Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

AlterNet critique of Bush on National Security.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

The truth of the matter is that the US got the good end of the treaty. The ratio was like for every 2 tons Japan got, the US got 5 tons. Britain and France got 4 or 5 as well. More info:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Was...n_Naval_Treaty

The treaty was signed in 1922, and was probably ignored by everyone by the late 1930s. In fact, the treaty was ended in 1936, leaving enough time for all navies involved to grow.

Oh, and I voted Kerry (absentee ballot) because all of Bush's positions are immoral and I disagree with all of his positions.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Actually, the damage done to the economy cannot be held against clinton as during the Last few months of his administration, the republican impeachment crippled all of his policies and his ability to carry them out.

Clinton was turned into a lame duck president after the impeachment hearings and paved the way to the dot com bust.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Im happy to say that I have listened to most of the presidential candidates, particularly Bush and Kerry of course. I have been swayed most by things said by Bush. (not to vote for him)

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I am voting Bush, but listening to Mellencamp on my way to the polls.....

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

The "debates" were ok, mostly ridiculous. They're both career politicians, and I severely dislike those things.

I should clarify why Bush's positions are immoral and wrong:
Science - His conservative staff and such are impeding science, something most abhorrent to me. Not just stem cells, mind you. Several federal studies that conservative Groups hated have been dropped from federal funding. Consider the study of disease vectors: a study done on how truck stops play roles in the transmission of diseases. The research was done on all aspects of how a truck stop and truckers spread disease: drugs, prostitutes, truck chasers, etc.. Conservative "Christian" Groups hated it and had Bush and Co. stop it.
Stem Cells - see above. Science ought not be so impeded.
Abortion - Bush is wrong again, see Judith Jarvis Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion," no one has yet countered it in my mind.
International relations - Bush is a joke here.
Gay Marriage - Bush is wrong again. Society will not crumble if we give equal rights to everyone, we can look overseas at different countries to see this.
Missile Defense - Needs to be rethought and redesigned. I am for a solution that works, however, the current one is iffy at best.
Tax Cuts - They are good when you have spare cash, but we don't! National debt is dangerously high.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Lol, I'm in england, it's 4:30am and I have insomnia http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif So I'm watching the election stuff, Got to admit it's got me hooked now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Very clsoe stuff so far, Hoping for a Kerry win personally (politics is global no?) but you guys really know how to throw a close election! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

<font color="red"> YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS </font> <font color="blue">VICTORY </font>. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

The President is still the President with both tains in the Senate and the House..... I would call that one hell of a GREAT VICTORY. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

hooray. 4 more years of "compassionate" conservatives and christian right wing. I'm so thrilled.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

So he is wrong because his ethics conflict with yours?Most international relations between the more powerful and the less powerful are a joke anymore. As there are very few, if any, other nations with the military and economic clout of the US, most international relations involving the US will be a joke, regardless of who is president.What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? Perhaps it is simply a matter of caution; a "wait and see" on how well those more permissive countries are doing 50-60 years from now before jumping on the bandwagon. Meanwhile, there are a few states that do permit such, and the federal government has no constitutional authority on that issue (for now, granted - but changing that would just about take a constitutional amendment - requireing 2/3 of the states to ratify it, and likely a few decades). Most methods of defense are iffy at best; the ones that are less iffy, such as the capacity for swift and utter annihilation of an attacker (aka ICBMs with nuclear warheads), are extremely unpopular on the international scene (and the local scene, too). Which is prefferable? An iffy defense that doesn't make all the other countries extremely nervous or a reasonably practical defense that does?It's not so much the debt as the deficit that's the issue - but yeah, tax cuts are rather impractical at the moment. Of course, the debt is growing, and no politician can really afford to have a platform of RAISING taxes, now can they?

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

wohoo i was right the rich white guy won....

wow... i do find it ironic that there is a sea of red for gop...

