SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, August 25, 2008 13:24
VIEWED: 10943
PAGE 1 of 2
Quote:
REV. WARREN: Okay. There's a lot more I'd like to ask on that, but we got 15 other questions here.
Define marriage.
SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)
REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.
REV. WARREN: Why not?
SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/transcript_of_obama_mccain_at.
html
I gotta say I find this disappointing. I was hoping that at least Obama wouldn't pander to the Christians by making gays second class citizens with this 'separate but equal' civil union crap. Yeah, I know McCain would say the same, and pretty much did, but he's not supposed to be a Liberal.
BTW, "I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are." Grammar. Use it, MFer?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think part of that is that it's running up against his core beliefs as a person - and he's gritting his teeth and at least minimally complying with the Constitution in spite of that internal conflict.
I don't like it either, but I do take it as a good sign that his belief in the Constitution comes before his personal religious affiliations.
All that said, I don't think the State has any place in defining "Marriage" as it is a religious institution to begin with.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why does Obama being a Liberal make his opinion on this any more disappointing then McCains? To begin with both Obama and McCain are liberals, but liberals have never embraced same-sex marriage. It was Clinton who came up with the Defense of Marriage Act.
Originally posted by Geezer:
I gotta say I find this disappointing. I was hoping that at least Obama wouldn't pander to the Christians by making gays second class citizens with this 'separate but equal' civil union crap. Yeah, I know McCain would say the same, and pretty much did, but he's not supposed to be a Liberal.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Why does Obama being a Liberal make his opinion on this any more disappointing then McCains? To begin with both Obama and McCain are liberals, but liberals have never embraced same-sex marriage. It was Clinton who came up with the Defense of Marriage Act.
Originally posted by Geezer:
I gotta say I find this disappointing. I was hoping that at least Obama wouldn't pander to the Christians by making gays second class citizens with this 'separate but equal' civil union crap. Yeah, I know McCain would say the same, and pretty much did, but he's not supposed to be a Liberal.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Actually, Republican Bob Barr authored that particular piece of shit
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s true, but Clinton signed it into Law.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Actually, Republican Bob Barr authored that particular piece of shit
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well then he didn't "come up with" it then did he?
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m sorry my loose use of language blasphemed the almighty Clinton. Nonetheless, as much as liberals have tried to hide it, the definition of marriage is one both liberals and conservatives largely agree on.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Well then he didn't "come up with" it then did he?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well that makes me lose A LOT of respect for him
"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, I cry bullshit Finn. Please refrain from telling me, as a liberal, what I think.
Thanks
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t need to tell you what you think. Clinton, Obama, McCain and a host of other liberals have already set the precedent. You don’t have to agree with them, and I’m not saying you do, but if you’re going to tell me that mainstream liberal thought is in favor of same-sex marriage, then there’s your bullshit. Sorry.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Again, I cry bullshit Finn. Please refrain from telling me, as a liberal, what I think.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am telling you that unless you are a mainstream liberal, you have no authority to speak to what they think. So stick to facts that you personally know.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really? You can tell me that all you want, but lots of people are familiar with facts concerning issues they don't actually support.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I am telling you that unless you are a mainstream liberal, you have no authority to speak to what they think. So stick to facts that you personally know.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There’s logic behind it? I thought it was just something you said to mean that same-sex marriage violates a certain moral or ethical code.
Originally posted by Geezer:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.
I second this, I'd like to hear it too, I could use a good laugh.
Not like I care who someones humping anyway, long as it ain't me.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not really sure about liberals believing the same as consevatives on marriage, finn,
mostly because for goddsakes, could we please stop calling the Clinton's liberals?
Seriously,
aside of Hillary's abandoned plan to revamp health-care to something universal eons ago, they just don't have a liberal record, at all.
Compare them to liberals in our past, FDR, Johnson, Carter, etc.
They are, and have been since Clinton's Presidential bid, centrists. If their hearts are more liberal than their legislation, their legislation has still spoken louder, and so have their words.
My intention isn't neccesarily to knock them for not being liberal either, but they are firmly rooted in the right-wing of the left, the DLC, brokers of most of the power in the party, and it has been pulling right for years.(I think that it has lost some of its grip on the party in the last 4 years though)
So yes, the Clinton's past actions speak for the Democratic Party, but I wouldn't say they spoke for liberals.
The thing is that half of the democratic base isn't liberal. More liberal than the right, sure. But I think we should keep a historic reference to the term for political context.
It's kind of odd as an example, to listen to people on the radio calling Obama an ultra-left wing radical liberal when we've had main-stream presidents tied to far more liberal rhettoric and records.
Obama is left leaning, he seems to 'get' stuff in a way that makes sense to me, and that much I appreciate...i'll even accept the term 'liberal' for him, but I think that he walks a fine line.
...............
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Basically, it sounds to me like you agree with me. You’re just playing games with definitions -- trying to define “liberal” to get away from the fact that in mainstream thought a majority of both liberals and conservatives Iwhatever you want to call them) tend to see marriage as an opposite-sex institution.
People aren’t always going to agree on everything, even when they see the world in the same set of colors, so just because a person's views are defined as liberal doesn't mean they will always agree with someone else who defines as liberal.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.
I second this, I'd like to hear it too, I could use a good laugh.
Not like I care who someones humping anyway, long as it ain't me.
-F
So marriage can be reduced to a person and their pet ? Or between two siblings ? Father daughter ?
Are you going to force your morality on those situations as well?
Just askin'.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So marriage can be reduced to a person and their pet ? Or between two siblings ? Father daughter ?
Are you going to force your morality on those situations as well?
Just askin'.
Inter-species isn't quite same-sex, so not the point of this thread. The prohibition on incest originates in practical genetics, and has just had a layer of 'morality' stuck on top as an enforcement mechanism. Besides, I'm not requiring guys to marry their brothers, or moms to marry their sons, so I'm not 'forcing' my morality on anyone.
But back to the original question in more direct form. How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way. Remember your Constituion?
No more than the government have the right to force churches to declare Bush the new Messiah, does it have the right to force so-called gay "marriage".
The line has to be drawn somewhere. (It was drawn back in 1776, but since the 60's that lines has been pushed back).
Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?
All they would have to do is use the same arguments that the gays are using right now.
If you want to argue that the social stigma of "marrying" you dog would stop folks, remember that there used to be a stigma aginst being gay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Enough of the “gay” political view is based on an anti-Christian and anti-establishment view that gay-marriage would probably be used as a bludgeon against religious institutions. But I don’t think preventing gay marriage is necessarily the way to prevent this, rather making sure that we stand up to the haters, whether they’re gay or not (though I’ll grant, many people don’t seem able to do this.)
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way. Remember your Constituion?
