Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

And Bush wants an AMENDMENT?
Malik Posted: Wed Feb 25 15:24:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So Bush called upon congress to pass an amendment banning gay marrages. Throughout the country. Anyone else have some problems with this?

First off, this isn't a federal issue, it should be left up to the states. Marrage isn't one of the things that the federal government is set up to do. Just remember, where do you get your marrage license? Not a federal place.

Secondly, I thought amendments were for changing the way our government is run, changing the way the constitution works. All the other amendments (except Prohibition, which was just stupid as hell) have to do with what the government can and can't do, how they do or don't do it, and who they can or can't do it to. This isn't a governmental procederal thing.

Third, aren't amendments supposed to increase civil liberties instead of decrease them? This is kinda a moot point, because if 2/3rds of the states+congress want it (thus, America as a whole wants it), then it should be passed, as the constitution says. Majority rules, I know, but it just isn't right.

Oh, and I'm opposed to the actual content of the amendment as well. :)


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Feb 25 15:40:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i'm, first off, very impressed w/ your understanding of the whole ordeal, you seem to have more knowledge on the function of the constitution and government than mr. bush does.

this shouldn't be an issue at all. not allowing gay couples the same rights as straight couples is breaking the 14th amendment, due process of the law crap. should be case closed right there. it's the same deal as not allowing black people voting rights.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 16:07:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Actually Dubya would prefer not dealing with this issue at all. He's against Gay marriages, but would have left the topic alone if he could have. Problem is, this is election year and a large percentage of his constituency does not want to hear he would support gays in any way. The issue was thrust on him.

So he takes a look at the numbers, realizes there's a slim to none chance of the amendment ever happening, and goes public in support of it. That way he keeps the anti gay conservative voters on his side, and he leaves it up to other politicians to actually let the whole thing die in the process.

He's an idiot, but give him credit for being sly.


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 16:12:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't think he came up with that way of thinking himself addi.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 16:28:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I don't think he came up with that way of thinking himself addi.

LOL! Maybe Daddy helped


 
Iamjustdancing. Posted: Wed Feb 25 16:45:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  OK gay marriage is a dumb issue. the only problem ppl have is the word marraige

why can't you call it something else that has the same benifits? that would be a nice comprimise that allows the sky pilots to have their sanctity of marriage and the ultra minority of gays to have benefits.

And i promise you Bush isn't as dumb as you all think he is. just because he talks with a southern accent, doesnt' mean he is stupid.

(you know he scored higher on his SAT's than gore? oh yea and he went to an ivy league college.)

Anyway,
I hope oneday all you commu-err i mean liberals finally grow up.


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 17:28:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Lol.

You come across so ignorant that I don't know if I should laugh or cry because of you.


Gays an ultra-minority?


You're a ball of prejudice/fear, a seemingly common factor amongst republicans.


You are so stupid it stuns me.

Really, I am amazed by people like you, do you actually believe that liberals are automaticly communists?


I think anybody can see who's the one that needs to start growing up.

And shut up if you don't know what you're talking about.

I really hope that somebody you care about admids he or she is gay, I would bet my life on it that you'd either change your viewpoints or you'd be too big a coward to be honest towards that person about your 'believes' and talk crap behind his or her back to act tought towards the rest of your "macho" smalldicked friends.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 17:40:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Lol.
>
>You come across so ignorant that I don't know if I should laugh or cry because of you.
>
>
>Gays an ultra-minority?
>
yes, gays are very much a minority.

>You're a ball of prejudice/fear, a seemingly common factor amongst republicans.
>
>
>You are so stupid it stuns me.

>
you really like to bandy that word about don't you ? stupid.
I could say the same about you but I don't because it's rude. you, of all people have no right to call someone else prejudiced as if it's a bad thing.
As far as I know you are the only admitted racist on gt.

>Really, I am amazed by people like you, do you actually believe that liberals are automaticly communists?
>
no, nobody thinks all liberals are communists, it's an American thing because the liberals are very much into social programs.

>
>
>And shut up if you don't know what you're talking about.

ditto
>
>I really hope that somebody you care about admids he or she is gay, I would bet my life on it that you'd either change your viewpoints or you'd be too big a coward to be honest towards that person about your 'believes' and talk crap behind his or her back to act tought towards the rest of your "macho" smalldicked friends.

so what exactly prompted this attack ?he didn't say anything derrogatory about gays.


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 25 18:06:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The racist thing is a bit of a low blow hif, when i said so I clearly stated that I'm a racist in the way that I acknowledge the fact that there are for example cultural differences (most of the time).