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I would say that the mass majority of Americans would not agree with your views. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Not only did they re-elect the President, but they also gained seats in both the house and senate. Nuff said.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

isn't that 51 % of 50% of the people who could vote.

From what I gather 100 million did not vote.

Whats with that senator (Oakie -R )who wants to ban gays from teaching ,? or kill doctors who give abortions. Thats some scary stuff.

How do people like that get in power ?

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Its not about banning gay folks, its about defining marrage as between 1 man and 1 women. NO ONE is saying that gay couples should not have the same legal rights as married couples, only that they cannot use the term married.

Personally I feel that any person, man or women who loves each other and has become life long partners deserve the same legal rights as married couples.

And regardless of the percentage point Tesco, record numbers of people did come out and vote. Of those who did vote, Bush garned a significant percentage over Kerry.

The issue that killed Kerry was gun rights, gay rights, and tax increases. He would have been pro-gun, pro-gay but said marrage is for a man and a women, and promised not to increase or "roll back" taxes, he would be our new president.

He stood by his conviction, something most politicians would never do, and he lost. He will run again in 2008 and win.

And if Senator Oakie-R tries that crap, I hope they drive his arse out of town on a rail road pike! People are poeple. Banning a gay teacher would be saying that a gay teacher is a bad influance on a child. How so? Its BS so don't worry about it.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

If I recall, Edwards and/or Hilary is favored for the democrats in 2008.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Bull. A substantial portion of the anti-gay marriage amendments also Banned civil unions, which IS saying exactly that.

That and we've tried the "seperate but equal" thing before, remember?

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I wonder how long until the church faxes over the "Now you scratch our back" list for bush to take care of....

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

argumentum ad populum

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I just wanted to belatedly ditto this. While it is only my personal perspective, my experiences living in a conservative rural area (rural Pennsylvania) and a moderately progressive urban sprawl (Los Angeles) tell me that most of the anti-gay-marriage (or 'pro-family', or 'defenders-of-marriage') activists are simply expressing homophobia, only veiled to varying degrees. Some seem legitimate to people who only follow the quick sound-bytes on the news, while others show the blatant absurdity of the position (IMHO). In California, the "activists" aren't really all that active (in fact, the College Republicans here have the very odd platform of being "pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gun control", which sounds awfully like a Democrat group... but this is California). The ones who say they oppose gay marriage generally have never met or talked to a homosexual person. Or, more likely, they were never aware of it if they did, so it's mostly an ignorance problem from that viewpoint. In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, I think it's ignorance combined with outright stubborness and fear. There were actually op-ed pieces in the local paper that seriously put forth the argument that the local theatre should be shut down for putting on a production of The Birdcage, before the "gay disease" infected the entire town. Then again, this is in an area of Pennsylvania where people fly the Confederate flag, and there is still blatant and obvious racism.

What I would like is for just ONE person to give me solid, credible arguments for why two people, regardless of their sex, should not be able to get married. I sometimes wonder: Do they not realize that this sounds exactly like the laws banning blacks from marrying whites? There are arguments based on religion, but there is this little bit in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and that's in there for a good reason. The State has no business in the Church, and vice versa. And it must be remembered that marriage was co-opted into religion, and the current religious significance is just the incorporation of very old secular (or pagan, depending on your viewpoint) traditions. In the real world marriage is the legal binding of two people, and any religious attachment to the term is merely coincidental. That little clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit a couple from having a religious ceremony to go along with it, either.

