PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Deadly Hamster on February 07, 2004, 02:13:56 PM
-
link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110509,00.html
This is very very scary to me, seriously, this is likeeeeee the final straw....
Patriot Act, RAVE act, and now this....
Government trying to remove our rights :(
Edit: And not to my suprise the democratic canidates are not going to go against him on this, because as always they are sissy bitches who put being president before what is actualy the right thing to do...
-
The democrats have no power at the moment of course they won\'t oppose it would ruin their chance to make it "right" if they wanted to.
I guess the right thing to do according to you is to throw away their presidency chances in order to voice an insignificant opinion?
-
There was plans to amend the state constitution too. The whole thing has been doomed from the start.
-
I understand that Jumpman, it is a valid point but it just sickens me.
You are right though, I just dont like how fake the presidential race is, and changes happen so slowly.
-
Don\'t worry, there\'s a large precentage of gay people living in America. You think any one of them would vote for Bush after hearing this?
"Eeeer yes to Bush because I don\'t think it\'s right to marry you?" -:ghey: Person.
-
Bush is trying to ban gay marriage.. so? The Patriot Act is here.. so?
38/50 states want gay marriage to be permanently banned. Massachusetts judges are the only reason while it\'s even a hot topic and they can/will be overruled.. and Vermont is the only state (out of 50, mind you) to allow gay marriage in any form and that\'s by civil unions. Maybe the Dems don\'t oppose it because they agree.
-
If democracy is a dictatorship of the stupid then I don\'t want to be in a democracy.
Edit: And judges are fighting for the rights of eveyr man, something this country has forgot about.
-
No, that would be our military.
-
Heh, you sound pretty wrapped up in liberal propaganda there Hamster. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
-
damn i can\'t belive i missed this...but uhm..what is the patriot act? i know i can look it up but i want somebody here to explain it.;)
-
Originally posted by clips
damn i can\'t belive i missed this...but uhm..what is the patriot act? i know i can look it up but i want somebody here to explain it.;)
I found this while visiting Lazlow\'s website (you know the radio dude in GTA3 and Vice City?)
Under the section S01 of the patriot act, a US citizen engaging in lawful activity can be picked off the streets or from home and taken to a secrect tridunal with no access to or notification of a lawyer, the press of family. Sounds like 1940s German patriotism.
http://www.lazlow.com/
Hmm, ;)
Anyway, good job BUSHY.. You might just have kicked yourself out of that white building of yours!
-
So? Were you living under Fraggle Rock during 2001 or something?
The government can\'t have its hands tied when trying to protect its citizens. Is the Patriot Act perfect? No. Is it necessary? Considering what is going on on US soil, perhaps.
If you\'ve done nothing wrong, what\'s there to be afraid of? Hmm? Only criminals and terrorists need to worry.
-
It\'s is not liberal propaganda it is just the truth....
The government is taking away individual rights based on their moral opinion. The laws might not affect YOU Blade but that doesn\'t mean they don\'t affect others, and stop them from being free.....
I\'ll give examples if you want...
Under the RAVE act huge fines can be given to people who own property where drug use is taking place, This is a huge attack on small clubs etc all over the place.
Heterosexual married couples still get more money then gays, simply because they arn\'t gay.
Under the patriot act, people lose a bunch of rights that they had if they are ever suspected of a crime, for instance, a man at an animal rights protest was immediatly investigated for a vandalism crime just because he was at the protest.
How can you tell me any of those things are fair?
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Patriot Act, RAVE act, and now this....
Government trying to remove our rights :(
Didn\'t think you had any rights or freedom left ....
Bush & co have been Pissing on your bill of rights the day he bought his way into power.
-
So where\'s the line, DH? How many rights should you be allowed to have? What constitutes a right? What constitutes "free"? What is moral.. ethical? Basically, it\'s all a matter of opinion.
For example, PETA thinks that being ethical means going vegetarian. Okay.. and what\'s their reasoning? That God\'s creatures, quote on quote, deserve better. I guess these whack-jobs didn\'t read the Bible, perhaps they accidentally picked up an issue of Entertainment Weekly because it says right in Genesis that God wants man to use animals as he wishes. That would make PETA\'s ethics a little bit hypocritical, right?
Well, what can you do? Nobody ironed out the thousands of flaws in our law system. Humans aren\'t perfect, obviously. Anyways, onward to your next comment..
Under the RAVE act huge fines can be given to people who own property where drug use is taking place, This is a huge attack on small clubs etc all over the place
Certain drugs are illegal. Similar to the way we\'re going after countries that harbor terrorism (another enemy) we\'re going to penalize those who harbor criminals. Oooohhhh, I have to pay a large fine because I decided to break the law! That\'s so unfair and infringing on my rights! Ooooohhhhh! I\'m not going to defend anybody here, but you\'re arguing that we should be able to get away with criminal acts. Am I right, or no? I might have missed a beat.
Heterosexual married couples still get more money then gays, simply because they arn\'t gay.
What\'s your logic here? Heterosexual couples can have children naturally. This is more of a moral issue, though. To most people, marriage goes beyond just a legal bond. Anyways, I didn\'t notice gay marriage being much of an issue for the past ~220~ years we\'ve been an independent country. Homosexuals are perceived not to be natural by many (including myself) and thus many (the majority) would agree that we can\'t make exceptions for perversion from the natural. It\'s a like-it-or-lump-it situation, frankly. A quagmire. You like dicks? I\'d suggest praying that gay marriage goes into law, which it likely won\'t.
Under the patriot act, people lose a bunch of rights that they had if they are ever suspected of a crime, for instance, a man at an animal rights protest was immediatly investigated for a vandalism crime just because he was at the protest.
This is why I said you were wrapped up. You\'re just throwing things out there about losing civil rights (like the apparent "lack of responsibility for crimes one commits" right) which is something a lot of left-wing (and some right-wing, mind you) politicians are peddling. What rights are you talking about? You said it yourself.. he was investigated. Why? It sounds like he\'s been caught for committing acts of vandalism before.. which would mean it\'s on his record. If not, then they have the right to investigate him. He\'s in a big crowd of protestors, which is capable of such a thing.. and if he didn\'t do the crime, there should be no problem.
I\'m no newbie to this treatment. Only about a month ago, I was about to board a train when I was grabbed by a couple of cops who suspected me of committing a drug-related crime. They took me inside, searched and interrogated me.. at no point telling me why (I had to put the pieces together myself to figure it out) ... and eventually came to the conclusion that I was completely innocent. When my parents found out, they were quick to say it was unlawful and that I should do something legally.. but I personally thought, as it was happening.. that it was the right thing to do. What I would have done.
Sorry if I offended anybody with this post, but ehheh.. recently I\'ve decided to stop holding back. :)
-
Drugs are also a moral issue, wether you realize it or not....
And the RAVE act puts a huge strain on small buisnesses.
You believe it is okay for the majority to force their moral opinions on the minority, I do not believe it is okay.
And I find it very sad that the majority agrees with you.
And, I don\'t want the government investigating me even if I have nothing to hide, it is just not their right to do that, plain and simple.
Edit:
many (the majority) would agree that we can\'t make exceptions for perversion from the natural.
Homosexualality is natural, because it occours...
Anything that occours was meant to occour, otherwise it would never happen. Nature ALLOWS for it to happen, even the most unnatural things are meant to happen, and are therefore actually natural.
-
The Democrats can\'t do shit anyways. The Reps own Congress. The Democrat candidates probably do oppose this, but they\'re probably just saving them for the elections.
Blade said "whack jobs didn\'t read the Bible". What kind of whack job would believe the Bible? This isn\'t something the Bible has any say in. GWB is acting under his Christian motives and therefore he is breaking the whole "separation of church and state" thing.(I think it\'s in the Constitution) He in no way has the right to ban their rights. What\'s next? All businesses close on sundays in order to honor God?
Even if homosexuals are viewed as "not natural" or "not normal". Then shouln\'t we ban test tube babies? Shouln\'t we ban plastic surgery or alteration of the human body in any form? Banning a certain right of a person does not solve the problem. We might as well pull a Hitler and kill all the homo\'s b/c they aren\'t like us.
-
One last post: Why\'d you take my quote out of context? PETA is a bunch of whack-jobs.
DH: Just because something happens means it\'s natural, that\'s your argument? Man, I hope not.
Scientists haven\'t proven that human homosexuality is genetically natural, yet. Once they do.. if they do.. your logic will make sense. Meanwhile, a liberal school system teaches our children to accept homosexuality and even bask in it. That\'s just the tip of the iceberg. There, I\'m done. (me = hates political threads)
-
Liberals > Conservatives...
Just adding more fuel to the fire ;)
-
Since you seem to love the USA PATRIOT Act, Blade, maybe you should just glance over some of the items below. It strikes me that Conservatives generally hold a view that our government is trustworthy, and would never abuse it\'s powers over it\'s own citizens. Progressives like myself, however are a bit more cynical. Throwing away our legal rights to privacy for a short term gain in "security" is not a wise choice. It\'s not hard to understand what a slippery slope that path is. You give away a few rights now, and later it\'s not as hard to take away a few more.
I thought Conservatives were supposed to care about protecting privacy rights too. They seem to pay alot of lip service to "keeping the government off our backs" and so forth. It\'s amazing how easily some personalities can be managed through FEAR (of terrorism, etc) to produce the desired result.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
This is only a partial list of provisions:
The government may now monitor the online activities of innocent Americans, and perhaps even track what Web sites you read, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.
The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. §212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses, and means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. sec.210, 211.
One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous definitions also expand the scope of surveillance. PATRIOT sec.802\'s definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC sec.2331) raises concerns about legitimate protest activity being prosecuted as terrorism, especially if violence erupts, while additions to three existing definitions of terrorism (int\'l terrorism per 18 USC sec.2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC sec.2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC sec.2332b(g)(5)(B)) expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, sec.803, 805).
Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of exceeding authorized access to a computer used in interstate commerce and thereby causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.
FISA authority to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the U.S. (and those who communicate with them) increased from situations where obtaining foreign intelligence information is "the" purpose of the surveillance to anytime that it is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.
This is a partial repeal of the wall put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including the pervasive surveillance of Martin Luther King in the 1960s. It allows wiretap results, grand jury information and other evidence collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence information.
Domestic surveillance limits can be skirted by the Attorney General, for instance, by obtaining a FISA wiretap against a U.S. person where "probable cause" does not exist, but when the person is suspected to be an agent of a foreign government. The information can then be shared with the FBI. The reverse is also true.
-
It\'s very sad that people would do anything when representatives of the Government right now use words such as "Terror", "Security", and now even numbers as "9/11" The fact is the US will NEVER be secure. The Patriot Act really is just another way for them to basically "spy" on anybody they wish. How hard can it be for Osama to pay an American Citizen to blow up the White House?
-
First of all Blade... bravo for your responses. You stole all my thunder :D .
I still have to ask those who are so fearful of the Patriot Act why they are so? If you aren\'t doing anything illegal YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR. So what if the US Government spies on me online and finds out I have a fetish for lesbians... I am sure I fall into the same category as about 90 percent of all the other heterosexual men in the US.
The RAVE Act... if you are using drugs or you own a place where drugs are used (I am sure most club owners know what goes on in their clubs) then shame on you - you deserve what you get IMO.
As for gay marriages, I said it in the last gay marriage thread - either the US Supreme Court or Congress would shut the door on that issue. I find it funny that DH refers to the US as a dictatorship when the majority are against gay marriages, yet he feels the position of the minority should dictate terms to the majority. That isn\'t a democracy - that line of thought has all the characteristics of fascism, communism and socialism.
-
Hey Giga: Just wondering why you made reference to facism in your final sentence, suggesting it\'s a bad thing, yet you seem to support the government\'s facist oversight of it\'s citizens personal lives in your second paragraph? Do you see a conflict there?
I\'m not afraid of being found guilty of crimes based on information retrieved from Patriot act-authorized searches. I am not guilty of anything. I am however afraid of the government performing searches that have nothing to do with law enforcement. I don\'t want them to collect information about me for no reason, and put it in a database so I can be sorted and classified at some future date. THAT is granting facistic power to our government that they don\'t need.
-
Facism and communism use the same tactics - that is just semantics though. It was basically to make a point that everyone could relate to. Liberals seem to like socialism and some even communism while they hate facism. Conservatives tend to be the opposite. I also feel the government has certain rights to "monitor" citizens or people it feels are a threat to this country. How can one argue against this if it is for your own safety? Does anyone really want terrorists to set off something worse here on US soil?
Now I do have a question for you Core... what is so bad about the government having info on you...? Unless you are up for a highly classified job that requires a very intensive background screening, I don\'t think it really matters. I am sure the government already knows more about us than we know about ourselves, but I won\'t lose any sleep over it.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Now I do have a question for you Core... what is so bad about the government having info on you...? Unless you are up for a highly classified job that requires a very intensive background screening, I don\'t think it really matters. I am sure the government already knows more about us than we know about ourselves, but I won\'t lose any sleep over it.
What I\'m saying is... THAT situation "you are up for a highly classified job that requires a very intensive background screening" or there is a high probability that were involved in a crime or terrorist activity are the only situations where the government should be permitted to have such information about me. They already have plenty of tools for finding terrorists. The Patriot Act went went too far beyond.
They shouldn\'t be able to collect now for no reason, and then use it later whenever they need it. There is a huge potential for abuse in such a system. Individuals working for the government could abuse it, and the institutions themselves could do so as well. Doesn\'t this concern you?
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
What I\'m saying is... THAT situation "you are up for a highly classified job that requires a very intensive background screening" or there is a high probability that were involved in a crime or terrorist activity are the only situations where the government should be permitted to have such information about me. They already have plenty of tools for finding terrorists. The Patriot Act went went too far beyond.
They shouldn\'t be able to collect now for no reason, and then use it later whenever they need it. There is a huge potential for abuse in such a system. Individuals working for the government could abuse it, and the institutions themselves could do so as well. Doesn\'t this concern you?
To be honest not really... If an individual does abuse my information... I smell a huge lawsuit. Seriously though, give some example of the worst things that could happen to you as a result of this? What terrible secrets are out there for them to collect data on? Some people may have these fears, but I do not. I am not perfect by any means and I do have a few skeletons lurking in my closet, but I will not live my life in fear of what someone knows about me. Core, are we important enough that the government will want to collect data on us? I doubt it.
-
The RAVE Act... if you are using drugs or you own a place where drugs are used (I am sure most club owners know what goes on in their clubs) then shame on you - you deserve what you get IMO.
Although I ultimatly feel that drugs should for the most part be legal, I do not expect such a radical change to happen quickly. My problem with the RAVE act is who it targets (club/small buisness owners) and the punishments.
The punishments are extremley unfair, especialy to the small buisnesses they will be targeting:
"\'(d)(1) Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the greater of--
\'(A) $250,000; or"
$250,000 to a small buisness is a huge amount of money, and they didn\'t even do anything wrong.
I find it funny that DH refers to the US as a dictatorship when the majority are against gay marriages, yet he feels the position of the minority should dictate terms to the majority.
I do not believe in a majoritys right to dictate morals to a minority, when this occours it is up to the minority to secure equality and destroy dictatorship.
I see nothing wrong with a smaller number of people controling a larger number if it is simply to stop inequality among people.
-
Giga,
1. Regarding the RAVE act: I thought conservatives were supposed to be gung ho about personal responsibility (holding the drug abuser responsible, not the club owner) and supporting the small business man, etc. We hear this ALL THE TIME from Republicans. So what\'s up?
2. I\'m not even prepared to admit that the majority opposes gay marriage, but even if they do (by a slim margin), sometimes the majority is wrong. Sorry, but it\'s a fact. This whole situation reminds me of the political climate prior to every great shift in thinking on civil rights. Before the civil rights changes under Johnson\'s administration, don\'t you think most people opposed it, just because "that\'s the way it\'s always been?" Humans just naturally fear change. It\'s nothing more complicated that that. Sometimes it takes LEADERSHIP to bring about a needed change in the face of people\'s fears and anxiety. How can giving every US citizen equal rights be wrong? That\'s the part I don\'t understand.
-
i\'ll just say this & leave this topic alone. i really don\'t have no problem with the gov\'t checkin\' me out, but what core stated about them issuing harsh fines on club owners is kinda unfair,..some clubs i\'ve been to you have cats sneaking drugs in no matter how tight security is..but on top of that i have to say this & this is my opinion & i don\'t want to sound racist when i say this.
Now just looking at it in general terms the gov\'t says it\'s has the right to check out all americans..now i see it like this..the gov\'t says this BUT i feel that they really are going to be checkin out people of arab decent or foreigners of arab decent. they have to say all americans for the sake of not profiling only arabs..think about it..bush stated this was a war on terror in all shapes & forms.now you won\'t see america going after the ira will you?(they are considered terrorists)..No because they are not a direct threat to the u.s..most likely i feel that is the real scenario..they just have to say all americans to protect themselves....imo ;)
-
In the height of \'The Troubles\' when the IRA were letting off a bomb a week a hell of a lot of fundraising was done in the US.
Some of you lot may even have given money to them as they didn\'t tend to say it was for bombing London/Warrington/Derry etc...
So in one way Clips I\'m backing you up...................only to bitch-slap you down. The IRA were never a threat to the U.S. Instead you were their money pit.
The public face of the IRA - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1633282.stm
The real face of the IRA -
http://www.battlehill395.freeserve.co.uk/Omagh.htm
The last thing any American should talk about when it comes to terrorism is the IRA, you don\'t know shit.
Sorry, a bit off topic but I wanted to get a dig in on this one bit and post a few other \'things\'
-
Sorry for being so ignorant...What\'s the IRA?
-
A brief overview.
The IRA came about because of the situation regarding Northern Ireland being a part of the U.K and Southern Ireland being a country in its own right. In my opinion I think we should just give N.Ireland back as we took it in a pretty shitty way and have just refused to give it back.
There are massive religious tensions between certain people, the UK being protestant and the Irish being Catholic, it was turned into a religious war and various parts of Northern Ireland and Mainland Britain were bombed over a period of around 30 years. There used to be a really stupid legal thing that prevented Jerry Adams’ voice being broadcast, he used to be dubbed by a different, heavily Irish voice-over guy whenever he appeared on the news as the public face of Sinn Fein (The IRA really). In the height of the troubles, when there were serious amounts of British soldiers patrolling the streets and covering corners etc women would come out of their houses with cakes for the troops, sometimes they contained broken glass, sometimes rat poison. An army Land Rover driving down the street became a target for the kids to throw bricks at, god help them if they crashed and were left without a vehicle, they’d probably have their bollocks cut off.
It’s bred into the kids to hate the others, Catholics don’t talk to protestants and vice versa, a lot of people may have never even been into the street next to them and it’s become a little fuzzy as to why. If you’re a Protestant and you’re discovered in a Catholic pub then you may very well be killed, it’s pretty hateful when you scrape past the top layer and look into it.
Sinn Fein used to go to the U.S to raise funds, as a lot of Americans seem to think they’re Irish it’s the perfect place to go to gain money for your cause, all talk of violence, guns, torture and kids killed by bombs in shopping centre bins is pushed to the back and out comes the public, presentable face of the IRA, business lunches and street collecting apparently being the best methods last time I read about it. Then they go back to Ireland, buy some more fertilizer and then blow up a Protestant pub or a chunk of London. The protestants have fought back with the Unionists, they have used pretty much the same tactics of terror and in the end no-one’s got anywhere and there are hundreds dead.