Feel free to object if you think your family has the same values and culture as the 'average' hispanic or african or whatever family.

I'm not a racist in a way of thinking 1 race is better than another, I do think there are some differences (in general) though.


Also, it's not because he's pro-bush that he's automaticly intelligent, hif.

As far as I know (could be wrong though) 10% of the world population (no, americans aren't a special group which is above that) is gay.

I don't think that 1 in every 10 people is an 'ultra minority'.


The 'attack' was prompted by the fact that he compared liberals to communists, I don't care if it's an american thing or not, it's just palin stupid and there is simply nothing you can say to deny that.

I don't call republicans nazi's either.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 18:38:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  WSU-Dave said:

>And i promise you Bush isn't as dumb as you all think he is. just because he talks with a southern accent, doesnt' mean he is stupid.
>
>(you know he scored higher on his SAT's than gore? oh yea and he went to an ivy league college.)
>
>Anyway,
>I hope oneday all you commu-err i mean liberals finally grow up.

The following artcle was cut because of the length. I also only wanted to address the topic at hand. You should know that it was acually a supportive article of the young Mr. Bush and of his days at Yale.

June 19, 2000
GEORGE W. BUSH'S JOURNEY Confronting the Counterculture
Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

First, Mr. Bush never was a strong student. His transcript at Yale, leaked to The New Yorker, shows that he was a solid C student. Although a history major, he sampled widely in the social sciences and did poorly in political science and economics while achieving some of his best grades (the equivalent of a B+) in philosophy and anthropology. (The anthropology class, however, was taught by Margaret Mead that year and was enormously popular because she offered among the easiest grades at Yale.)

Mr. Bush was not much of a student of politics, for he earned only a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System and a 71 in Introduction to International Relations. Few, if any, professors seem to have left a mark on him, or he on them.


The transcript indicates that in Mr. Bush's freshman year, the only year for which rankings were available, he was in the 21st percentile of his class, meaning that four-fifths of the students had better grades than he did.

and just for referring to liberals as communists (that's actully funny) I'll add this for good measure:

Bush Quotes:
"I'm the master of low expectations."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."—Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

"I think war is a dangerous place."—Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003

"I don't bring God into my life to—to, you know, kind of be a political person."—Interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003

"You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order—order out of chaos. But we will."—Washington, D.C., April 13, 2003

Southern accent? HaHa
Stupid is as stupid says


 
Malik Posted: Wed Feb 25 19:22:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I really don't like the way the words conservative and liberal have changed. Conservative used to mean opposed to much change, and liberal used to mean for much change. Today, in America, you can hold conservative ideals that are liberal in nature. You can hold liberal ideals that are conservative in nature.

*sighs*


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 25 19:30:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Malik said:
>I really don't like the way the words conservative and liberal have changed. Conservative used to mean opposed to much change, and liberal used to mean for much change. Today, in America, you can hold conservative ideals that are liberal in nature. You can hold liberal ideals that are conservative in nature.
>
>*sighs*

True!
Between you and me Malik I'm actually a conservative on certain issues. I just have to write the things I do to live up to the image of bleedin' heart big goverment give it to me in the ass Gay lovein' commie weak on crime unpatriotic
liberal. : )


 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 25 19:36:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  there's a difference between socialism and communism guys...BIG difference


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:21:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>there's a difference between socialism and communism guys...BIG difference

yes there is, and neither one is worth a damn !


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:24:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>The racist thing is a bit of a low blow hif, when i said so I clearly stated that I'm a racist in the way that I acknowledge the fact that there are for example cultural differences (most of the time).
>
sorry to disappoint you dude, but racism only means one thing and it's not acknowledging cultural differences in races.

>Feel free to object if you think your family has the same values and culture as the 'average' hispanic or african or whatever family.
>
>I'm not a racist in a way of thinking 1 race is better than another, I do think there are some differences (in general) though.
>
>
>Also, it's not because he's pro-bush that he's automaticly intelligent, hif.
>
>As far as I know (could be wrong though) 10% of the world population (no, americans aren't a special group which is above that) is gay.
>
>I don't think that 1 in every 10 people is an 'ultra minority'.
>
>
>The 'attack' was prompted by the fact that he compared liberals to communists, I don't care if it's an american thing or not, it's just palin stupid and there is simply nothing you can say to deny that.
>
If you lived in America you would know that it's not meant in the liberal sense. Any more (at least I hope) than when the democrats refer to Bush as the second coming of Hitler.