But, with all that, I do support civil unions. On the grounds that a little progress is better than none. The entire civil rights and women's rights movements were and are based on small steps toward the ideal. There are some people who just won't change their mind on certain subjects (such as blacks, jews, women, gays, etc being somehow inferior). Anything that makes the transition easier, like using a different word for the same idea, is a good thing.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Bearing in mind, that this is a question of ethics, and as such is fundamentally unarguable on several levels, here is a roundabout and incomplete attempt at one:

Let's start with something else. Something that the supermajority of people believe is wrong: Murder. Murder is illeagal. It is also called wrong in the Bible. Obviously, murder is a religious issue, and the state has no right to intervene. Perhaps it is an ethical issue, instead. With ethics, things ultimately lie on fundamental, unproveable assumptions (some samples: with Kant's "pure logic", one must first assume: 1) that logic is applicable to ethics, 2) that "better" is something to be strived for, and 3) Kant's definition of what has intrinsic value; with self-interest or extended self-interest ethics, one must first assume that personal consequences matter in questions of ethics [not a given in all schools of ethics]; "feels good" ethics usually assume that it either doesn't matter anyway or that nature/God/whatever has provided the ultimate guide when producing your feelings (or that it is an evolutionary process, and if your ethics are flawed, they are supposed to cause you problems), or some variant; with God centered ethics, even assuming that the existence of God and every event statement in the Bible is wholly accurate in every detail, one first needs to assume that the created ethically ought to obey the rules laid out by the Creator; et cetera; et cetera), which are religion-like in nature. Murder penalties are therefore unconstitutional, and thus the state has no right to interfere on that basis.

You can replace "murder" in the above with virtually anything that's illeagal (with minor tweaks to the rest of the text), really - (in no particular order) rape, incest, theft, drug abuse, tax evasion, kiddie porn, gay marriage, or prostitution, to name a few. The above is complete bull, of course. But how can the case be argued that it IS bull? More specifically, can you debunk the above for murder, rape, incest, theft, kiddie porn, et cetera without also debunking the above your favorite issue: gay marriage, especially considering that it uses a good portion of the same basic approach that you used to say that gay marriage should be okay?
That is one hypothesis. It isn't proven, however.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

There is a problem with the murder argument, though. I've heard it before, sometimes with "murder", sometimes "rape", sometimes "kiddie porn", and on and on, pretty much always something everyone who is considered sane believes is a very Bad Thing(tm). Then they say, replace this Bad Thing(tm) with gay marriage, and there is your argument for it!

Wrong.

When you do such substitutions, you're assuming that either A) the things being substituted have all the same properties as far as the argument is concerned, or B) the argument is a tautology. The "murder" argument easily disproves B. Then what of A? What are the properties of all these Bad Things(tm)?
Murder - one person depriving another person of life
Rape - one person depriving another person control over the body sexually
Kiddie Porn - one person depriving a previously innocent youth of innocence, in addition to depriving control over the body sexually

And gay marriage? Can anyone seriously make an argument that two people who love each other cannot make such a bond between themselves? All I have heard simply is an "I don't like it" argument. Well I don't like racists, Nazis, lawyers, marketing executives, insurance salesmen, circus clowns, or albinos. But they have never done anything to me personally, I just decide I don't like them. Therefore, if I can convince enough people that they don't like those things either, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make me and many other people happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

A lot of people don't like homosexuality. It makes them uncomfortable. Gay people have never done anything to them, it's just they aren't liked. Therefore, if it turns out there are enough people who don't like homosexuality, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make homophobics happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

Another mistake is saying that all things which are dealt with in religion cannot be dealt with in government. With many religions, a form of government is already built in. Exhibit A, the Catholic Church. When you look at the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", there is nothing in there saying there is no overlap in domain. Religion or lack thereof is a central part of every person. So is living, and living in society kind of implies that one is living under at least one government. If one is living under more than one, then it is expected that the person will be restrained a little more in what they can do, while getting the benefits provided from both. There is no conflict in the Constitution as long as the "government" of religion does not interfere with the functioning of the State, and the functioning of the State does not interfere with the functioning of the Church. In other words, the Bible can say "murder is wrong", the US Government can say "murder is a felony punishable by X years in prison"... and there's no conflict! Or, religions can say "marriage is a sacred union between only a man and a woman", and the US Government can say "marriage is the union of two persons for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc"... and there's still no conflict! There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the same sex. There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the opposite sex. There's no forcing to marry, period.

As for the "hypothesis" of marriage... ok, if you're taking the position that marriage started with the story of Adam and Eve in Eden from Judeo-Christian mythology, then of course marriage wasn't co-opted into religion. But even when I believed in that stuff as a kid, I thought of it more as fables than actual history, just like I didn't really believe that Jack climbed up a magical beanstalk to steal from the Giant in the sky. So that bit is only valid for those that have a similar view of that and all similar stories of origins of man, etc.. It is merely supporting evidence, and is not necessary to the argument as a whole.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Both assume some particular definition of person, which is very religion-like, if not necessarily precisely religious. Should the government be able to dictate what is and is not considered a person? If no, then you can't charge a solipsist with murder or rape; if yes, then it can easily become quite reasonable to put an abortionist on trial for murder.That applies to the extreme of kiddie porn - some jerk sticking it in a five year old - it does not necessarily apply to a twelve-year-old doing a strip-tease in front of a camera for cash (which is basically what the various task-forces trying to take down the kiddie-porn recruiters fish for).So you've never heard the long-term social stability question? What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? According to one source I've heard (granted, he was a televangalist, and is biased - but then again, everybody's biased to some degree - doesn't necessarily mean that their data is false) was three generations. Now consider the Jews. Theirs is pretty much the only culture that has survived relatively intact through multiple millenia of subugation and persecution (of varying severity, granted). They have a lot of rules - religious rules that they live by - which include such things as sanitation, a ban on incest, and a ban on eating pork, to name three. Now, in modern times, we find that many of these are actually extremely practical health concerns. Thanks to an understanding of germs, we know that people who don't wash regularly are considerably more likely to contract diseases. Thanks to an understanding of genetics, we know that the childeren of incest are considerably more likely to have defects from negative-recessive gene pairs. Thanks to an understanding of biology, we now know that pigs contain a parasite which pigs are immune to, but is devastating to humans if the parasite gets into their systems (sure, it's not certain that you will catch it if you eat pork that still has some surviving parasites, but essentially all pigs carry that parasite, and barring some rather unusual circumstances, eating pork is the only way to pick it up). Many of their practices are present and required (in some form) in most modern societies - theft, murder, rape, a weekly day of rest, and incest laws, to name a few. Whether you assume their laws were handed down to them by God, or that they evolved over a given length of time as survival factors for a society, it's a bad idea to start dropping portions that are integrated into your society without first running long-term field tests. Their's no attempt (that I'm aware of, anyway) to prohibit them the vote; they aren't being prohibited free speech; they aren't being systemically executed; killing them is still murder; they aren't being prohibited to engage in commerce; they aren't being prohibited to hold jobs (for the most part - there is the military exception to that - but the military is, of necessity, extremely pragmatic when dealing with problems - it's much more efficent to remove the 2% that cause 50% of those around them to lose efficency than it is to train the 50% to not be bothered by it). It's not the blanket denial of rights that your statement above could easily be read to imply. In some ways it's more of a preservation of the language - an object designed to be sat upon with four legs and a back is not a chalkboard; a large, flat chunk of slate mounted on a wall and designed to be repeatedly written on and erased is not a chair; two men in love is not a marriage. In some ways it's trying to prevent a slippery slope - if two men in love can be a marriage, why not three men in love? Or one man and three women? Or a forty-year old man and a thirteen-year old girl? Or ...? By the exact same token, there is no conflict if religion says "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" while the state says "marriage is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, et cetera". Yet your initial argument was that the state defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman was wrong.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I've heard the long-term social stability argument. I think it's bunk, conveniently looking at certain civilizations that were either already in decline, or about to enter it, then extrapolating that homosexuals caused it. While at the same time ignoring the Greeks, and other Mediteranian civilizations where it was relatively common for there to be homosexual relations (about as common as it is now, or more, as far as I can tell). They certainly didn't begin to fail after "three generations". I think an argument used by one of my old english teachers to demonstrate logical fallacy covers this argument pretty well: "During the summer, people tend to eat more ice cream. People also tend to drown more often. Therefore, ice cream causes people to drown." Two things that can barely be said to be related, and causality infered from that.

Slippery slope. Another logical fallacy. Next.

As far as the restricting of rights, as it stands now, gay couples are not allowed to file joint tax returns, they are not allowed hospital visitation rights, there is no automatic inheritance, etc. Many rights afforded to opposite-sex couples are denied to same-sex couples. The amendments being thrown about propose to make this permanent. Now if you are talking about an amendment that simply says a same-sex couple cannot use the term "married" to describe themselves, that takes away the issue of rights, true. But it still has problems. For one, it is putting the country through a difficult legal process to essentially define a word. I would like to see you propose an amendment banning the usage of the word "chalkboard" to describe an inanimate object usually with four legs used for a person to sit in. It's useless, pointless, and... it's not what the amendments are going for in the first place. Semantics are not the issue for the people proposing the amendments, the issue is "We don't like the fags". And that is just ugly.

As for definition of "person"? What makes the definition "religion-like"? I see no reason why there cannot be a secular definition of "person", and I'm pretty sure everyone has a more-or-less secular definition in their head when they think of "person". The religious stuff is pretty much reserved for terms like "soul", "spirit", etc. Government doesn't dictate what is or is not a person because it is simply understood. If that's not enough for the pedants out there, how does "one of the species Homo sapiens sapiens" work for them?

And how exactly have you decided to sneak abortion into this? I was arguing that same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples. Never brought up abortion. It's a completely seperate issue as far as I'm concerned.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

A simpler and more apt analogy would be the issue of interracial marriage.

A lot of the same arguments that were used in the past to justify banning interracial marriage are now used by the very same types of people to justify banning gay marriage.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Argumentum ad populum. logical fallacy.
No, murder is a wrongful killing. By definition, murder is wrong. Sorry to argue semantics, but that is the correct definition.
Relevance?
No, actually, it is not.
Not so. Ethics makes very few assumptions. The assumptions made in ethics usually pass the reasonable person test, that is, thigns a sane person would agree to.
This is crap dressed up as philosophical musings. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you misconstrue ethics completely.
You're saying that one can equivocate murder with gay marriage. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

What? Defining a person is not religious at all. A living human being is considered a person.
Anecdotal, and a VERY skewed view of history. There is not a single shred of historical evidence that equates gay marriage to the downfall of society. This line of argument is bunk.
Appeal to authority. A televangalist[sic?] is hardly an authority on anything, other than milking the gullible of cash in the name of the Lord.
Yes, actually, it does. I call this evanglist's evidence into doubt. His evidence is more than likely anecdotal and very skewed.
The Irish have Lasted quite a long time under subjugation (up till the 1700s I would bet!). This has hardly any relevance...
How convienent that you mention field tests. Guess what?! Many countries overseas have allowed gay marriage for quite some time. The society hasn't crumbled at all!
So, according to you, immoral and wrong laws ought not be dropped without running tests? Laws prohibiting interracial marriage are quite obviously wrong, but you come out in favor of them with this argument. You're only hurting yourself with that position.
The "slippery slope" argument is crap.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

So choosing a starting point where most there is a high probability of a match as a starting point to argue from is automatically a fallacy? Interesting definition you have there.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif A minor point of semantics there - call it randomly killing someone is wrong. It's pretty immaterial nit-picking.Apparently you missed a chunk of the conversation - Will was basically saying that the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it was a religious issue; it's a religious issue because it is defined Biblically. Murder is also defined Biblically, and it's not an strickly cultural issue because there are vastly different definitions of it in different cultures. I didn't say they made many of them; I said they made Fundamental assumptions; the use of fundamental usually implies a small number of them.Except, of course, that many of the schools of ethics disagree on those selfsame assumptions - Kantian ethics would ignore feelings as much as possible, on the assumption that reason is the best guide to ethics, as it is all that separates man from beast, and that nature hasn't provided an essentially perfect guide in our emotions. Meanwhile, there are a number of emotional schools of ethics that take the exact opposite approach, saying let your feelings guide you. Both types of school contain reasonable people, yet they can easily disagree on their assumptions. Moreover, they can never really convince each other, as both cases are fairly reasonable and there can't really be any true evidence on such a fundamental level. Further, they come to different conclusions in the end - sure, they all agree on the obvious things (a fourty-year old man in good health is a person; a rock is not), but they disagree on the nitty-gritty (Are monkeys people? Are unborn human children? Eating meat okay? Be a vegitarian? A veagan?). Being insulting now? Is that what you are reduced to? There's no point in continuing this, then, is there?

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Just because 99% of people agree that something is right/wrong does not make them right. And I don't understand what the heck you wrote there at all.
Like I said, sorry. But if we are to talk about philosophical ideas and such, we must use proper terminology and definitions. It is a habit from writing my philosophy papers.
[quote]
Jack Simth said:

Yes, I realize that now.
Well, I "called it as I saw it". With the ridiculous equivocation you were making (gay marriage is as bad as murder somehow), there wasn't a shred of decent logic there.

I would say that gay marriage is ok, because of Rule Utilitarianism and the Liberty Principles. There is not enough justification to make it illegal (Liberty Principles). I cannot think of a good ethical system that would condemn it.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Instar: You ceased to be civil so I ceased to participate in this discussion. Have a nice day.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Jack, sorry, you must have missed a chunk of the conversation. I've been saying that the State shouldn't be restrictive of its definition of marriage, because it is not really a religious issue. The workings of marriage for a government have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Just because religion happens to deal with the same concept doesn't mean you get to force your religion's concepts on everyone else. That's why the whole "respecting the establishment thereof" bit was in the First Amendment. I'm sure you would be in an uproar if the situation was reversed, and Somebody Else's Religion(tm) was used by the government to dictate how your life could be led contrary to your religion.

The so-called social stability problem is a non-issue, so there is no reason for a gay marriage ban unless it is religious, or rooted in ignorance. The latter is simply wrong because it has no basis. The former is essentially imposing segments of a religion on people who do not need or want to accept that religion. In other words, it is not harming you if what you consider an immoral action is legal, but it does harm same-sex couples if what they consider moral and good is made illegal based on Someone Else's Religion(tm).

And Jack, I don't see how Instar was not civil to you. Perhaps not civil to your arguments, but IMHO those arguments are not very good ones. I've heard them all before, they weren't good then, they aren't good now, and frankly, the position does not deserve respect. That does not mean the person is not respected. If I am missing a personal attack in there somewhere, please point it out, but as of this moment, I don't see it.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

i agree will.

To me govn't should only have one rule reguarding people. And that is their is only one class of people its citizens. They are equal in all.

For a govn't to step in and state that gay marrages should be Banned is to state there are 2 classes of people. This is wrong.

For a religion to state it will not marry 2 people of the same sex. That is their decision.


A couples deserve to be equal. And deserve to be entitled to the same laws and protection. Failure to do so is a failure of the government and of the society that supports that government.

The real question is everyone equal. Yes or No.

If not then you have segeration. Which is wrong.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Whatever you want, but realize this: none of your arguments against gay marriage work. Your position against it is wrong.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I just want to keep the rights I do have and stop the piliferation of "Politically Correct" laws that do little more than restrict or abolish the rights I do have.

I believe people are people and that it is none of my business and therefore by assocation, none of societies business who or whom people choose to live their lives with. I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women, however gay couples should, if they do not already, have the same consititutional rights that married couples have if they choose to spend the rest of their lives together. Civil unions are a perfect match for this. Marrage is between a man and a women, Civil unions are between gay couples. This absurd notion that if we allow civil unions that people will marry their cat or dog is as I said, absurd. Any one who even remotely believes this would happen needs to seek immedate mental health assistance.

I am pro-gun, and that was my major issue with Senator Kerry. I am of those who voted the issue over the man in this election.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

"have the same consititutional rights that married couples "
they dont in most states
"I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women"
why?
the government ought to call them all civil unions, and marriages be done in a church

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Apparently those who invented the word "marriage" want to define it. Its interesting that these proceedings and all of the definitions being tossed around are being closely watched by the Mormons (remember that they faught a similar battle about state definition of marriage and lost it).

While I see why gays might wish for marriage to be recognized for them, most that I know would be thrilled to see equal unions be recognized. How many times have we all heard the phrase "immeadiate family only"? It sucks to go to the hospital and be told that you cant see your partner, or hear whats wrong, or sit in agony while the hospital tries to find a relative so they can get permission to do some life-saving act, or not be able to carry out their dying wishes.

Of course, as soon as that obviously important goal is reached, many of them would then move on to get marriage changed because they want to be married.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

homosexual activities isn't the end of the world. It's only portrayed that way so that we can have someone to hate and blame for all our problems.

I heard a women say "We should kill all the homosexuals" as two lesbians walked by. I immediatly turned around and asked her if Cold-Blooded murder of innocent people was acceptable to her and if she would be willing to pull that trigger.

her reply "I REBUKE YOU!"

Some argument there, eh?

Anyways, I don't see a problem with homosexuals using the term marriage. I see a problem with this becoming "Seperate but equal" BS again.

Really, all of you out there that support banning gay marriage, apply it to yourself. Would you accept the banning of hetrosexual marriage? hell no.

Then look at this.

Once we start banning things and removing freedoms - despite our own views on it - it will spread into other areas. We could ban all marriage ceremonies that take place out of a church? Or how about those pesky common-law marraiges? Maybe while we are at it, we should elimate rights for children born in unfavorable Groups? how about banning marriage for immigrants? and people of other religious backings? why not also ban marriage for certain sects of one religion while we are at it?

The fact is, when one group of people start getting thier rights trampled, it's only a matter of time until that spreads to your rights and don't think anyone would be interested in helping you when that time comes.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

That is regretable and in my opinion seriously wrong not to have the same rights as married couples. I am sorry, but like I said, people are people and no one should preclude one person form having the same 'rights' as another for any reason.

However, Marrage is not a right and therefore not subject to the equal rights.

Gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples. Of this there should be no debate.

Why do I feel that marrage should be between a man and a women? Well because that is what I believe. Asking someone to answer this is a kin to asking them why they like a specific color or if they believe in God or not. And I feel that attacking someone because they believe this is the wrong thing to do. The same goes for attacking someone who does not believe this. It all boils down to personal beliefs over a term that has been historicaly defined via thousands of years, as a union between one man and one women. I simply agree that it should remain so and that gay couples that want to be married do so using the term Civil Union. It is not discrimination, it is simply defining the concept of marrage into two types, marrage and civil union with one being between a man and a women, and the other between same sex.

I really do not understand your Government Church comment so I will not say anything about it.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Tough call there, actually. Married couples gain several (and quite significant) rights, many of which are denied to others.
And you fail to examine/change what you believe because... ? I've changed my beliefs, thats for sure.
And historically, the White/Caucasian people were thought to be superior. Some traditions are worthy of discarding...
To further elaborate what I said:
I meant that there should be no government marriages. None. All unions would be termed "civil unions" and be done in a courthouse or what-have-you. The marriage would be the ritual or ceremony performed at your religious institution of choice. (edit: it would be entirely optional too)

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

You do realize Bush promised to reenact the AWB, right?

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I have examined my point of view and did so a long time ago and all because those in the liberal media tell me I should change it, is not enough of a reason for me to do so.

Comparing the tradition of marrage to racisim is IMHO like comparing Jesus to Hitler.

If the people support it, vote it into law, and it is up held by the high courts then so be it.



Yes I am aware of that and even if he did re-enact it, I would have still voted for him.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

The irony with that comment is that hitler operated under the assumption he was the second coming...

As for bush, I can assure you that a lot of his supporters are gonna jump party lines if his social security plan gets passed.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I don't really know at this point what people will do given what other people do.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Godwin's Law: As an Online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

I don't think Instar was comparing marriage to racism, per se, but more to the parallel between largely ignorant masses imposing their will on an entire segment of the population based on shakey, dubious, and sometimes outright false "facts". Such as the widely held belief in previous centuries that whites were superior to other races. When really, it was probably largely a result of European cultures happening upon a sustained technological advance useful for conquering other cultures. I would say it's pretty much a fluke that say, the Chinese never considered gunpowder as a weapon, and then went on to conquer the world. Yet people, especially white ones, believed that because of their expansion, whites were superior. And some still do.

The solution of the State using only the term "civil union", and ditching the idea of marriage entirely as a State-recognized relationship would probably be the best idea, if it could be implemented. There's hundreds of years of both legislation and common law on multiple levels of government that will need to be modified for that to happen. But if it did, the biggest argument against gay marriage (the so-called religious connection) would vaporize. Unfortunately, I think there will still be a large portion of the population opposed to "gay civil unions". And a lot of people probably having a big hissy fit because government did what they "wanted" and didn't use the term marriage for homosexuals... but then went "too far" and eliminated it from the law books entirely.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Well, you know it's a telling sign that it most likely doesn't hold water when thier first option is to amend the federal constitution. To me, this says that not only will it not hold up to judicial review, but they already know that attempting to restrict the word 'Marriage' to become the eclusive trademark of hetrosexual relationships, is a lost cause.

Take the states that amended thier state constitutions to ban gay marriage. Honestly, how long will those amendments Last? Under federal Constitutional Law, EVERY state must give full faith and credit to the legal documents of each other. Under the law, the Judge has to rule that the state constitution is in conflict with Federal Constitution and must have the amendment on the state level stricken.

There is practically no grounds by which an anti-marriage law for gays will hold any ground without amending the federal constitution.

And Atrocities, if people read the fine print about Bush's Social Security plan, they will see something sneaking in the door with it. It's a nasty three-letter word.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I have read that they also want to amend the constitution so that foriegners can run for the Office of the President. OH HELL NO.................. HELLLLLLLL NOOOOOOO.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

I absolutely agree on that. No foreigners as president.

Well, I would make an exception for those admitted into the united states as citizens under the age of 10 and remained in the US for, say, 7/8th's or 11/12th's of the time since then.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

perhaps open to anyone with a us citizenship. That seems fair.

You already allow people with criminal records to run...

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

It is open to anyone with US citizenship - so long as you are born into that citizenship.

naturalized citizens cannot run, that's why I suggested that naturalized citizens under the age of ten and remained in the country for a significant majority of thier life should also have that right.

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

No, the constitutional law was establish to ensure that no foriegn power ever gained control of our nations higest office. I am not a bit sorry to say that Arnold can kiss my big bare butt if he things for a instant that the US population would ever change the constitution so that he or any other foriegn citizan of the US could become the President.

JMO

Re: 2004 Presidential Election.
 

Atrocites, the problem with that is there are people who would vote to change the constution to allow him to become President. Also the law wasnt established to protect us from a Foriegn power gaining control of the highest office, it was established because the Founders felt that a person who moved here could not understand the political and economic needs of the populus aswell the cultrue difference between the Forigner and the natural citizens.