It just winds me up when Americans talk about the IRA without fully understanding the horrors surrounding them, a lot of which I’d probably be banned for posting stories of here.
My Brother-In-Law served in Ireland, I asked him what it was like, the answer, Hell.
Although it\'s eased off now since the politicians stopped warring, the people are still full of hate.
-
^^^you sound the same way i feel about the iraq war! ;) And the situation in irelan seems symbolic to the palestinian & israel war. Good read,..as i\'m not that familiar with the ireland & u.k. disputes.
-
For the issue of gay marriages, I am taking a fully conservative view on this. I do not like them and I do not think they should be allowed. No because I am some racist or whatever it is person, it is because if one of them adopts a child, that child is going to be a mess. Perhaps not let them adopt children or in the case of females, do not like them artifically inciminate. Think of the children!
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_judges
Bush Installs Judge, Bypassing Senate
Fri Feb 20, 6:29 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By JEFFREY MCMURRAY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Bypassing angry Senate Democrats, President Bush (news - web sites) installed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor as a U.S. appeals court judge on Friday in his second "recess appointment" of a controversial nominee in five weeks.
Pryor\'s federal appointment has been vigorously opposed by Democratic senators who have objected to his past comments and writings on abortion and homosexuality.
Bush praised Pryor as a "leading American lawyer" and said he had been pushed past the Senate\'s normal confirmation process because of "unprecedented obstructionist tactics" against Pryor and five other nominees.
The president said of the Democratic blockers: "Their tactics are inconsistent with the Senate\'s constitutional responsibility and are hurting our judicial system."
Pryor was immediately sworn in in Alabama by another 11th Circuit judge.
The Constitution gives the president authority to install nominees in office when Congress is not in session. Both houses were out this week for the Presidents Day holiday. But the appointments are good only until the end of the next session of Congress, in this case the end of 2005.
Last month, Bush used a similar appointment to promote Mississippi federal judge Charles Pickering to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites).
Bush said Pryor\'s "impressive record demonstrates his devotion to the rule of law and to treating all people equally under the law."
However, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), said none of Bush\'s nominees is more controversial than Pryor.
"Actions like this show the American people that this White House will stop at nothing to try to turn the independent federal judiciary into an arm of the Republican Party," Leahy said.
Democratic presidential contender John Edwards (news - web sites) said Pryor "has a long record of vigorous efforts to deny Americans\' basic rights under our laws."
"This is one more example of why we need a new president," said Edwards, D-N.C., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the appointment was "a constitutional response to an unconstitutional filibuster."
"I\'ve always heard that when you have nothing else to say, you call people names," Cornyn said. "That\'s apparently what Democrats are now resorting to, just name calling. Bill Pryor is a very qualified, highly professional nominee who has a proven track record of enforcing the law, rather than his own personal agenda."
Bush picked Pryor last April for a seat on the 11th Circuit that covers Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Abortion rights advocates immediately mounted a campaign against the nominee, citing his criticism of the Supreme Court\'s Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision that said women had a constitutional right to terminate pregnancy.
Pryor also came under fire for filing a Supreme Court brief in a Texas sodomy case comparing homosexual acts to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia."
Republicans have been unsuccessful in five attempts, the last one in November, at breaking through the parliamentary blockade that Democrats erected against Pryor\'s nomination.
Pryor, 41, is a founder of the Republican Attorneys General Association, which raises money for GOP attorneys general.
Besides Pickering and Pryor, Democrats also have used filibusters to block Bush\'s appeals court nominations of Judge Priscilla Owen, Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada and judges Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown. Estrada withdrew his nomination in September.
While Pryor didn\'t speak to reporters Friday, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, a close friend and Pryor\'s predecessor as Alabama\'s attorney general, said he had talked to him on the phone and found him to be "very comfortable with the situation."
Many Alabama Republicans remain angry at Pryor for leading the charge to oust the state\'s chief justice, Roy Moore, for refusing to abide by federal court orders requiring him to move a Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse.
Supporters hope almost two years on the federal appeals court will prove to Democrats that Pryor, as they say he showed in the Ten Commandments case, is willing to look at more than one side of an issue.
___
Associated Press reporter Phillip Rawls in Montgomery, Ala., contributed to this story.
Wow, Bush is just putting people that will likely agree with him if he ever tries to amend the Constitution so homosexuals aren\'t allowed to be married. This is some sneaky shit.
-
I am support of banning gay marriages. If those people wanna get married let them move to another country or planet.
-
God, if somehow the national constitution gets amended to redefine marraige then we really are at an all time low. There have been thousands of proposed amendments and 27 have been passed. Does the definition of marraige really need to be in there? In the grand scheme of things I really don\'t see it as something so incredibly important to the stability of the nation.
As for giving gays the right to marry....eh it\'s tricky, but I don\'t see anything wrong with at least civil unions. Allowing gay marraiges may open the floodgate to a whole list of new definitions of marraiges including polygamy and who knows what else.
-
I say let the gays get married. Its not gonna affect me so what do I care. Its not moral or anything like that but if two men want to get married, let them. Think of it this way too. If two women were to marry, the porn would be extraordinary ;) Not that its not right now :)
-
Can anyone tell me where it says we have a right to get married?
-
Can you tell me where it says we don\'t?
-
Marriage is something invented by man. We don\'t "need" to get married to have children. We don\'t need to get married to have sex and love one another. "Marriage" in different types of forms have been around for thousands of years and became a tradition and that you HAVE to get married if you love someone. Works for heteros and gays. They love eachother and want to get married. I say if it makes them happy, let them do it. Gay couples usually (according to some statistics) divorce in like 2 years or around that. I know divorce rates in gay marriages are higher than hetero marriages.
-
^^In what country?!
And I agree.
-
Originally posted by Phil
Can you tell me where it says we don\'t?
It is not fair to answer a question with a question.
-
Originally posted by Titan
Marriage is something invented by man. We don\'t "need" to get married to have children. We don\'t need to get married to have sex and love one another. "Marriage" in different types of forms have been around for thousands of years and became a tradition and that you HAVE to get married if you love someone. Works for heteros and gays. They love eachother and want to get married. I say if it makes them happy, let them do it. Gay couples usually (according to some statistics) divorce in like 2 years or around that. I know divorce rates in gay marriages are higher than hetero marriages.
I would be interested in see\'ing your stats on this for a few reasons.
(1) Offical gay marriages are new. It would be difficult to compare it to overall Hetrosexual marriages.
(2) There is a low number of gay marriages as opposed to the massive numbers of hetrosexual marriages. Therefor, if there are quite a few gay "divorces", then it looks worse than the hetrosexual numbers.
(3) It is fair to answer a question with a question ! ;)
(4) The homosexual\'s had it made. See, if they was smart, they would of just exchanged vows verbally and never done it through the legal system. Doing this avoids any divorces and having to split half your posessions with your ex-signifcant other. Now, they want to get married, which means they want to suffer through something every man tries to avoid...a divorce. I\'m sorry, but do you know how many guy\'s wish marriages was illegal, just for the simple fact they lost most of everything with their first divorce?!?!? Hell, I\'m hetrosexual and I would love to avoid marriage, due to the fact I don\'t want to lose most my stuff or take a chance of it... See, they had it made and they had to go screw it up.
;)
-
I don\'t what all the hub-bub is all about. Gay CIVIL marriages should be legal. Religious Gay Marriages are are something that religious sect should decide upon.
Something to do with the "Seperation of Church and State" which I agree with.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I would be interested in see\'ing your stats on this for a few reasons.
(1) Offical gay marriages are new. It would be difficult to compare it to overall Hetrosexual marriages.
(2) There is a low number of gay marriages as opposed to the massive numbers of hetrosexual marriages. Therefor, if there are quite a few gay "divorces", then it looks worse than the hetrosexual numbers.
(3) It is fair to answer a question with a question ! ;)
(4) The homosexual\'s had it made. See, if they was smart, they would of just exchanged vows verbally and never done it through the legal system. Doing this avoids any divorces and having to split half your posessions with your ex-signifcant other. Now, they want to get married, which means they want to suffer through something every man tries to avoid...a divorce. I\'m sorry, but do you know how many guy\'s wish marriages was illegal, just for the simple fact they lost most of everything with their first divorce?!?!? Hell, I\'m hetrosexual and I would love to avoid marriage, due to the fact I don\'t want to lose most my stuff or take a chance of it... See, they had it made and they had to go screw it up.
;)
I see your point. Two teachers in my school did a debate after school one day on this. I don\'t have any sources for this, just what I heard from them. Supposedly, New Zealand has gay marriages so I assume thats where the statistics came from. For the record, I don\'t support nor oppose gay marriages. I\'m very apathetic towards the matter. If they get that right, cool, if they don\'t, I don\'t give a damn. Its not going to affect me.
-
Originally posted by Ace
It is not fair to answer a question with a question.
Or is it?
Yeah, I just don\'t see a point in saying that we are not gauranteed the right to marry. I know it\'s the truth, but in all reality if the government felt like it, we could end up with no rights. It\'s not a matter of right to marry, but more of equal opportunity. Keep the view of the masses but protect the minority. I hope I made myself a little bit clearer.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Can anyone tell me where it says we have a right to get married?
I don\'t see how you could claim to have a free country.
-
I don\'t think it\'s a matter of having a free country. There are many things we can\'t do because of laws.
This is the way I see it. Call it a Civil Union, call it whatever you like but don\'t call it it marriage.
I think we should let the people vote on this and put the whole thing to rest.
-
Marriage has historically been the union between a man and a woman - gays can have their civil unions - I don\'t care, but as Ace said, don\'t call it marriage. Marriage is a heterosexual tradition.
