Bush And The Constitution

[leftism]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well....

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

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

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

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

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

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

[leftism]

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

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

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

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

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman

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

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

Lets be clear about this.

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

Two points here.

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

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

[Busyman]

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

Originally posted by Busyman@

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

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

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

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

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman

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

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

Lets be clear about this.

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

Two points here.

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

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

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

The questions were answered and I was clear.

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

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

leftism (er 1234?) BLACKBALLED

[leftism]

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

This, above all else, is certainly true.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Agrajag@27 February 2004 - 15:34
"it does you no credit" what a nice turn of phrase. A picture in words.

I borrowed it from a friend just for such an occasion.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 17:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 27 February 2004 - 17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Agrajag]

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

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

[vidcc]

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

[leftism]

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

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

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

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

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

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

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

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

[hobbes]

Busy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don&#39;t get your logic?

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

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



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