Quote:There are people already trying to do this now.]
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because I want to marry Portia de Rossi? I think Ellen would be better suited with the lumberjack type anyway.
Originally posted by Geezer:
But back to the original question in more direct form. How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It can't at all IMO, I'm just not getting why they feel they have to copy what breeders do.....?
Originally posted by Geezer:
How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way.
Who said anything about forcing churches to perform anything? It's a semi-serious question - I may have missed an announcement or something...
Quote:
Remember your Constituion?
At least as well as you apparently remember yours.
Quote:
No more than the government have the right to force churches to declare Bush the new Messiah, does it have the right to force so-called gay "marriage".
I'll agree with that as far as it goes.
Quote:
The line has to be drawn somewhere. (It was drawn back in 1776, but since the 60's that lines has been pushed back).
What line? Between what and what? Are you suggesting that the U.S. was some sort of moral utopia between 1776 and the '60s? The repeal of prohibition, for example, was just one of those freaky things?
Quote:
Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?
Wulf (may I call you Wulf?), I find seeing, with any accuracy, 100 days into the future to be pretty damn stretchy; I'd best leave 100 years to intellects and imaginations more fertile than my own. As far as the slippery slope thing goes, I freely admit I have no well-reasoned response to that...except to say that, while I would certainly find it strange if my neighbor, Reg, up and eloped with the family Dachsund, I can't imagine what exact threat that would pose to me or any institution worthy of being instituted. As far as the demise of Reg's current, man-woman marriage goes, what really occurs is that if he's harboring those kind of feelings about Dachsunds, the writing is pretty much on the wall for that marriage, regrdless of what the Constitution bans or doesn't ban.
Quote:
All they would have to do is use the same arguments that the gays are using right now.
You mean the argument that goes, "I'm a human being just like you, and it's none of your gorram business who I marry"...or is there another argument? Again, a semi-serious question...
Quote:
If you want to argue that the social stigma of "marrying" you dog would stop folks, remember that there used to be a stigma aginst being gay.
That makes about as much sense to me as the argument I used to hear about (and which you sort of touch on) how recognizing and "accepting" gays in society in general would result in good folks - who had, I guess, previously been paragons of heterosexual virtue - suddenly running out to get fitted for mesh tuxedos and buying towel sets with the wrong pronouns monogrammed on them. I can tell you this - I ran into my old high school gym coach a few months back, and he's still as flamboyantly hetero as ever (not to mention all-American, bullet-headed, and Saxon-mothered...but I digress). He has apparently, so far, failed to seize his big "coming out" moment.
Finally, as a purely practical matter, I just have a real damn hard time imagining that there will ever be a significant percentage of any population that would MARRY A DOG...EAT a dog, maybe...
EDIT to correct certain inconsequential spelling errors.
It was a question of marrying it or eating it when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except that finn, I'd argue that you're playing games with the definition. Yes, the majority of Americans must have a problem with men and men getting married. People in both parties do. The parties aren't very different, either, when it comes to policy, in the end.
whereas conservative thinking versus liberal thinking is vastly different, in terms of philosophy.
But yeah, I was originally posting how I was tired of this 'marriage between a man and a woman' thing. I got enough of htat with Kerry and Edwards, and I believed they were pandering too. Sadly, this must be one of those things that they don't think is surmountable with a more heart-felt answer. Lose the Christians, lose the election. Nobody is willing to stand up and say, "I'm a Christian, and I believe in the right of a man to marry whoever he loves."
I just didn't think I was adding much to the conversation, so I dropped that post.
Wulfenstar,
you crazy. Churches are outside of state control. They don't pay taxes and they "supposedly" can't attempt to influence government policy. No law is going to make them marry a gay couple. How the fuck do you people get this shit turned around in your head?
People, "Christians," and I imagine, "Muslims" as well, want laws dictating that a man and a woman can't get married. They want the government to tell different factions of churches, which you and your buddies have no rights over, that they can't perform gay marriages.
These discussions are aout whether the state recognizes "gay marriage," and if it doesn't, quite frankly it is discriminating against religious freedom, and our fellow americans.
You and your biggoted church can continue to bar gays, even from your pews, if you feel that Christianly. You don't have a right to tell another Christian demonitation that they have to do the same thing.
.......
and on edit,
it's good to find some common ground with Finn and Geezer on this one -
not sure how, assuming you both did, you were willing to vote for an administration that used phobias about gay people as a wedge issue then. I appreciate that single issue politics is a little one-dimensional, and you were probably voting on alot of things, but they USED the issue...they intentionally targetted American Citizens in a discriminatory way for the sake of an election, and they were on the side of discrimination, of truncating civil rights.
It may just be one issue, but that seems like a pretty big fucking issue.
And the thing is, there was more difference on the issue of gay marriage than you would suggest Finn, between the candiates of the time,and of today as well(Mccain supported the Arizona ban on gay marriage and civil unions), and the Democrats weren't the ones to stir up the shit in the first place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
Civil Unions are NOT a religious institution.
The gay party (or partAy) and its supporters made a fatal error in pushing for it to be called/thought of as, marriage. IF they had pushed for a CIVIL UNION (thereby allowing for all rights to be bestowed) they MIGHT have gotten it.
As it is, if a gay couple speaks about their "marriage", I always laugh. Its no more a marriage than if some redneck yokel married his favorite dog, or if some spoiled lib married his mother.
I, by far, am not religious. Don't get me wrong. But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.
I'm fine with Civil Unions, should you want to choose to be that way. But calling it a marriage, and expecting people to see it as such, is foolish and the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Gays want to prtoect their "civil rights". Fine, Im all for it. JUST DO NOT IMPINGE ON SOMEONES ELSES RIGHTS WHEN DOING SO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The point is this,
no branch of religion agrees on everything. No branch of religion can tell the other, "I'm sorry dude but the cross is an idol so you can't have those in your church and you can't wear them."
Religions are various, and nobody gets to claim that 'marriage' is theirs, any more than of the many different demoninations, any one of them gets to claim that Jesus is theirs.
Sorry, but your point is ridiculous. If a Christian Church, and htere are Christian churches doing it, decides to marry a man and a man, who the hell is the religious 'authority' that tellls them they are out of line?
the only point you could be making wher ethis might make sense is if you agree that the states have no right to recognize heterosexual marriages either, because marriage, afterall is a religious institution, and should not be sanctioned by the state...
except I remember a post the last time this discussion came up that talked about the history of marriage, and I thought it was state driven, or something to that effect. I'd have to look it up, but maybe the very premise is flawed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I gotta say I find this disappointing. I was hoping that at least Obama wouldn't pander to the Christians by making gays second class citizens with this 'separate but equal' civil union crap. Yeah, I know McCain would say the same, and pretty much did, but he's not supposed to be a Liberal.