The other problem I have with this is that the SF mayor is breaking the law. He is giving out marriage certificates because he feels he is above the law and doesn\'t have to answer to it. If he feels so passionately about it then take it to court - don\'t take the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach. To me he has behaved very irresponsibly regarding this whole issue and it seems more like an activists publicity stunt than a man who truley has a moral issue with gay marriage being illegal.
-
Laws are put in place to protect us. What harm is coming to you if John and Mark get married?
-
So are gays considered any less American than straight people? If not then why do they have less rights and aren\'t allowed the benefits of being legally married (tax breaks..etc).
I was once on the other side of the fence on this, but i\'ve come around to feel that everyone has a right to marry whoever they want, as long as they don\'t infringe on others rights or way of life. Sure this could open the floodgates to other alternative lifestyles (pyligamy...etc), but the laws in place prevent that from being legal.
I believe this is a state issue. Maybe that has to do with me being a libertarian. :p
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Laws are put in place to protect us. What harm is coming to you if John and Mark get married?
What do you not understand about how the mayor of SF is breaking the law by issuing gays marriage certificates? It is California law he is breaking or to be more precise it is law he is interpreting which is even more dangerous IN MY OPINION. The mayor of SF has no right what so ever to interpret laws - take it to the courts and let the court decide.
He completely bypassed the system of checks and balances which is the foundation of our government. If you think a law is wrong challenge it in court - just like they did in MA. Old Gavin has taken it upon himself to be the Legislature, Judge and Jury. Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Californians voted to recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman he decided that was wrong. Nothing like an liberal activist dictator... And you all say conservatives are bad...
:rolleyes:
The great thing about this is we will finally have a constitutional amendment that declares marriage as being between a man and a woman. If two gays want to be partners - fine - have a civil union.
-
It\'s sad when it comes to a time where the Constitution will be amended not to protect the liberties of the residents of this country, but to restrict the liberties that any person has. If the Constitution is amended it will not be a sign of the superiority and morality of the people who favor that proposal, it will only show a sign that this country\'s values are becoming more obscure when it comes to acceptance of change.
To me it\'s not a matter of being "liberal", it\'s a matter of understanding that we CAN\'T control the feelings of others. We can\'t prohibit others to show the maximum show of affection through marriage.
You got it wrong, that\'s why conservatives are bad in the first place. What\'s next? A black man can\'t marry a white woman?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
What do you not understand about how the mayor of SF is breaking the law by issuing gays marriage certificates? It is California law he is breaking or to be more precise it is law he is interpreting which is even more dangerous IN MY OPINION. The mayor of SF has no right what so ever to interpret laws - take it to the courts and let the court decide.
He completely bypassed the system of checks and balances which is the foundation of our government. If you think a law is wrong challenge it in court - just like they did in MA. Old Gavin has taken it upon himself to be the Legislature, Judge and Jury. Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Californians voted to recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman he decided that was wrong. Nothing like an liberal activist dictator... And you all say conservatives are bad...
:rolleyes:
The great thing about this is we will finally have a constitutional amendment that declares marriage as being between a man and a woman. If two gays want to be partners - fine - have a civil union.
Ok, let me make it a little more clear for you. I\'m not talking about what the mayor of SF is doing. I\'m simply commenting on how it might become an ammendment. How does it hurt you when two gay guys get married?
-
Should we have any limits?
-
Amending the constitution is overkill.....
-
I forgot that gays aren\'t human beings, silly me.
-
Now who said that?
-
It\'s implied...
"They..."
"Marriage" is something "normal" people do and homosexuality is "out of the normal"...remember...
-
No it isn\'t. Should we redefine the word normal also?
-
SHUT IT DAMN IT!! :) They already went through all that and you know what I mean so don\'t get technical.
Should we define technical?
-
:) I\'ve been dealing with this issue on two other boards so I am getting somewhat punch-drunk.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Ok, let me make it a little more clear for you. I\'m not talking about what the mayor of SF is doing. I\'m simply commenting on how it might become an ammendment. How does it hurt you when two gay guys get married?
It hurts the INSTITUTION of marriage for which I am a part of. When you have a wife feel free to comment on the institution that a majority of Americans still feel is sacred. This leads me to ask you a few questions regarding the Mayor and what he is doing...
Do you not approve of what he is doing? Do you feel he has overstepped his bounds by issuing marriage certificates? Since no politician or judge in California has any backbone to actually enforce the law an ammendment is the only answer.
Also 38 states have already passed legislation recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman. 38 is the number needed to call a Constitutional Convention and bypass Congress all together since the Democrats oppose gay marriage, yet won\'t support an ammendment saying as much... go figure :rolleyes:
Do some of you even know what a democracy is?
As far as Jbean saying its a matter for each state... sorry that won\'t work either since all 50 states are bound to recognize the laws of other states. Meaning if you get married in state #1 states 2 through 50 have to recognize your marriage.
-
Sacred in what way?
They already said this amendment might take some years, and when it does it will affect future generations also. Do we really need to set a standard that defines marriage? Why? What is the purpose of doing so? Save you money?
It should be a matter of the State. It\'s all a matter of a person\'s opinion and shouln\'t have anything to do with Government. Government should be blind to sexual orientation, race, age...etc when it comes to things like these. The only reason Bush is against it is because of HIS OWN POSITION on the topic. Christianity > Just Government I suppose.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
It hurts the INSTITUTION of marriage for which I am a part of. When you have a wife feel free to comment on the institution that a majority of Americans still feel is sacred.
I find the ideological part of this the most interesting. Are you saying that if gay marriages were fully legal, you might one day say to your wife "Wow, our marriage feels somehow tarnished and less meaningful. Do you feel it too? Hey, you know what, I think it\'s because of those GAYS who got married down the street!"
I gotta tell you honestly I think it\'s a cop out to use the argument of this weakening the INSTITUTION of marriage. I think there is some other reason behind this. I\'m not going to venture a guess as to what that is, because quite honestly, I have no idea what it could be. I simply don\'t understand this "institution of marriage" argument at all. I wish someone would help me understand it, and I\'m open to hearing it.
I attended the gay wedding of a friend of mine some years ago. Of course it had no legal significance, but in a way I think that only underscores the strength of the commitment and love that went into that relationship. I\'ve been to many many marriages over the years, and this one was the MOST heartfelt and meaningful of them all. It was a very moving experience for me, and after that, I find it hard to believe that a legal gay marriage could in any way tarnish the institution of marriage. THAT marriage would have only strengthened it.
Maybe if more Americans had gay friends like mine (YES, I HAVE MORE THAN ONE! :)) , and attended a gay wedding like the one I did, then this whole thing would become the non-issue it deserves to be. Then any human could marry any other human if they wanted to.
-
Then any human could marry any other human if they wanted to.
No limits?
-
I always thought the "Institution" of marriage was based upon love, trust and respect for your significant other...Not what sex they are...Just a guess...
-
Originally posted by Ace
No limits?
How about displaying the teeth before I put my arm into that trap?
-
:laughing:
Just a little closer . . . come on . . . one more step . . .
-
I think he\'s just trying to pull strings....
How long are the strings?
Define pulling?
A limit to pulling?!
-
It all depends on what is is.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
It hurts the INSTITUTION of marriage for which I am a part of. When you have a wife feel free to comment on the institution that a majority of Americans still feel is sacred. This leads me to ask you a few questions regarding the Mayor and what he is doing...
Do you not approve of what he is doing? Do you feel he has overstepped his bounds by issuing marriage certificates? Since no politician or judge in California has any backbone to actually enforce the law an ammendment is the only answer.
Also 38 states have already passed legislation recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman. 38 is the number needed to call a Constitutional Convention and bypass Congress all together since the Democrats oppose gay marriage, yet won\'t support an ammendment saying as much... go figure :rolleyes:
Do some of you even know what a democracy is?
What he is doing is completely wrong but that doesn\'t change my stance on same sex marriage. As for knowing what democracy is, kind of pathetic that we are still in a time of age where inequality is rampant. The fact that more than half the country is against this goes to show you people aren\'t right in the head. I do agree though on whatever is finally decided should be enforced nationwide.
Now who said that?
You might as well of considering you won\'t give them the same rights.
Earlier I asked you how it hurts your life if John and Mark were married and you state that it hurts the institution. That isn\'t an explanation at all. I completely agree with where Cored was taking this. What they are doing with their life doesn\'t affect your marriage any. He wouldn\'t go as far as to guess why but I could take a stab in the dark. Frankly I don\'t agree with their lifestyle but I don\'t let that affect my opinion on all this.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I find the ideological part of this the most interesting. Are you saying that if gay marriages were fully legal, you might one day say to your wife "Wow, our marriage feels somehow tarnished and less meaningful. Do you feel it too? Hey, you know what, I think it\'s because of those GAYS who got married down the street!"
I gotta tell you honestly I think it\'s a cop out to use the argument of this weakening the INSTITUTION of marriage. I think there is some other reason behind this. I\'m not going to venture a guess as to what that is, because quite honestly, I have no idea what it could be. I simply don\'t understand this "institution of marriage" argument at all. I wish someone would help me understand it, and I\'m open to hearing it.
I attended the gay wedding of a friend of mine some years ago. Of course it had no legal significance, but in a way I think that only underscores the strength of the commitment and love that went into that relationship. I\'ve been to many many marriages over the years, and this one was the MOST heartfelt and meaningful of them all. It was a very moving experience for me, and after that, I find it hard to believe that a legal gay marriage could in any way tarnish the institution of marriage. THAT marriage would have only strengthened it.
Maybe if more Americans had gay friends like mine (YES, I HAVE MORE THAN ONE! :)) , and attended a gay wedding like the one I did, then this whole thing would become the non-issue it deserves to be. Then any human could marry any other human if they wanted to.
