has more potential for puns (and abusing people callled gary)

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 February 2004 - 11:51


In order to effect real change I fear that something must collapse wholeheartly to awaken the populace that it is "crisis management time". Meanwhile, they sleep and dream of nothing but a cold beer this Friday.

I guess the difference is that we all have our alarm levels set differently.

Am I being to Chicken Littleish when I look back at recent events and conclude that "yes, the sky really is falling"?
Massive corporate corruption, a dubiously entered and disasterously prosecuted war, a failing economy and a President who surveys it all and insists that things are fine.

How bad do things have to be?


BTW hobbes, beautifully written post...

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker+26 February 2004 - 22:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 26 February 2004 - 22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@26 February 2004 - 11:51


In order to effect real change I fear that something must collapse wholeheartly to awaken the populace that it is "crisis management time". Meanwhile, they sleep and dream of nothing but a cold beer this Friday.

I guess the difference is that we all have our alarm levels set differently.

Am I being to Chicken Littleish when I look back at recent events and conclude that "yes, the sky really is falling"?
Massive corporate corruption, a dubiously entered and disasterously prosecuted war, a failing economy and a President who surveys it all and insists that things are fine.

How bad do things have to be?[/b][/quote]


...........before you take steps to..........get the same President re-elected?


Now that&#39;s not very smart now is it?

[clocker]

Originally posted by Busyman@26 February 2004 - 22:43



...........before you take steps to..........get the same President re-elected?


Now that&#39;s not very smart now is it?

I&#39;ve never claimed to be smart.

BTW, can&#39;t say I&#39;m impressed with the way your style of political pragmatism has been working out.
What&#39;s going to be different this time round?