BTW, "I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are." Grammar. Use it, MFer?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I don't believe anything the man says.... well, anymore more than I believe what McCain says anyways.
He's half right here though. It certainly isn't something to regulate on a Federal level....
It's also not a matter to be handled by state law either though, and that's what he got wrong.
Marriage is not a civil matter. Marriage is most often a religious matter and it is always a personal matter. The state has no say in who somebody is attracted to. This is the ultimate example of legislating morality.
Just don't want to see dudes making out in public, kay? I can't smoke around you anymore, so keep that shit in the bedroom. (I can't even smoke in my bedroom according to my lease, so you got it better than me under those conditions)
Bottom line....
The Government telling a church that they cannot marry a gay couple is an equally heinous action as telling a church that they MUST allow gay marriages.
On a related note, telling the Boy Scouts that they MUST allow gays is like telling the people that they CANNOT form an organization like the Boy Scouts that allows gays.
The only thing the state has a say in is if the union is recognized as far as taxes and any public perks that straight couples get. I'm sure that there are states who would vote on that either way. Afterwards, you can choose to live in a state that recognizes the union, or choose to live in one that doesn't.
That's freedom, ain't it?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
K,
again
no gay movement is demanding that they be allowed to get married in any church, only that their marriage(if they find a church to do it), is recognized by the state.
which would also mean that judges would have to marry same-sex couples. That isn't a religious matter.
Where does this shit come from?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, but chicks makin' out in public- that's okay, eh?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Just don't want to see dudes making out in public, kay?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These 2 are trying to get in to the Whitehouse - no way either of them is going to risk taking a stance that's this close no matter what they feel in their gut.
From June 2008:
"(CBS) Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.
Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.
Last month, the California Supreme Court struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry there.
Americans’ views on this issue have changed since 2004, although opinion has not changed substantially in the last two years. In November of 2004 (soon after the presidential election) just 21 percent of Americans supported the idea of same-sex couples being allowed to marry.
Majorities of both men and women support some form of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, but more women (36 percent) than men (24 percent) back the idea of same-sex marriage.
More than six in 10 Democrats think same-sex couples should be allowed to either marry or form civil unions. Fifty percent of Republicans are against either of these options.
There are regional differences, too. Four in 10 of those living in the western portion of the U.S. favor same-sex marriage - the highest of any other region. Americans living in the south are least likely to support it.
Groups most likely to support same-sex marriage include those under age 30, liberals, Americans living in the west, and those who never go to church.
Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, weekly church attendees and Alliance moles are groups that are least likely to support the idea. "
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
Civil Unions are NOT a religious institution.
The gay party (or partAy) and its supporters made a fatal error in pushing for it to be called/thought of as, marriage. IF they had pushed for a CIVIL UNION (thereby allowing for all rights to be bestowed) they MIGHT have gotten it.
As it is, if a gay couple speaks about their "marriage", I always laugh. Its no more a marriage than if some redneck yokel married his favorite dog, or if some spoiled lib married his mother.
I, by far, am not religious. Don't get me wrong.
It's getting you right that I'm concerned about...
Quote:
But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.
I'm fine with Civil Unions, should you want to choose to be that way. But calling it a marriage, and expecting people to see it as such, is foolish and the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Gays want to prtoect their "civil rights". Fine, Im all for it. JUST DO NOT IMPINGE ON SOMEONES ELSES RIGHTS WHEN DOING SO.
Still awaiting illumination on how, exactly, Ellen marrying Portia or Reg marrying Fido is gonna impinge on anyone's rights. Their ideological comfort zone, their often unreasoned sense of moral and immoral, and their apparent belief that they're obligated to ensure that everyone else play by that same moral/immoral sense...yeah, those things might get a little impinged...but I'm not seeing the "rights" part.
Admit it, Wulf - your objections have nothing to do with law or constitutionality or even "morals". At least that's the impression I get from your posts on the subject. You're really just hideously uncomfortable with the notion of boys kissing boys (and maybe girls kissing girls) where they pee. Idn't dat about da size of it?
It was immoral AND really icky when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quoting mainstream media here (of all places) is not the best way to win over folks.
Especially on this site.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Sorry, but your point is ridiculous. If a Christian Church, and htere are Christian churches doing it, decides to marry a man and a man, who the hell is the religious 'authority' that tellls them they are out of line?
It's simply a matter of that way of interpreting the Christian religion breaking off from the rest.
It's happened plenty of times before, what with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Restorationism, Ecumenism, and all the other "isms" and all of their offshoots underneath them.
People can just choose not to recognize the spinoffs as religions like they've always done.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Oh, but chicks makin' out in public- that's okay, eh?
I'm down with it, but unlike my misunderstanding of the State trying to tell me I can't smoke anywhere when it's a legal substance you can buy anywhere (at a rediculously high tax rate), I understand if this offends the delicate sensibilites of others. I've got youtube and Cinemax... and that Tatu concert from Romania I downloaded off of Bittorrent. I'm good....
I kissed a girl and I liked it too.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, weekly church attendees and Alliance moles are groups that are least likely to support the idea. "
I almost missed that....
LOLisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.
Being a smoker, I completely agree with that statement... although with our current crop of Rethugs, I can't say with any confidence that the alternative is any better.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*sigh
Wash,
Would you support N.A.M.B.L.A. if they wanted to recognize themselves as being "married'? Im sure they could come up with a church that would marry them... Calling it the "Church of man-boy love, Dogs and Family Union".
Or would that offend your morals?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll answer that - churches aren't allowed to molest children either, according to the law.
But we are dealing with consenting adults, doing somehting that doesn't actively harm anybody, their rights are extending to the tip of their neighbors...whatever,
so again, your equation is ridiculous. No, nobody would support marriage with animals or with children, because those are not consenting relationships....fucking DUH already
do you really think two guys getting married is anywhere close to a man and a child getting married? How does that register?
...............................
Well as to smoking,
cigarette smoke does infringe beyond a person's nose,
though I'm not sure that's a good enough reason in itself to ban where a person can smoke. Music does as well, and talking, and body odor.
The going differentiation is that second hand smoke is harmful to others, and that you don't have a right to put them in harms way...
similar to the way you can't just go out in the middle of the street and set up a shooting range. It's your gun, guns are legal, but you can't just go blasting away anywhere.
........
The question with smoking is where is the line drawn, and I'm not exactly sure where it should be....making it illegal to smoke outside of buildings as an example, seems extreme to me, given the risks. Making it illegal to smoke inside restaurants and places of business makes some sense to me -
though even that gets hazy to me when I compare it to say, auditoriums that pump out deafening sounds where employees are subjected to potentially ear-damaging quantities..etc.
maybe htere was a better way to curb the reality that there was no getting away from cigarette smoke in the public arena when smoking was legal, but I don't know what htat would have been.