You asked for a frank answer and I will give you one. Homosexuality is not accepted in this country. Sorry, but marriage is a heterosexual ceremony - not a homosexual one. Gays will never be accepted by the majority of this country because it goes against the social morals and norms of our culture. Don\'t ask me to define it, because everyone here has a good idea of what is considered normal and what isn\'t. No need in arguing semantics.
Gays have an agenda to make homosexuality an accepted norm and this is part of it IMO. No offense core, but I would never attend a gay "wedding" as they don\'t exist and are a farce.
The institution of marriage will feel tarnished if gays are allowed to marry - I do feel that way.
-
GigaShadow: I hope you never get a guy son/daughter cause that would be hell for him/her. Open your mind
-
Making it a norm and just accepting it are two different things. It\'s a shame that people could be so close-minded as to treat them like second class citizens.
-
I didn\'t realize that the status of ones citizenship in this country depended on one being allowed to participate in Holy matrimony...
-
Originally posted by Bjorn
GigaShadow: I hope you never get a guy son/daughter cause that would be hell for him/her. Open your mind
It would be hell for me as well.
On another note, I love being attacked by so called philanthropists on this board for not supporting the idea of gay marriage. I am all for them having civil unions, but that doesn\'t seem to be good enough for the activist bunch here. :rolleyes:
-
Thats great that you will atleast appease them enough to give them civil unions. :rolleyes: How you speak of homosexuals is what hurts your cause and is half the reason why I\'m debating with you.
-
I am entitled to my opinion... as you are to yours. Neither is going to change.
-
This is true, never said you couldn\'t have that opinion. Also, don\'t think that I\'m completely ignoring the fact that you are for Civil Unions, thats better than most.
-
Civil unions would probably put a quick end to this but what\'s happening in San Fran and Massachusetts is making some people who think civil unions are OK turning their back on that as well.
What really pisses me off about this debate is that anyone who opposes this is instantly called a bigot or homophobe.
-
We had this discussion in class today. Now I don\'t understand why one needs to get married. If you live with your boy/girlfriend for 6 months, same residence and a joint account, you get the same benefits as a married couple. Now what I don\'t understand is why two men or women want to get married if they reap the same benefits as a married couple. Maybe it has to do with a piece of paper. Now it makes me question about hetero marriages. If you get the same legal benefits if you get married to a woman (hetero meaning), what is the point to get married? I can still procreate without getting married. I can still have crazy hot sex without getting married.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Civil unions would probably put a quick end to this but what\'s happening in San Fran and Massachusetts is making some people who think civil unions are OK turning their back on that as well.
What really pisses me off about this debate is that anyone who opposes this is instantly called a bigot or homophobe.
When you have someone saying they won\'t ever attend a same sex marriage and calling it a farce kind of reinforces that.
Seriously, what reason is there to not letting them marry other than being a bigot or homophobe? It\'s a form of non-acceptance, maybe not as harsh as being called a bigot.
-
Why must we who don\'t want it be forced to accept it? Why is it in this country that the tiny vocal minority almost always gets what it wants regardless of what the majority wants? As Ace said its funny that because some of us don\'t accept homosexuality as a normal thing we are labeled bigots and homophobes.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I can still have crazy hot sex without getting married.
Ah, the wise words of a 17 year old...
(kettle...pot...black... i know, shutup)
-
I just don\'t understand this whole "sanitcy" of marraige, when really it\'s not that big of a deal. It is primiarly a religious act. Shouldn\'t religion be seperated from the state? If they are allowed civil unions - we may as allow them to have the right to a religious marrriage.
My two cents, as I said.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Why must we who don\'t want it be forced to accept it? Why is it in this country that the tiny vocal minority almost always gets what it wants regardless of what the majority wants? As Ace said its funny that because some of us don\'t accept homosexuality as a normal thing we are labeled bigots and homophobes.
It\'s only funny because it\'s partially true. You won\'t agree to them being allowed to marry because you say it will ruin what has been made, only because they are gay. That can be explained as simply as homophobia, or maybe you\'re just a plain old bigot. You\'ve restated yourself a thousand times that it\'s against the norms of the country to accept it. But just because they don\'t accept it doesn\'t mean you have to disagree also. You are just practicing your right to dislike them for being different. You aren\'t nearly as innocent as you\'re trying to make yourself out to be.
Also, when did I ever say the minority should decide? Oh really, not once I hear, wow. What the country decides as a majority is what goes but that doesn\'t mean I\'ll just step in line and agree.
-
^^^
The majority doesn\'t always win. Year 2000 elections...
Never once did anybody explain what the "institution" of marriage means or is.
You might consider the homosexuals right now as a minority. A minority that is beind suppresed by the close mindness of the majority. You might even make a slight comparison to minorities back in the days when racism was greater(not that it\'s over). The homosexuals are going to fight for their rights and eventually will succeed. You can\'t ban a person\'s right to love and show their love through marriage.
The only weddings that don\'t exist and are false are the ones that happen for other reasons than love, respect and the willingness to live with the other person for the rest of your life.
I don\'t know what majority you speak off Giga, show me some realistic stats that proves it. And none of the:
"Mr. Bling-Bling, you don\'t have any idea of how intelligent I am. I highly doubt that you watch the news because your too busy watching rap videos. Your stupidity is greatly showing through your moronic..." blah blah blah
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
^^^
The majority doesn\'t always win. Year 2000 elections...
Never once did anybody explain what the "institution" of marriage means or is.
You might consider the homosexuals right now as a minority. A minority that is beind suppresed by the close mindness of the majority. You might even make a slight comparison to minorities back in the days when racism was greater(not that it\'s over). The homosexuals are going to fight for their rights and eventually will succeed. You can\'t ban a person\'s right to love and show their love through marriage.
The only weddings that don\'t exist and are false are the ones that happen for other reasons than love, respect and the willingness to live with the other person for the rest of your life.
I don\'t know what majority you speak off Giga, show me some realistic stats that proves it. And none of the:
"Mr. Bling-Bling, you don\'t have any idea of how intelligent I am. I highly doubt that you watch the news because your too busy watching rap videos. Your stupidity is greatly showing through your moronic..." blah blah blah
Mystiq... get a dictionary and look up the definition of marriage. Nevermind here it is:
\\Mar"riage\\, n. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
Homosexuals will always be in the minority. At least you and the entire species better hope so.
Once again you don\'t think before you post - You don\'t know of what majority I speak of? Take a look whelp...
"However, when it comes to state laws, just 30 percent would favor a law allowing gays and lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex, while 64 percent would oppose it." That is an overwhelming majority that don\'t approve of gay marriage."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112534,00.html
Please don\'t respond unless you have something valid to debate Mystiq. It is a waste of my time.
-
Giga, check your ego at the door.
Also, you know what I think is funny? The fact that you complain about being labeled but when I give my reasoning you don\'t address it.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Giga, check your ego at the door.
Also, you know what I think is funny? The fact that you complain about being labeled but when I give my reasoning you don\'t address it.
You claim you are somehow enlightened and open minded because you support something that is morally wrong. I don\'t have any problem with homosexuals as people, I don\'t approve of their culture or lifestyle - therefore I do have a problem with them wanting to invade my culture with their beliefs. What you consider an attack, I consider a defensive action.
As I said, I have no problem with them as people and if they want to bugger someone of the same sex - go for it, just don\'t try and portray "your" lifestyle as acceptable when in fact it is not.
-
I think that most people who are against gay marriages don\'t have close friends who are gay (I have several, as does my wife). These are just my feelings, I could very well be wrong about that with members of this board. My gay friends (the ones that aren\'t swingers) show so much love and affection for each other, easily equal to, or even surpassing many heterosexual or "normal" marriages.
People who don\'t even want to consider the fact that gay couples love each other just as much as straight couples shows a closed mind in my opinion.(like bjorn said earlier)
And I don\'t know if those of you who oppose gay marriage have children, and how would / will you handle it if one of your kids turn out gay. Would you be one of those swell parents that will pretty much forget that they even exist?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
You claim you are somehow enlightened and open minded because you support something that is morally wrong. I don\'t have any problem with homosexuals as people, I don\'t approve of their culture or lifestyle - therefore I do have a problem with them wanting to invade my culture with their beliefs. What you consider an attack, I consider a defensive action.
As I said, I have no problem with them as people and if they want to bugger someone of the same sex - go for it, just don\'t try and portray "your" lifestyle as acceptable when in fact it is not.
Naming morals and legally banning is treading closely with the mixing of church and state.
-
Then if it is a religious issue, gay marriage is wrong and a sin. The bible certainly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman does it not?
That is why civil unions are the answer. It is a compromise that everyone can live with. Also don\'t kid yourself about not mixing church and state... its already happened for the most part. NOTE: I am not religious, but you would have to be blind not to realize that religion (Christianity) is embedded in our government, from our money to the pledge of allegiance to the swearing in of officials its there.
-
Originally posted by JBean
People who don\'t even want to consider the fact that gay couples love each other just as much as straight couples shows a closed mind in my opinion.(like bjorn said earlier)
I never once said they didn\'t love each other as much as heterosexual couples do.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Then if it is a religious issue, gay marriage is wrong and a sin. The bible certainly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman does it not?
That is why civil unions are the answer. It is a compromise that everyone can live with. Also don\'t kid yourself about not mixing church and state... its already happened for the most part. NOTE: I am not religious, but you would have to be blind not to realize that religion (Christianity) is embedded in our government, from our money to the pledge of allegiance to the swearing in of officials its there.
Religion playing a role in that part of the government doesn\'t make it right, especially when instead of swearing in someone, it\'s the difference on a persons rights. Religion should play no role AT ALL, which right now it does far too much.
-
Gigashadow, I am not going to debate whether it is morally wrong or not.
But, I will debate whether it is the government, or the majoritys right to inforce their moral opinions on other people.
Don\'t be so quick to judge people.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Then if it is a religious issue, gay marriage is wrong and a sin. The bible certainly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman does it not?
That is why civil unions are the answer. It is a compromise that everyone can live with. Also don\'t kid yourself about not mixing church and state... its already happened for the most part. NOTE: I am not religious, but you would have to be blind not to realize that religion (Christianity) is embedded in our government, from our money to the pledge of allegiance to the swearing in of officials its there.
i agree 100% here..i\'ve stated before marriage is between man & woman period. that said i don\'t have a problem with them getting married, but i think someone here said it best that it will open the floodgates to a whole bunch of other S**t.
Now that\'s the only part where i agree with giga,..i would still attend a gay wedding & such,..as i know a few gay people and they are cool as hell, heh one i know is even thugged out (you wouldn\'t know it tho ;) ) there was a thread where i spoke about my son seeing two men kissing I can\'t remember what thread that was,..basically he stated illl, or uh uh not me..and i just told him some men & women are in relationships and left it at that.
-
I am a Christian and I try to live my life as close to God\'s word as I can. I am a true believer that Church and State should be seperate. While I do see Homosexuality as a sin, it\'s not my place to judge these people or deny them all this country has to offer. (that goes for our laws as well)
It\'s a pretty sensitive issue for everyone, I don\'t see anything wrong with giving them their civil unions. I just see it as a "lesser" quailty of commitment. I see it equating to equal rights and homosexuals don\'t have them as of now.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Mystiq... get a dictionary and look up the definition of marriage. Nevermind here it is:
\\Mar"riage\\, n. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
Homosexuals will always be in the minority. At least you and the entire species better hope so.
Once again you don\'t think before you post - You don\'t know of what majority I speak of? Take a look whelp...
"However, when it comes to state laws, just 30 percent would favor a law allowing gays and lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex, while 64 percent would oppose it." That is an overwhelming majority that don\'t approve of gay marriage."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112534,00.html
Please don\'t respond unless you have something valid to debate Mystiq. It is a waste of my time.
Majorities have won in the past. But only to protect the rights of whatever kind of people are being banned from their rights. This time the majority is against banning a persons rights. As stated before, this is the kind of oppression the majority loses. It\'s happened before and as long as this government really does wish to keep everybody\'s rights intact, it will happen once more.
-
even rosie o\'donnel just tied the knot..yo..ever since she came out..(well we all knew she was already)...she\'s been straight butch! heh you know she\'s the MAN in her relationship!
-
If you wanna be gay that is your life. But don\'t go trying to change shit to fit your lives. If marriage was meant for a man and women then that is what it is meant for.
Be gay live together and be happy but don\'t be trying to change shit so everybody has to conform to your life style.
That is what pisses me off about the gays. They want this and that.
Being gay is something that you choose to do plain and simple. I don\'t have a problem with your choice just keep it too yourself and don\'t try and force me to except it.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
If you wanna be gay that is your life. But don\'t go trying to change shit to fit your lives. If marriage was meant for a man and women then that is what it is meant for.
Be gay live together and be happy but don\'t be trying to change shit so everybody has to conform to your life style.
That is what pisses me off about the gays. They want this and that.
Being gay is something that you choose to do plain and simple. I don\'t have a problem with your choice just keep it too yourself and don\'t try and force me to except it.
Listen to what you\'re saying. You think they\'re crying, asking for attention, trying to get you to conform. But what this is about is equal rights. Also, how are you conforming any? Them being allowed to marry affects your life NONE.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Listen to what you\'re saying. You think they\'re crying, asking for attention, trying to get you to conform. But what this is about is equal rights. Also, how are you conforming any? Them being allowed to marry affects your life NONE.
Well directly know they will not affect my life. But I think somethings should be left alone.
I mean just because you decide you wanna be different means all of sudden you should be given certain rights.
Unlike womens rights, african american rights or such. This is totally different. This you choosing to have sex with the same sex so now everyone must accept it? I don\'t have a problem with them having sex just don\'t try and change laws to make it right in everyones eyes.
-
double post
-
It never will be right but should they get half the benefits of us just because of this?
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
I mean just because you decide you wanna be different means all of sudden you should be given certain rights.
Who said they decided anything?
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
If you wanna be gay that is your life. But don\'t go trying to change shit to fit your lives. If marriage was meant for a man and women then that is what it is meant for.
Be gay live together and be happy but don\'t be trying to change shit so everybody has to conform to your life style.
That is what pisses me off about the gays. They want this and that.
Being gay is something that you choose to do plain and simple. I don\'t have a problem with your choice just keep it too yourself and don\'t try and force me to except it.
YOU TELL EM BOY!!!
And America is for the WHITE people!!!
Africa is for the BLACK!!!
Mexico is for the MEXICANS!!!
Those damn minorities are just like the gays, always wanting more rights.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
I mean just because you decide you wanna be different means all of sudden you should be given certain rights.
Unlike womens rights, african american rights or such. This is totally different. This you choosing to have sex with the same sex so now everyone must accept it? I don\'t have a problem with them having sex just don\'t try and change laws to make it right in everyones eyes.
Hypothetical question: Purely hypothetical , what if, we discover that homosexuality is indeed a disorder due to a chemical imbalance in the brain / hormones? Should we continue to make it illegal and punish them for something that they was born with? I ask this, because your whole arguement is that they choose to be different - what if they are born different? There are quite a few studies that have came dangerously close to proving this . If that\'s the case, then we as a supposed civilized soceity, cannot punish them for a "birth defect". Can we?
Also whatever happened to seperating the church from the state? Marriage is a religious ceremony. However, to play devil\'s advocate, if you get married you share benefits and many other goverment based items. Insurance, benefits, life insurance and so on. So, while marriage is a religious ceremony, it also has ties to the state aspect. Being married does carry goverment benefits - so that\'s an issue.
That\'s just two points. As for my actual opinion, I have no problem with it. Do I think we need to amend the consitituion? No. I say leave it up to the states to decide for each state. You say people aren\'t ready for homosexuality to become mainstream (sorry, it already is, otherwise \'Queer eye for the Straight Guy\' wouldn\'t be a hit). Well, the best way to tell is let the people vote. That\'s what democracy is, let the people decide what they are ready for. Let the heterosexual\'s vote, let the homosexual\'s vote in each state. Let each state decide, I\'m sure some state\'s won\'t allow it (Kentucky for example) and I\'m sure some will (Cali, for example).
Then again, when was the last time the American people got to make the decision? This effects everyone, therefor everyone should have an effect on the outcome.
Oh yeah and I still want an answer to my first question!
Just my two cents.
/ ;) /
-
Today I had to write a sarcastic and Ironic essay for a discussion and the topic was ...gay marriages...
I was glad to hear that our President has decided to amend the Constituion and ban gay marriages. This not only proves his intelligence, but also his honesty and great leadership. Usually the Constitution is amended in order to protect the American Citizens rights. But this is one of the few times that it\'s necessary, there is no other way to stop the evil creatures from imposing their homosexuality on us by getting married. The institution of marriage will be hurt, and to those who claim that the divorce rate is at it\'s highest have no clue of what is going on. In fact, why stop there? We should just ban all the people who look, feel and love differently.
We should ban inter-racial marriages also. It\'s equally disguisting to see a black man marry a white woman as a man marrying another man. It\'s not normal for this to happen. We should also ban marriages of elderly couples because they will die soon anywyas.
Bush should ban the black, Hispanic, and Asian\'s rights. There is no space for people different that us and we shouln\'t accept it. We shouln\'t allow women or gays to serve in our army, it doesn\'t matter how patriotic they are. If they are not like Mr. Bush and the majority of us, they shouln\'t be American in the first place.
Mr. Bush has done a great deal for this country, even if he did lie. He is right now trying to amend the Constitution because of his religious values, which are honest and Christian like, which the Constitution it self bans.
It\'s pure coincedence that his proposal is around the time of re-election. Let the poor be poor, and the ones that aren\'t like us should be banned, that is Mr. Bush\'s and the Republican way. The way America should be.
....Yup, got full credit for it!! And I took some ideas from "A Modest Proposal" by Mr. Swift...Let\'s all eat babies!!
-
No offense, bud, but if you got full credit for that essay there is something severely wrong with the American school system.
:)
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
No offense, bud, but if you got full credit for that essay there is something severely wrong with the American school system.
:)
:laughing:
Anyway, sort of OT on the subject... Our founding fathers meant for the US Constitution to be ammended/examined/updated every 20-50 years as they knew that the future would make certain ammendments obsolete and there would be a need to create new ammendments. For example - The 2nd and 3rd Ammendments are outdated and should be removed IMO. We no longer need a standing "militia" - we have our armed services. Back when this was written the US had no standing army.
On the other side of the issue, new issues arise that need to be addressed by the Constitution. Some people think of the Constitution as this sacred document that shouldn\'t be touched and if that was the case, why did our founding fathers design it so that it could be ammended?
-
Well It was for a discussion and we only had 15 minutes to come up with something...
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Anyway, sort of OT on the subject... Our founding fathers meant for the US Constitution to be ammended/examined/updated every 20-50 years as they knew that the future would make certain ammendments obsolete and there would be a need to create new ammendments. For example - The 2nd and 3rd Ammendments are outdated and should be removed IMO. We no longer need a standing "militia" - we have our armed services. Back when this was written the US had no standing army.
On the other side of the issue, new issues arise that need to be addressed by the Constitution. Some people think of the Constitution as this sacred document that shouldn\'t be touched and if that was the case, why did our founding fathers design it so that it could be ammended?
They also in designing it made it very hard to ammend, in such a way that it wouldn\'t be changed to reflect passing trends and popular opinions of the times, but rather to address universal issues that wouldn\'t or shouldn\'t shift over time.
Another things that the founding fathers talked about, by the way, was tyranny of the majority. They were afraid the majority would use the democratic system to infringe on the rights of minority groups. That is exactly what I see happening here. Even if the majority is opposed to granting gay people the equal right to marriage, that doesn\'t make it right. You could go back in time in our nation and find times when people thought allowing an interracial couple to marry was equally offensive. The fact is, things change, and the trend is towards homosexuality becoming more and more accepted. That is pretty clear just from looking at its increasing role in popular culture. That\'s why in the same way, a constitutional amendment, in my opinion, is completely unneccesary, and is just overkill and inappropriate. Of course, I don\'t think such an amendment would ever pass anyway.
I think the answer to this question should be simple. The government should grant civil unions to homosexuals. These would give the same rights that any heterosexual married couple has now. At the same time, the government should only grant civil unions to heterosexual couples as well. Marriage is a religious issue. Let a church marry two people. The government needs only to acknowledge that they are together for the sake of the various benefits that go along with marriage, so why should they do more than that for either kind of couple? Marriage could then be performed by an appropriate person not related to the government.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
They also in designing it made it very hard to ammend, in such a way that it wouldn\'t be changed to reflect passing trends and popular opinions of the times, but rather to address universal issues that wouldn\'t or shouldn\'t shift over time.
Another things that the founding fathers talked about, by the way, was tyranny of the majority. They were afraid the majority would use the democratic system to infringe on the rights of minority groups. That is exactly what I see happening here. Even if the majority is opposed to granting gay people the equal right to marriage, that doesn\'t make it right. You could go back in time in our nation and find times when people thought allowing an interracial couple to marry was equally offensive. The fact is, things change, and the trend is towards homosexuality becoming more and more accepted. That is pretty clear just from looking at its increasing role in popular culture. That\'s why in the same way, a constitutional amendment, in my opinion, is completely unneccesary, and is just overkill and inappropriate. Of course, I don\'t think such an amendment would ever pass anyway.
It is all in the interpretation of the Constitution - which the Supreme Court has in its power. They proclaimed themselves the only entity that shall be allowed to interpret it. This happened back in the early 1800\'s so there is really no use in arguing who is as fault for that. In essence the Supreme Court made themselves the most powerful branch of government seeing as they can rule something unconstitutional even if it isn\'t. The other two branches don\'t have that luxury.
The acceptance of homosexuality is debatable. The media, I am not referring to the news, but rather the entertainment industry portrays it as acceptable when in fact most of America disapproves of it.
I do agree with you that they should be given Civil Unions and you are right marriage is mostly a religious ceremony. What happened to seperation of church and state - as I said in another post let\'s not kid ourselves. Yesterday the courts ruled that Roman Catholic charities have to cover birth control in the health insurance they give to their employees. I don\'t agree with the Catholic stance on birth control, but who do the California Supreme Court Justices think they are by telling a religious organization what it can and can not do?
-
True, although I never said it was unconstitutional. I think it very well could be. I just think that such action would be against what the intentions of those who set up the constitution, and basically wouldn\'t be an appropriate ammendment.
And can ammendments be declared unconstitutional? I thought the whole point was that they were changing the constitution and thus altering what is and what isn\'t unconstitutional.
As for the acceptance of homosexuality...it prolly is debatable. However, over the course of the past 30 or 40 years, I think it\'s very safe to say that it\'s much more out in the open. There is less danger with being openly gay than there used to be, and it\'s not as much of a taboo subject anymore.
And as for the seperation of church and state, I think what the state can or should be able to impose on religious organizations is a completely different story. I just think that in this case the problem is solved if they take themselve out of the religious and moral aspect of the issue, and let that be decided by the individual religious groups. That doesn\'t seem like a government issue to me.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
True, although I never said it was unconstitutional. I think it very well could be. I just think that such action would be against what the intentions of those who set up the constitution, and basically wouldn\'t be an appropriate ammendment.
And can ammendments be declared unconstitutional? I thought the whole point was that they were changing the constitution and thus altering what is and what isn\'t unconstitutional.
See my original post again - I added some things...
Anyway the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment (Prohibition), but that was primarily the legislative branch.
Clarification -
One of the Supreme Court’s most important responsibilities is to decide cases that raise questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution. This is known as judicial review and enables the Court to invalidate both federal and state laws when they conflict with the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation, its decisions can be changed only by another Supreme Court decision or by a constitutional amendment.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?
-
Yeah, I saw. I editted my post too :)
Well, I think the intended check on that was that if the Supreme Court is able to interpret something in a way that it wasn\'t meant to be, and the legislative branch disagrees with this, they can ammend the constitution to take out any room for interpretation. Also, can supreme court justices be taken out of office?
-
The Supreme court may have the last say on things, but they express the view of the president and past presidents. Who do you think put them there. Plus they have to be approved by congress. It\'s not like any joe schmoe can waltz in there and say things are unconstitutional.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Anyway, sort of OT on the subject... Our founding fathers meant for the US Constitution to be ammended/examined/updated every 20-50 years as they knew that the future would make certain ammendments obsolete and there would be a need to create new ammendments. For example - The 2nd and 3rd Ammendments are outdated and should be removed IMO. We no longer need a standing "militia" - we have our armed services. Back when this was written the US had no standing army.
Even more off topic.
Have you ever heard of the State Defense Forces(not many people have)? They are supposed to be Americas very last line of Defense. They are (state) government sanctioned militias and they respond to the authority of the state\'s governor. Not all states support them though.
I just thought it was interesting that some states have their own armies.
-
Yes Supreme Court Justices can be impeached. It has never happened though.
-
Originally posted by Phil
The Supreme court may have the last say on things, but they express the view of the president and past presidents. Who do you think put them there. Plus they have to be approved by congress. It\'s not like any joe schmoe can waltz in there and say things are unconstitutional.
Somewhat true... more recently supreme court and appeals judges tend to have their own agenda. The California Supreme Court is notorious.
-
I have said it once ...and i\'ll say it again.
Didn\'t think you had any rights or freedom left ....
Bush & co have been Pissing on your bill of rights the day he bought his way into power.
What ever happend to the Land of the Free ?
or was that sold as back-handers to Bush\'s Rich firends... who bought him the election ?
-
I wouldn\'t say Bush bought the election as much as our messed up system handed it to him.
-
Still the end result was it turned democracy into a sham.
lets hope that in 244 days it won\'t be the same again.
-
I hope Bush wins. Democrats are weak and scared and pander to weaklings.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
I have said it once ...and i\'ll say it again.
What ever happend to the Land of the Free ?
or was that sold as back-handers to Bush\'s Rich firends... who bought him the election ?
Every politician has money - look at John Kerry who is married to the Heinz (ketchup) heiress. He is a little wanna be Kennedy clone anyway.
If you really want to know what has screwed this country up it is the political correct zealots who will sue over anything they don\'t agree with (religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc.) yet turn a blind eye when its directed towards white males - a good case in point is the incident that recently happened concerning Democratic Congressperson Corrine Brown who called the Bush Administration "racist white men."
U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown verbally attacked a top Bush administration official during a briefing on the Haiti crisis Wednesday, calling the President\'s policy on the beleaguered nation "racist" and his representatives "a bunch of white men."
By the way, the Bush official she attacked was Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega, a Mexican-American. When Noriega took offense to Brown\'s calling him a racist white man, she responded with "you all look alike to me".
I believe Trent Lott (Republican Senator - former Senate majority leader) made a slightly less offensive statement and was crucified for it. Funny how this incident made waves and this woman gets 2 days of press and its already forgotten. This type of crap is what is wrong with our country.
Here is a quote from House Rep Henry Bonilla (R) a founding member of the Congressional Hispanic Congress.
"If a Republican had made such derogatory, insulting and discriminatory remarks there would be a firestorm of outrage. The current silence is deafening," Bonilla, R-Texas, said. "If we truly advocate zero tolerance for racism, then we must insist the statement be addressed."
-
Factoid :The Media panders to women and liberals.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Still the end result was it turned democracy into a sham.
lets hope that in 244 days it won\'t be the same again.
No it didn\'t Bush won the election - he won the electoral votes so how can you call it a sham? Our system is not set up on simple majority for the whole country - it is set up for simple majority for each state. Each state in turn has a different number of delegates and Bush won the most delegates.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
No it didn\'t Bush won the election - he won the electoral votes so how can you call it a sham? Our system is not set up on simple majority for the whole country - it is set up for simple majority for each state. Each state in turn has a different number of delegates and Bush won the most delegates.
So between Bush and Gore , the man with the least number of votes won.
Ah ... its nice to see that Democracy is DEAD in the US like it is over here.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
If you really want to know what has screwed this country up it is the political correct zealots who will sue over anything they don\'t agree with (religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc.) yet turn a blind eye when its directed towards white males.
Do you really believe that is what screwed the country up? While I agree there is a double standard(on both sides of the political spectrum) on all of the issues you mentioned, I would have to say that the government\'s pandering to the highest bidder is what has screwed up the country.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
So between Bush and Gore , the man with the least number of votes won.
Ah ... its nice to see that Democracy is DEAD in the US like it is over here.
When you understand what I just said in my previous post come back and discuss it. IT IS NOT A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF VOTES FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Come on ooseven even you can understand this. It never has been that way - the man with the most electoral votes won and that is how it is set up here in the US. I know you live in the UK, but don\'t try and interpret something you don\'t understand.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Do you really believe that is what screwed the country up? While I agree there is a double standard(on both sides of the political spectrum) on all of the issues you mentioned, I would have to say that the government\'s pandering to the highest bidder is what has screwed up the country.
I really believe this country has gone to hell due to what I said before AND the continued attack on the moral foundation that has guided this country since its founding - prime example gay marriages. Another example is what they are teaching in schools today - it is practically revisionist history. It seems that in the age we live in everyone - from your average civil servant to Supreme Court Judges have their own personal agendas and are carrying them out. Look at California - Schwarzawimp has turned out to be a weak politician and "panderer" because he can\'t even stand up to enforce the laws in his own state due to his fear he won\'t be reelected. Being a Republican I can say I hope he isn\'t reelected.
The government and politicians have always pandered to the one with the most money that is nothing new.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I really believe this country has gone to hell due to what I said before AND the continued attack on the moral foundation that has guided this country since its founding - prime example gay marriages. Another example is what they are teaching in schools today - it is practically revisionist history. It seems that in the age we live in everyone - from your average civil servant to Supreme Court Judges have their own personal agendas and are carrying them out. Look at California - Schwarzawimp has turned out to be a weak politician and "panderer" because he can\'t even stand up to enforce the laws in his own state due to his fear he won\'t be reelected. Being a Republican I can say I hope he isn\'t reelected.
The government and politicians have always pandered to the one with the most money that is nothing new.
Are you saying that the country is becoming too liberal? Even if that were true(I think its arguable) why would that screw up the country? There are countries that are WAY more liberal than we will ever be and they don\'t have half the problems we do.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Are you saying that the country is becoming too liberal? Even if that were true(I think its arguable) why would that screw up the country? There are countries that are WAY more liberal than we will ever be and they don\'t have half the problems we do.
That\'s coz they don\'t have nearly 300 million people like the US does.
-
^^^Is that supposed to make sense? China dwarfs our population and they are extremely conservative, are they better off?
It is not a matter of conservative or liberal. If the government listened to the people as a whole then we would be better off. I know I would much rather prefer that than having some corporation or biased politician tell me how I am supposed to feel about something.
-
You also don\'t have a dozen different cultures and languages in those countries.
-
Can you imagine how much better off this country would be if little changes like term limits in the legislature and campaign finance reform were in place?
Of course that is like asking criminals to arrest themselves.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
^^^Is that supposed to make sense? China dwarfs our population and they are extremely conservative, are they better off?
It is not a matter of conservative or liberal. If the government listened to the people as a whole then we would be better off. I know I would much rather prefer that than having some corporation or biased politician tell me how I am supposed to feel about something.
China is a Communist country. And no, they are not better off. That was my point. Switzerland is by far a better place to live, compared to the US but they don\'t have even a 10th of the problems the US has.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Can you imagine how much better off this country would be if little changes like term limits in the legislature and campaign finance reform were in place?
Of course that is like asking criminals to arrest themselves.
If you keep giving them grief like this they might have to give themselves a pay raise to compensate.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Can you imagine how much better off this country would be if little changes like term limits in the legislature and campaign finance reform were in place?
Of course that is like asking criminals to arrest themselves.
I gotta say I agree with Black Samurai 100% on this point. I think that campaign finance reform is the number one thing that needs to happen to get this country back on track. That, combined with term limits in legislature would help to give the country back to more than just the elite majority that rule it now. Like Giga said, every politician has money, because in the current system you can\'t be a politician without being rich on any large scale. I think that is one of the very biggest problems with our current system.
-
I agree here as well. There definately need to be term limits for all legislators, nothing worse to me than a life-long politician (see Ted Kennedy).
It sucks that only the uber rich can run for office in this country any more. People with a spine and no handcuffs to special interest groups or large contributors have no chance... no chance at all.
-
[quoteIf you really want to know what has screwed this country up it is the political correct zealots who will sue over anything they don\'t agree with (religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc.) [/quote]
There are politicaly correct zealots and we still have a combination of church and state.....
Throughout history, liberal ideas have brought about the neccicary changes.
-
Yes, racism against white males have brought this country down the drain. It wasn\'t Bush\'s overspending or the unecessary war. And it couln\'t be the No Child Left Behind. Oh no, It was those damn minorities who think they can come to this country with their liberal views and deter this country from the path of prosperity. Homosexuals are trying to infect everyone of us with their abnormal behavior, it\'s not right! I mean WHO NEEDS MEDICAID ANYWAYS?! If they weren\'t born into certain luxuries then too bad.
If they are born into a family with no money, well, we shouln\'t pay for it. Let them get a job at Burger King and let them raise their kids with 400 dollar per month...
From what I understand. The state that caused all the commotion during the last Presidential campaign was Florida. Hmm...Wasn\'t Bush\'s brother the Governor? Didn\'t he stop the recount and just went with what they had?! Yup, sounds fair to me!...It\'s kind of odd that people are bringing this "majority" thing with the homosexuals getting married issue, but then say that the "majority" vote doesn\'t count in something as important as choosing a president.
It\'s not the homo\'s, minorities, whites three-legged people, etc.. that brought this country down. It\'s the over-conservative people that have helped keep it goind further down. If it wasn\'t for "liberal" ideas, black people wouln\'t be allowed to vote or get a job. "Liberal" ideas are the main ingredient that make this country free(but for how long?) in the first place. If the conservatives got it their way all the time, we couln\'t probably have a house unless you made 120,000 a year, your kid has blue eyes, your car is worth over 50,000 and you hate homo\'s...
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Yes, racism against white males have brought this country down the drain. It wasn\'t Bush\'s overspending or the unecessary war. And it couln\'t be the No Child Left Behind. Oh no, It was those damn minorities who think they can come to this country with their liberal views and deter this country from the path of prosperity. Homosexuals are trying to infect everyone of us with their abnormal behavior, it\'s not right! I mean WHO NEEDS MEDICAID ANYWAYS?! If they weren\'t born into certain luxuries then too bad.
So the country was perfectly fine until Bush got into office? Even YOU can\'t believe that.
Originally posted by SirMystiq
If the conservatives got it their way all the time, we couln\'t probably have a house unless you made 120,000 a year, your kid has blue eyes, your car is worth over 50,000 and you hate homo\'s...
If the Liberals got their way you would gross $120,000 a year and net $30,000 due to taxes, you couldn\'t get a job or get into school without first letting women and minorities get first crack, and the flag\'s colors would be changed from red, white and blue to native american pride, caucasian american, and happiness challenged. Its a two-way street. Neither one has the perfect formula.
-
Yeah, I guess I implied that but I really didn\'t mean it that way. It was just an example. But Bush is the president now and he isn\'t helping now is he?
If tax money was going to some family that doesn\'t need it I would have a problem, other than that, you are still helping other people out. Whether they are grateful or not.
Ha! Well I\'m a minority so it wouln\'t matter to me :) But I don\'t think that there are many liberals with that mind set. If the conservatives got it their way, minorities or women wouln\'t be allowed to get a job in the first place. It\'s all a matter of extremity, there are liberals that are that extreme on those issues. But mostly they aren\'t, I know alot that aren\'t like "Women should rule the world!"
And I\'m not going to try to spark a religious debate but it really amazes me to meet Christians who think that Republicans are the best because they are anti-abortion and anti-homos and stuff like that. SO WHAT?! Just because you are anti-choice doesn\'t mean you can rule the country. Another thing, how can they believe in Republican ways when even the Bible talks about sharing your riches and blah blah blah! Irony at its best...
-
I think the problem is that both parties are very much flawed, and change in those flaws doesn\'t seem to be happening. That\'s one reason I don\'t like the two party system. I hate both parties...it\'s too easy to disagree with both on so many issues. I don\'t know, it really feels like every time you vote, the question is as much who will do the least harm as who will do the most good.
-
do you think bush would have pushed that 83 billion for iraq for something worhtwhile in the country if not for the war?..nope. I believe term limits are the answer to put a quick end to all those old racist farts in congress..yes alot of them are racist..trust..alot of those cats have been in congress since the 50\'s & 60\'s with segregationilist views & themes.
It\'s time to let some younger politicians in there with fresh ideas & new ways of thinking. Not saying that some of these young politicians wouldn\'t be racist maybe some are..but i feel most will be in touch with issues that effect us today...
a few weeks ago i heard arnold swarzeneger (spell) wanted to tear the roof off some buliding & add i think a glass celing or something to that degree for smokers...point is your\'re supposed to be finding ways to bring cali back on point..not spending money on interior decorating..he\'s only been in office for a few months and already he\'s F**ki\' with the bull****! Sadly this is the case of parties on both sides of the field..with no change whatsoever in sight.
-
Update:
The mouthpiece of Transnational Capital,
The Bible of Global Free Trade
The summit of all thinking espoused by the corporate sponsors of George Bush\'s administration...
...comes out in favor of gay marriage.
No, it\'s not The Nation or The San Francisco Chronicle
It\'s The Economist
PAGING CHICKEN LITTLE: The sky is falling. :p
The case for gay marriage
Feb 26th 2004
From The Economist print edition
It rests on equality, liberty and even society
SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.
Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilisation” from what he sees as “activist judges” who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those “activist judges”, who, by the way, gave Mr Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that “the Court\'s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.
Let them wed
That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago (“Let them wed”, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.
The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?
Civil unions are not enough
The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals\' doing, not gays\', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.
But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.
The importance of marriage for society\'s general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a “marriage”. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash—of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr Bush this week.
Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn\'t everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.
-
i just have one question..if marriage is a religious act, is gay marriages accepted in ANY religion? i could be wrong but i don\'t think so. Ultimately i have no beef with them getting married,..it\'s just the part of them raising kids..and i consider myself open to alot of things(don\'t even think about it g-man!);)..but that\'s the only aspect of it that has me a little concerned.
-
Sure there are religions that accept gay marriage. Just not the major ones, but that doesn\'t mean that there aren\'t any :)