>I don't call republicans nazi's either.

maybe you don't but bush has been compared to hitler(even on this forum)many times.


 
mat_j Posted: Wed Feb 25 22:43:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >>I don't call republicans nazi's either.
>
>maybe you don't but bush has been compared to hitler(even on this forum)many times.

I'm sorry but that is a low thing to say, Hitler would be spinning in his grave if he knew he was being compared to that sock puppet you call a president. A friend of mine noticed recently that the 'Project for a new American Century' was signed by many top Republicans including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush but no Georgie. All Bush is is the stupid son the family weighed the odds on and decided was most expendable.


 
simonvii Posted: Wed Feb 25 23:32:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  here's the thing - birth control, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, RU - 486, etc. etc. etc. are all things that not to long ago weren't tolerated, hardly spoken of because they were so looked down upon for being immoral or wrong...and now they are not only more widely practiced but also accepted in society as a right or priveledge...now we have the gay-marriage issue on the table, which im sure (tho its controversial now) will sometime soon be widely accepted as well...the issue isnt is it wrong or whatever anymore, the issue is eventually a line has to be drawn...things "not allowed" are more rapidly becoming "allowed" with no end in sight, and again if the line isnt drawn somewhere when will it stop? its like eventually a murderer could say, "its my right to murder so it should be allowed cuz i want to do it, i was born a murderer you have to accept that" and so all of a sudden murder, which now is unacceptable, is acceptable because since no line was drawn in the past, whos to say where we should draw it now?
its like with the u.s. drinking age - whats the difference between a 20 yr. old the night b4 their 21st bday and a 21 yr old? not much...but lower the age to 20 and then you have 19 yr olds saying whats the difference between a 19 yr old the night b4 they turn 20 and a 20 yr. old and on and on...
the point is that wrong or not, somewhere a sacrifice has to be made if only to keep order, a line has to be drawn somewhere.....


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Feb 25 23:56:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  fuck drawning lines, color wherever the hell you please. kill babies, murder people, legally put your penis into your husband's ass or your poon loving tongue between your hairy lesbian's legs.

it annoys the ever living shit out of me to hear people debate over such issues; they don't fucking matter. You think it's immoral to kill babies? don't kill them. you think it's wrong to kill a man for sleeping w/ your whore of a girlfriend who sucked some random dude off in a bathroom? don't kill him. same goes for everything.

what possible argument can one come up w/ to say gays shouldn't be allowed the same rights as straight people? The fucking bible? church and state are seperate for good reasons. if someone thinks someone's gonna go to hell for sticking their cawk in a man's ass and loving it, good for them, it'll keep a cock loving man out of their precious heaven.

democracy = tyranny by the majority

to bring myself out of this fun rant:

I don't see how Georgie's going to gain votes by speaking out against gay marriage. What's Kerry's stand on gay marriages? If he's for 'em, the people who are going to vote for bush because he's against them are going to vote for bush anyways.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 26 02:12:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  WSU-Dave said:
>OK gay marriage is a dumb issue. the only problem ppl have is the word marraige
>
>why can't you call it something else that has the same benifits? that would be a nice comprimise that allows the sky pilots to have their sanctity of marriage and the ultra minority of gays to have benefits.
>
>And i promise you Bush isn't as dumb as you all think he is. just because he talks with a southern accent, doesnt' mean he is stupid.
>
>Anyway,
>I hope oneday all you commu-err i mean liberals finally grow up.

First off, two words: Spell Check
2- You endorse the practicality and reasons for marriage, yet not the marriage itself. That's describing an object that has feathers, quacks, and migrates in the fall, but not calling it a duck or my aunt Barbara. Civil unions are saying "We tolerate you, but we still think you are outside of our culture."
3- Just because someone has an accent does not make them stupid. Being stupid makes someone stupid, ie. Not signing the Kyoto treaty or giving law enforcement free range to trample anyone's civil rights á la the Patriot Act.
4- You call us liberals; I call us progressives. Note the root 'progress'.
Any amendment banning same sex marriage is institutional religious beliefs forced upon the public at large because our elected official thinks that way. Constitutional Amendments guarantee and define our freedoms, not limit and control them. This is flagrant burning of the Constitution, namely the 1st and 14th Amendments-

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... (this is where "Separation of Church and State" comes from)

Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (also known as the "Civil Rights Amendment")

Either way, there is still no legal justification for banning same sex marriages, other than "it's odd and strange to me". Much like white-black marriages, blacks attending public schools, and blacks serving in integrated units in the military. "It's odd and strange to me".
And don't even try the "polygamy", "pedophilia", or "bestiality" arguments: Marriage is the loving union of two consenting adults. That is it, concisely.


 
misszero Posted: Thu Feb 26 05:17:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  WSU-Dave said:

>
>Anyway,
>I hope oneday all you commu-err i mean liberals finally grow up.

hell yeah I'm a communist. I'll be a socialist too if it means I can marry a woman should I choose. I'm into those political leanings that are colourful: pinkos and greenies. Heh.

okay, so I'm not really political. Calling someone a communist only really seems offensive in the states. 'less than 10% of our nation reads books daily, most people think central america means Kansas, Socialism means un-american, and Aparthied is a new headache remedy.'


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 07:10:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Another thing, what's the big problem anyway if you're a communist?

I have a friend who is serious about communism (not to act tough or anything but that is simply what he believes in).

So what?

If that is what his ideals consists of why not let him or why would he be any less than somebody with different political believes?


Correct me if I'm wrong but a common thing in america seems to be media-induced mass hysteria.


 
Iamjustdancing. Posted: Thu Feb 26 09:08:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Lol.
>
>You come across so ignorant that I don't know if I should laugh or cry because of you.
>
Dude just because you watch mtv new doesnt' make you all knowing
>
>Gays an ultra-minority?
>
>
>You're a ball of prejudice/fear, a seemingly common factor amongst republicans.
>
I have no fear/prejedices. I have lived with several lesbians, that i do care for and about etc etc etc. But listen, what is the difference in a fucking name? Sure i would be glad to see them be able to have the same benifits as a man and a women married couple, but seriously... you can just twist the name a bit and everyone will be happy.

>You are so stupid it stuns me.
Stupid eh? What do you do for a living? what college did you goto? What are YOUR credentials for being high and mighty for calling me stupid?

>Really, I am amazed by people like you, do you actually believe that liberals are automaticly communists?

No not all liberals are communists.. some are socialists.

>I think anybody can see who's the one that needs to start growing up.


>And shut up if you don't know what you're talking about.

Dude, you don't know what you are talking about... how the FUCK do you know me, eh?

>I really hope that somebody you care about admids he or she is gay, I would bet my life on it that you'd either change your viewpoints or you'd be too big a coward to be honest towards that person about your 'believes' and talk crap behind his or her back to act tought towards the rest of your "macho" smalldicked friends.

Ah i have very few friends and no i don't know their dicksize. Though like i said before i DO care about quite a few ppl who are homosexual, not that you care because you think i am a homo-hater whatever.

I hope this post to flame me made you feel like a big powerful man. You are sooo powerful by posting a bunch of hateful comments on a website where there will never be concequences for your acts.

(ps i can't spell worth a shit, and i am sure you can figure out what i am trying to say without me actually takeing time spellcheck every post, its not like you ppl are my boss or anything)



 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 09:14:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Lol relax man I like to agitate people from time to time :o)

And once more I seem to have succeeded.

The replies from people a bit pissed off are usually more driven if you cach what I mean.


Anyway,

The problem that strikes me with the whole debate about gay marriages is that if it's only terminology it should,'t be a problem to approve gay marriage so there doesnt have to be any distinction between them.

I am against marriage in general (gay and straight) but that doesn't mean I think people should be forbidden to get married if that is what floats their boat.


I never watch mtv and all that kind of stuff by the way. Not really my kind of thing.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 26 09:20:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

>4- You call us liberals; I call us progressives. Note the root 'progress'.

I don't know you DanSRose, but I like you. Not in a gay "like you" way though. I mean, I wouldn't want any type of civil or uncivil union with you personally, and we can't get married, cuz I already am. So let's just leave it at I'm having normal hetero feelings towards you and welcome to the forum!
Sincerely, Ludwig



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 11:44:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>WSU-Dave said:
>>OK gay marriage is a dumb issue. the only problem ppl have is the word marraige
>>
>>why can't you call it something else that has the same benifits? that would be a nice comprimise that allows the sky pilots to have their sanctity of marriage and the ultra minority of gays to have benefits.
>>
>>And i promise you Bush isn't as dumb as you all think he is. just because he talks with a southern accent, doesnt' mean he is stupid.
>>
>>Anyway,
>>I hope oneday all you commu-err i mean liberals finally grow up.
>
>First off, two words: Spell Check
>2- You endorse the practicality and reasons for marriage, yet not the marriage itself. That's describing an object that has feathers, quacks, and migrates in the fall, but not calling it a duck or my aunt Barbara. Civil unions are saying "We tolerate you, but we still think you are outside of our culture."
>3- