Well It's Democracy

[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]

[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

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

[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.


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?

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.