.........
Sure Six, people can, but should the law choose one religious interpretation over another? isn't that directly against first amendment?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There should be a special place...*cue wavy transition*
"Boss - de plane, de PLANE!!"
"My dear guests, I am Mr. Roarke, your host. Welcome to Smoker's Island."isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The smoking issue is a tough question.
Even the gay issue is a tough question in the same way. You must realize that there are people who think just as strongly that a society that allows legal gay marriage is just as wrong as anti-smokers believe that people shouldn't be able to smoke in pubs....
None of this is easy, but there must be compromise. I'm not asking to be able to light up in the office and make others choke, but at the same time, I don't see how it's right that I be forced to smoke outside in the winter snow or a hard summer's rain without even shelter over my head. Where's the justice in that?
As for smoking in resturants and establishments, that is up to the owner to decide. If there really is a true market for places that don't allow smoking (which I really believe there is), then people need to open up bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking. Then even employees who want to be in a smoke free place have choices.
What the newspapers always fail to report (or put at the very bottom of the article on page 32 so our ADD riddled society doesn't read it) is that there are a lot of bartenders, waiters, waitresses, managers and owners who smoke who hate the statewide bans going into effect. Especially the ones going out of business because they live close to the border of a state without those laws....
Do it my way, and everybody's happy.....
Hell, now that I've got some money, I've thought about opening up a non-smoking bar/restaurant myself. Imagine the publicity I'd get being the bar owner that doesn't allow smoking in his place and goes out and smokes a pack a night in the outdoor smoking shelter in the middle of a Wisconsin winter.
I know it'd get headlines. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm at a loss as to why it even exists- it promotes extra-legal activity, does it not?
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Would you support N.A.M.B.L.A. if they wanted to recognize themselves as being "married'?
Confused Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just stop smoking & save your $.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
None of this is easy, but there must be compromise.
Or limit yourself to five cigs a day...
Easy answerisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That would be like me telling you to stop eating so much soy and start being only a quarter as gay as you are chris.
Just kidding with ya, I hope you were too..... "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way. Remember your Constituion?
Who's forcing religions to perform same-sex marriage? Folks, straight or gay, can get married by a county clerk in a completely non-religious ceremony, or by any religious institution that is willing to freely perform the ceremony.
Quote:
Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.
Tell that to married atheists.
But once again, how does same-sex marriage devalue or demean heterosexual marriage? How does gays marrying impinge on your rights?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Marriage IS a religious institution. What one must realize is that there are many different religions and they always split off from one another. I sure anyone who practices Christianity here doesn't agree with the Muslim religion. As long as we don't go flying planes into buildings or vice versa, I don't see what the problem is. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Marriage is not a civil matter.
Well,actually, since government provides various benefits to people based on whether they're married or not, it is a civil matter. For instance, although Ellen and Portia are legally married under California law, they can't, due to the Defense of Marriage act, file a joint Federal tax return or claim any other Federal benefits due to a married couple.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As Mr. Spock is fond of saying; there are always...possibilities...
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Just kidding with ya, I hope you were too.....
I shall try to be less gay.
But I need my soyisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are no such thing as "married" atheists. They were joined in a civil union...which, AHEM, is what Ive been saying.
Maybe I have more of a problem with the term "marriage" being used. Which is again, what Ive been saying. Marriag = religious, Civil Union = any frak pretending to be married...
Also, a gay "marriage" devalues my marriage by putting it on par with dog-lovers, child rapists, and incestous folks. (See explanation in posts above) 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Marriage is not a civil matter.
Well,actually, since government provides various benefits to people based on whether they're married or not, it is a civil matter. For instance, although Ellen and Portia are legally married under California law, they can't, due to the Defense of Marriage act, file a joint Federal tax return or claim any other Federal benefits due to a married couple.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
You didn't read my entire post then. I said that the only state matter in marriage is the tax/public benifits that come with recognizing a union. And that after those lines are drawn people can choose to live in a state who rules either way.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It makes a mockery of marriage, I tell you, A MOCKERY!!! (Monkey pants not included)
Originally posted by Geezer:
But once again, how does same-sex marriage devalue or demean heterosexual marriage? How does gays marrying impinge on your rights?
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Also, a gay "marriage" devalues my marriage by putting it on par with dog-lovers, child rapists, and incestous folks. (See explanation in posts above)
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?"
Nope. Not at all. I just don't want it being brought down to that level.
Anyways....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obama is smart. 80%of America frowns upon gay marriages. Why would he risk losing all those votes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Funny, nothing anyone else does could bring my marriage to any other 'level'...maybe I'm not getting your full meaning.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Wow, your marriage is fairly vulnerable to outside forces, eh?"
Nope. Not at all. I just don't want it being brought down to that level.
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Six, I realize that a lot of people feel that way,
but this is America, and people that feel that way need to ask themselves whether they are Americans or Christians first -
probably the latter in many cases,
the problem here is that some main-stream christian theology is directly contradictory to what this country was founded on(principles, not practice)
and frankly, that is a problem, if they let it dictate the direction that they want to take America, if they allow their beliefs to usurp the First Amerndment...etc.
I think an honorable approach, for the Christian American, is to hold whatever beliefs he has, and then to protect the first amendment, to protect the Constitution, because he believes strongly that the government should remain secular so that everybody, themselves included, can remain free to practice the religion of their choice as they choose.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No fair, Wulf - I thought we'd agreed (or at least I'd agreed) that you wren't gonna make me exert my brain, even a ittle bit (and it don't take much...)
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
*sigh
Wash,
Would you support N.A.M.B.L.A. if they wanted to recognize themselves as being "married'?
Not trying to be coy here, but I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. If you're asking if I would be comfortable with the prospect of a "boy" (defined as being somewhere under 18 years of age) marrying a "man" (defined as 18 or older), the answer is...wait for it...NO. 'Cause I have a lot of weird, out-moded tapes playing in the back of my head, and they get me confused sometimes as to the difference between what I think is outright JACKED-UP and what just makes me feel squeamish (and what, if any of it, is any of my business). Having admitted that, lemme ask you this: Why should I be any more or less comfortable - personal prejudice, which I got some of, aside - with a 30-year-old man marrying a 16-year-old boy than I am with a 30-year-old man marrying a 16-year-old girl? (The latter is legal with parental consent in the state of Texas - not sure about elsewhere.) That big an age gap would make me uneasy regardless of the genders involved, but there's a difference between something making me "uneasy" and that same thing being "immoral".
Quote:
Im sure they could come up with a church that would marry them... Calling it the "Church of man-boy love, Dogs and Family Union".
Again, as far as your statement goes, I don't disagree with any particular...
Quote:
Or would that offend your morals?
If I'm making (or trying to make) any point here - and thank you for helping me get it crystalized in my mind - it is that my offended morals are often, if not always, beside the point. What offends me today may be my latest hobby a year from now (or not). If I thought something non-consentual or hurtful (to either party) was going on in either of the marriages described above, you can bet that, at the very least, my well-developed sense of righteous indignation would rise loudly and pointlessly to the occasion. That (abuse) would offend my morals. It would also presumably be covered by the same laws that apply to hetero marriages, and would therefor have the same chance of being effectively dealt with (or not) by those laws. The fact that a union is same-sex would not materially change the equation for me.
Wulf, as a past (and occasionally current) victim of the mesmerising power of the Slippery Slope argument, all I can say is that the "danger" often appears more "real" or "imminent" than it actually is.
EDIT to own up to flagrant abuse of "quotation marks".
It was like two people at least ATTEMPTING to reason together when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulfie, Wulfie, Wulfie,
Here's a question, and while it's going to seem harsh, it goes straight to the point...
who gives a fuck what 'devalues' your sense of marriage?
How is your sense of what marriage is any more valid than Tom and Tim's?
Why the fuck should they care? Why should I?
What if I were to say that your sense of marriage devalues mine? Cuz, frankly, it does.
I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way. Your version is soulless literal piece of shit in my mind.
And what I want you to say, and expect you to say, is you don't give a shit what I think of your idea of marriage, that's its your own personal belief, your own personal connection to the word, and that I have no business defining it for you...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous said:
"I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way."
So...you would be FOR the folks in NAMBLA being married? Im sure a 13 year old boy could be coerced into claiming consent to being abused. (Btw, just so you know, NAMBLA folks are right up there at the top of my list of people who should be culled right out of the population..preferably in the most horrible manner possible. GitMo would not have shit on what I would do to them.)
But then...what about the ones who want to marry their pet iguanas? You said 2 consenting "people"! Shame on you for your bigotry towards the animal loving community!
Civil Union don't need to have definitions.. Marriage, being a religious one, has and does.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Plus: more marriages = more divorces = more happy lawyers & a better economy.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I think marriage is between two consenting people who love each other, who want to commit the rest of their lives to each other in an intimate and caring way.
Half-fullisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Obama is smart. 80%of America frowns upon gay marriages. Why would he risk losing all those votes.
This just off the top of my head (and as a consideration I often fail to...consider), I wonder what percentage of that 80% ever get anywhere near a ballot box? What percentage of the remaining 20% is actually anti-same-sex-union (as distinguished from "undecided" and a position which I think is more accurately labelled as "anti-fag"), and how driven are they gonna be to show up at their local voting site?
It was like that when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
fucking A dude,
In America, we have decided regardless of religion, that there is an age of consent. We have decided that there is an age when people become adults,
activities involving children, by our definition in this country, do not constitute a consenting relationship.
We also do not consider animals consenting beings in such relationships. We don't consider that they are developed enough that we can trust they aren't being abused.
..........
and please quit skirting the issue..."Who's religion gets to define marriage?"
marriage is defined differently by every religion out there. Duties of man and wife are defined differently. Who is right? You would say you are. I would say you are fucking flat out wrong.
We are at an impasse. Should we make the government decide, or should we let bygones be bygones and let people do what they please?( and don't bring up nambla again in response to this post - I dealt with it above, and for the second time I might add)
Edited to Ask - Wulfenstar, you are by far not religious, you said in an early post, which makes it sound to me like you aren't a believer, which would mean that you yourself, by your own definitiion of marriage, are not and cannot be married. So I take it that when you said you were by far not religious, you meant you are by far not a fanatic? Or are you cutting yourself out of your own definition?
.....................
hehe...exactly Crhisisall - like Christmas, it is a truly American, Capitalistic institution
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Im not skirting the issue, YOU are. If we allow for gays to be married (marriage again, not Civil Union)... then why not for anyone or anything.
Age of consent? You are bigoted towards pre-sexual beings! Shame! We have moved BEYOOND such things! Even the term "kids" is derogatory! SHAME! Shame on you for trying to take away the rights of the pre-sexual to be in a consenting adult relationship (i.e. abused)
Again, the different religions themselves decide who and how and what and where you should be MARRIED.
Government can allow for Civil Unions.... maybe.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Link to Wicki's piece on NAMBLA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
I took about 180 seconds to scan the article (slow day at work but I still gotta look like I'm working), which is the most "research" I've ever done on NAMBLA. I'm not real sure how above - or below - board they are, but, as several other gay and lesbian groups apparently decided, I'd think long and hard about throwing my ideological lot in with theirs, out of PR considerations if nothing else...
It was a strange old world out there when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If we allow for gays
JustwantedtofreakWulfoutisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hehe, wow...
Dude, I don't even get you. YOu're only argument, continually, I might add, is that gay marriage is like pedophilia.
I have demonstrated effectively, I think, that there is an obvious and legal difference.
You act like gay marriage is a gateway to allowing unions between men and boys. To that, I ask, what hte fuck are you talking about?
I've stated from the beginning that consenting individuals were required to meet my definition of marriage. I've stated since that children cannot be considered to be consenting, and this is because we need some sort of rigid guid-line for the protection of our children.
You know your argument is falacious, so why do you keep using it? My assumption, and plese correct me if I'm wrong, is that all you have without that is that you are homophobic, you don't like the idea of homosexuals, and you like less their life-style being condoned or accepted by the state.
This is America. You get to think like that. Then, please step away from your core bigotry, and when it comes time to be an American Citizen vote your faith in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Remember that you can hate gays all you want, but that as an American who believes in equality and Civil Liberty, you won't stomp on their rights, to call themselves married, if that's what htey choose to do, to be recognized as married, if we also recognize heterosexual couples to be married.
If on the other hand, you wish for the state to ONLY recognize civil unions, and to change its terminology for everyone(a point which you have yet to state so I'm not convinced this is where you are going), then I'm fine with it. It's equal, it's even, while maybe more extreme than necceary(assuming 'marriage' is a religious term and not a legal one), a step in the right direction in upholding the Constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've stated from the beginning that consenting individuals were required to meet my definition of marriage."
How is that ANY different from what I am saying? Except that, in a Constitutional sense, the government DOES NOT have the right to define what or what is not a marriage. The states barely even have that right.
My belief, my core not-so- bigoted-as-you-would-like-to-think belief, is that marriage is still, and always will be, a religious institution.
Look, gays want to be able to visit their S.O.'s in the hospital and to file taxes and play house together. Fine. Got no quarrel with that as such. They can have a Civil Union which grants them those rights.
What they can't have, is a marriage by a church that does not condone such a thing.
You are arguing that any consenting adult can enter into a marriage (not a Civil Union) I say neine.
My whole point is NOT that gays are sub-human, or second-class citizens. But rather that, when we start allowing for the government to push itself more into our domestic lives, we are opening a pandoras box.
No, I am not religious, but I feel it necessary to defend their beliefs. Most religions do not want to marry gays. That too is also fine. Again, gays can have civil unions, just do not call or think of them as marriages.
As to NAMBLA. Yes, it applys. By NOT drawing a line as to who and what can shack up, you open the door to all sorts of nastiness.
10 years or 100 down the line, after so-called domestic partnerships are allowed, whats to stop folks like NAMBLA from pushing for the same thing? Sure, we find it morally disgusting NOW, but will our childrens children?
We say we will draw the line at age of consent, but really....the lines we have drawn in the past are constantly being pushed back inch by inch.
30 years ago, would we have put up with whats played on most Rap stations? 20 years ago, would we have put up with what is put on T.V. today? 10 years ago, would we have allowed for our rights to be curtailed in the interest of "safety"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soooooo.....
we were opening a can of worms when we let blacks into our schools. When we let them sit at the front of our busses, drink from our fountains. What could have been next? Pigs, and goats drinking from our fountains? Sure, blacks were okay, but I mean, shit, when we start fucking with the line, that means the line can move...ANYWHERE. What about midgets? People with down syndrome? What about gremlins? What about green men from outer space? Sure, they aren't here today, but when they come down to drink from our children's childrens fountains, and spray us with their foul disintigration rays,will our children just let them run amok? They won't know what to do because we stopped discriminating against blacks...that will be pretty darned confusing!!
Where is our sense of decorum? Again, blacks, sure, aliens, not in my fucking country. So, sorry blacks, we let you into the club, we let everybody and everyhing into the club. Can't do it, you understand
Oh and by the way, I"m really close to using caps on this point, because I keep saying it and you keep pretending it isn't being said...
No church that doesn't condone gay marriage is going to have to marry gay people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Church's that condone gay marriage are going to be allowed to marry gay people. Got it? No?
To be continued in five minutes then....
ugh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was ruttin' hi-larious, Righteous.
Chrisisalllol
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ummm, wow....
You are comparing what could be a lifestyle-CHOICE (the jury is still out on that one Nature v.s. Nurture) to something you are born with?
Wow...
Besides, most black churchs do not support gay "marriage" either. 
Why does it have to be "marriage"? Why not "Civil Union"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Idiot.
Here's the rub, you live in a country where a modicum of personal freedom still exists, at least for the moment in time.
What care YOU if the State recognizes it.
YOU do not have to, no one will make you, and no one really cares if you do or don't.
So just pack up your thinly veiled petty personal hatreds and emotional baggage, and do the smart thing, just sniff in derision, state that YOU, personally, do not recognize it as such, and be on your merry, ehe ?
Damn folks are boneheaded sometimes.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fred,
Usually I am in agreement with you...however.
I care, and so should you. Im surprised that you are not with me on this one.
I am against there being laws stating that I MUST recognize it as a "marriage".
Personal, petty, hatreds? Such as? Please enlighten me.
Other than that, frak off. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes, to or with each other. Not my business.
I do care, however, when you try and push your shit on me. I don't have to believe or parrot what is "socially acceptable" or P.C.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you wanna get started on railin' against all the useless, irritating, redundant, or dopey laws there are, Highlander, all I can say is be glad you're immortal.
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I am against there being laws stating that I MUST recognize it as a "marriage".
You just about have enough timeisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulf,
do you at all see a double standard here?
While I appreciate your liberetarian sense of state not being allowed to dictate to you what marriage is, wouldn't you agree that if the gay population at large didn't like having to accept heterosexual marriage in the face of their own being rejected, that the state would be forcing them to accept its definition of marriage? and wouldn't that fly in the face of your belief that the state should stay out of it?
You still have yet to state that all state sanctioned marriages should be known only as 'civil unions', at which point we could debate semantics,
sadly we're still debating equality
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous,
I could make a crack about seperate-but-equal, however I don't think you would understand that I was joking.
If gays get married at a church that allows it, then I guess you can call it marriage. Fair enough?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
yeah, definitely,
and I promise you that if the ever issue arises where people are demanding that the pope marry gay people in the vatican, or that or some similarly bizarre entitlement, I'll be with you on the separation of church and state issue. They have no business telling churches how to run their affairs, and that is mutual.
By the way....you said gay and crack in the same post...heheh
heh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Liberals????
Clinton, Obama, McCain and a host of other liberals...
Surely you jest!
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Also, a gay "marriage" devalues my marriage by putting it on par with dog-lovers, child rapists, and incestous folks. (See explanation in posts above)
Okay. So you are a bigot then. Or at least use all the codewords.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow Geeze, over-reactin', aren't ya? The dude compares gays to child rapists, and suddenly he's a bigot?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. So you are a bigot then.
(That was sarcasm, I know it don't always travel too well
)isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
not personally looking to clean wulfenstar's clock for being a bigot. We're all suspicious of something, we all have our biases and our judgements about others,
and generally speaking, that comes from a lack of empathy which comes from a lack of connection, and I'm not really intersted in brow-beating anybody into believing what I do...trying to get them to look at things differently might be more effective,
but you can have your prejudices in this nation, and still believe enough in its principles to overlook those prejudices in favor of a greater good.
I got nothing good to say about the reverand phelps and company for example, but I was hard-pressed to find a legitimate reason why he should have been silenced, or as he was succesfully, sued. Maybe htere was a grey area there, but ultimately, freedom of speech is somethng I hold dear enough that just because I hate what hte man stands for, and his message, I'm not in favor of using the government to silence him.
I think Wulf came around on this issue, at least in the only area where I expect an American should have to, as it relates to the constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not on this issue. But like I said, I know that many liberals try to hide it - it happens every time this topic comes up; but no matter how you play with the definition of liberal, Clinton, McCain and Obama are widely considered Liberals - and for that matter those presidents that you identified as liberals (“FDR, Johnson, Carter”), would have agreed with conservatives on this issue as well. This is not as much a Liberal/Conservative issue as it is a Mainstream America issue.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Except that finn, I'd argue that you're playing games with the definition. Yes, the majority of Americans must have a problem with men and men getting married. People in both parties do. The parties aren't very different, either, when it comes to policy, in the end.
whereas conservative thinking versus liberal thinking is vastly different, in terms of philosophy.
Quote:Well to begin with, I reject the idea that gay marriage is a civil right. Laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are not discriminatory - they are applied equally to everyone. Secondly, you don’t get away from this issue no matter who you vote for. Every president and every candidate with any real hope for the office of president has been firmly against the issue of same-sex marriage. The tide may be moving towards more open interpretation of marriage, but that’s a broad sweep across the mainstream, everyone is moving that direction, not just Liberals.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
not sure how, assuming you both did, you were willing to vote for an administration that used phobias about gay people as a wedge issue then. I appreciate that single issue politics is a little one-dimensional, and you were probably voting on alot of things, but they USED the issue...they intentionally targetted American Citizens in a discriminatory way for the sake of an election, and they were on the side of discrimination, of truncating civil rights.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*Sigh
Im not getting riled back up. Whether I agree or disagree with a particular lifestyle choice is really, in the grand scheme of things, very small potatoes.
However, when did it become ok to call someone a bigot just becuase they disagree with a liberal viewpoint? Thats like saying someone who doesn't agree with Israel is anti-semetic, or one who thinks black folk should be held accountable for their actions is racist, or someone who believes that illegals are ILLEGAl is likewise racist.
Its the worst kind of hypocrisy to scream, pule and whine about 'freedom of speech" and then when you meet someone with an opposing viewpoint, try and shut them up with political correctness. PC is just another form of tyranny.
You scream bigot until that word has lost all meaning. You scream racist ONLY at white people. Noone listens any longer.
I know Libs and Neo-cons can't usually see beyond the end of their noses, much less what the consequences of their actions could be, but C'Mon! You throw these things around and it becomes a joke.
What I am saying or have said does not earn the moniker of "bigot". Save that word and the others for those who really deserve it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points both,finn
still for gays regarding marriage, there is no reason aside of a 'moral' one not to change it, and keeping hte law as is adversely affects a portion of our population, and does deny that portion a certain enfranchisement that the rest of us are entitled to.
Plus it becomes a civil rights issue when the very reason for opposing it so vehemently seems to be on prejudice, discriminatory, grounds..
Wulf,
agreed to some extent...like I said in my last post, I'm not sure how productive it is to yell 'bigot' at someone inspite of the fact that I myself am a little guilty of using the very word in one of my earlier posts. I don't think it should be off the table suggesting it, or trying to get "you"(whoever that is in a certain circumstance) to see how you might sound to people, but to chose the rant over a dialogue gets none of us anywhere....
so I'll try to refrain in the future
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
but C'Mon! You throw these things around and it becomes a joke.
What I am saying or have said does not earn the moniker of "bigot". Save that word and the others for those who really deserve it.
Sorry Wulf, I was goin' for the easy joke above.
(To be fair, your wording did make it not-hard)
I'm wet noodle-lashing myself as I type.
The all-too-eager Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I care, and so should you.
Why should I, it means nothing to me what other consenting adults do with their private time, lives and relationships, since none of it has any significant impact on mine.
Quote:
Im surprised that you are not with me on this one.
Imma Polyamorous Anarchist, and thus find the States involvement of any kind in peoples relationships invasive and offensive.
Fremgirl is not Poly, and didn't wanna share, so ya don't have to hide yer womenfolk - but I do flirt, mercilessly, with either sex despite being straight.
I just... don't have those kinds of hangups about this thing, hell, I barely even *comprehend* most folks viewpoints on it, so why would I share them ?
Quote:
I am against there being laws stating that I MUST recognize it as a "marriage".
That's because Government doesn't belong in this one whatever - would you accept it then if there were no laws stating that anyone must recognize your conventional marriage either ?
Call it what you will, a bonding of two (or more) individuals is quite properly none of the Governments damn business, were you to ask me.
Consider thus the definition of "Family" as practiced by me, which includes folk unrelated to me, and several non-humans (Feline in nature) but does NOT include some folk of blood relation - and yet the State's definition of such is a wholly different thing ?
Does it really make sense to have the Gov defining your life and relations that intimately for you ?
But thing is, Wulf - you can't have that both ways, you accept it for everyone, or you remove it for everyone, to do otherwise is to introduce an artificial "class" system and cause needless strife over a distinction that in my eyes is petty to begin with.
YOUR relationship is YOUR business - not mine, not the Governments, don't you want that basic level of respect to be given to everyone ?
Quote:
Personal, petty, hatreds? Such as? Please enlighten me.
You seem to not like gay people - it shows.
That's your option of course, and I will not gainsay your right to feel that way, but I just think it's silly, myself.
Quote:
Other than that, frak off. I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes, to or with each other. Not my business.
Exactly, nor is it the Governments.
Quote:
I do care, however, when you try and push your shit on me. I don't have to believe or parrot what is "socially acceptable" or P.C.
And likewise, other people care when YOU try and "push your shit" on them, by handing the Government the power to define what a "Marriage" is, but only so long as it meets YOUR standards ?
Sorry dude, that's hypocrisy, and you know it - using the Government as a weapon to enforce your beliefs on others is the very essence of your bitch, but yet you don't seem to have any problem doing it yourself ?
Umm, no - that don't fly with me.
I say we cut the Government out of it completely, ain't their business or place to get that involved in our lives.
-Frem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I will chime in agreement with Frem. There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice. I would be in favor of removing any legal reference to 'marriage' entirely from the books. We might keep Domestic Partnership in place for its significance to finances. It would become a business arrangement between two (or more) people, allowing them to share responsibility for, and entitlement to, property.
People can get married, or marry their dogs or their houseplants, or get divorced on odd numbered Tuesdays. The government shouldn't care about this in any way. Only property disputes should become the government's domain.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wouldn’t be against this, except that I don’t want the government legitimizing stupid shit. I don’t care at all whether someone wants to “marry” their dog, but people like that are not rational, and there will be all kinds of stupid stuff that will emerge if the state start legitimizing stuff like that. Everything from animal cruelty to frivolous law suits. There’s just no reason to open that door. The desire to marry one’s dog at the very least is a pointless display, which does not require any kind of state protection or at worse it’s behavior that requires real psychological treatment. I have no problem at all with replacing the legal interpretation of marriage with ‘Domestic Partnerships’, but it’s something that has to be defined rationally to limit it use to those who will not abuse the concept.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I will chime in agreement with Frem. There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice. I would be in favor of removing any legal reference to 'marriage' entirely from the books. We might keep Domestic Partnership in place for its significance to finances. It would become a business arrangement between two (or more) people, allowing them to share responsibility for, and entitlement to, property.
People can get married, or marry their dogs or their houseplants, or get divorced on odd numbered Tuesdays. The government shouldn't care about this in any way. Only property disputes should become the government's domain.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Finn, I think you missed the point. The government wouldn't be legitimizing anything. The government would have nothing more to do with marraige than with your errant fart.
Domestic Partnerships, or any other *business* contract, would of course have to be between people legally recognized as people. (Which is currently just human beings, until the chimps and dolphins step it up a notch.)
But marraige? Marry your belly lint in a Setanic ritual, if you want. Who cares?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well that is my point. I don’t want domestic partnerships to include plants and dogs.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Domestic Partnerships, or any other *business* contract, would of course have to be between people legally recognized as people. (Which is currently just human beings, until the chimps and dolphins step it up a notch.)
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well,
A lot of things would have to change before I can sign a contract with my dog.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He'd have to stop crapping in the house?
bring the paper in in the morning,
stop nuzzling yor balls in public,
Quit fucking everything that moves,
Dogs are such dogs some times
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Six, I realize that a lot of people feel that way,
but this is America, and people that feel that way need to ask themselves whether they are Americans or Christians first -
probably the latter in many cases,
the problem here is that some main-stream christian theology is directly contradictory to what this country was founded on(principles, not practice)
and frankly, that is a problem, if they let it dictate the direction that they want to take America, if they allow their beliefs to usurp the First Amerndment...etc.
I think an honorable approach, for the Christian American, is to hold whatever beliefs he has, and then to protect the first amendment, to protect the Constitution, because he believes strongly that the government should remain secular so that everybody, themselves included, can remain free to practice the religion of their choice as they choose.
Not sure what point of mine you're trying to argue here.... I can't say I disagree with what you're saying here.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I will chime in agreement with Frem. There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice. I would be in favor of removing any legal reference to 'marriage' entirely from the books. We might keep Domestic Partnership in place for its significance to finances. It would become a business arrangement between two (or more) people, allowing them to share responsibility for, and entitlement to, property.
People can get married, or marry their dogs or their houseplants, or get divorced on odd numbered Tuesdays. The government shouldn't care about this in any way. Only property disputes should become the government's domain.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
It seems that this is a necessary evil today. Personally I hate any financial relations to marriage. Maybe that's just because I'm a guy and I've seen my father and a few friends lives nearly destroyed because of "child support". I couldn't imagine what it's like to have a career and only have minimum wage funds available to you after the bitch and Uncle Sam get their share.
Personally, I believe those laws need to be reformed to make sure that women can't do things like buy an new Camry every two years or smoke 4 packs a day like my mom did. The women should not be allowed to touch a single cent of that money, and the father should have an equal say in how that money is spent on the children (529 IRA college funds, trust funds, clothing, diet, etc....)
You want equality girls? I'm totally up for it. But there are some serious flaws in just how far the other way the pendulum has swung.
I ate at Dennys 5 nights a week for years growing up....
I'll cut her a break, because I know it must have been murder being a single mom with a career, but damn.... My old man wanted to be just as much a part of our lives as she was and it just wasn't allowed because the courts automatically favor the mom. It was nothing more than her using that power to get back at him. There is a thin line between love and hate and when the Fury of a Woman Scorned is legally sanctioned and allowed to continue for 18 years, well.... that my friends, is nothing short of legal extortion.
Take the woman's ability to use that money on herself out of the equation and make the father every much a part of the financial decisions, if he so chooses, and the incentive for greed will evaporate and be replaced with two parents who are truly thinking of what is really important instead of themselves.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Marriage is an economic practice, designed to allow women to stay at home and perform unpaid labor. If you don't believe me, look at how Social Security is constructed: the woman gets a share of the retirement provided she's been married to a participant for 40 quarters. It also allows the domestic partner to get health insurance and other benefits w/o needing to work.
There is no reason for the government to care about marriage at all, since it is a philosophical and religious practice.
IF we opt for full equality between partners... disallowing SS and other benefits to non-workers... we will be giving up a fair portion of our birthrate and a big chunk of family-based child-raising... because the costs to the mom (in terms of lost benefits and options, and therefore lost power w/in the family) will be too great. Personally, I think that reducing our birthrate is fine. But other nations have solved this conundrum by recognizing the benefits (to the State) of birthrate and family-based child-rearing and have therefore granted state benefits to those who bear children and take care of them.
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Controlling the birthrate in this country has only ensured that by 2020 whites will be a minority. Don't believe me? Why not? Affluent blacks and mexicans on TV like to bring up that point all the time.... I can't remember the guys name, but the author of a new bestseller mentioned that on the Colbert Report in the last week or two.
Why would somebody who didn't have anything to lose stop having kids when they'll be provided for on our dime? Even if they're not citizens and do not pay taxes...... Sure, their lives aren't peachy, but for the most part nobody is starving in this country.
Look at me.... I'm going to be 29 soon. I'm good looking, I have a well paying job, health insurance, 401k, IRA, bigscreen TV, etc.. but I don't have any kids. I could step outside my front door right now and within a 5 mile radius I could show you 100's of people who had kids when they weren't responsible enough to have them, and a vast majority of them had kids MUCH younger than I am now.
You're right about one thing signy. Money does have a way of controlling us, and I'm not all that confident that the more you have the better off you are, at least in a spiritual sense. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Controlling the birthrate in this country has only ensured that by 2020 whites will be a minority."
Yeah, and wont that be fun.
Look at how nice the places are where there is a minority of whites.
I'm just saying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Six,
living in California, one of the most liberal states out there,
my boss pays a little child support, but is a big part of the child's life, and he pays just a little, because of that, which, by the way, is a lot more expensive than if he weren't. If it were up to this particular woman she'd be getting every last dime.
Thing is, there's no hard and fast rule how the courts are going to behave on issues like this. Judges are the closest things to kings in this country for their direct power over other people's lives. They do some fucked up things sometimes.
You are right that child support should be regulated, but that costs money too, and nobody ever wants to pay money for these sorts of things..."not on my dime." and the reality is children are expensive as shit. Not all mothers who use the money are irresponsible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulf,
is THIS when we get to call you a bigot?
wow dude
you just don't take alot of historical factors into account when you go off on your tangents do you.
do you think people of other races are less capable of behaving well in a democracy than whites? Is that what you're saying? That its a genetic disposition?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well that is an argument that has been made. It’s not one I agree with, but it is one that has been successfully argued before. And it is true that ‘non-white nations’ are far less likely to have an enlightened culture then ‘white nations.’ Although I think that probably is a result of the fact that enlightened cultural began in Western Europe or the US and hasn’t progressed to all parts of the world yet. But I don’t think anyone need be called a bigot for recognizing these facts. My view is that an enlightened culture is a product of the culture not the ethnicity, and if white people became a minority, we would continue to be a very enlightened nation, but while that is my opinion, it is not one that is born out by the current distribution of liberal democracies.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
do you think people of other races are less capable of behaving well in a democracy than whites? Is that what you're saying? That its a genetic disposition?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME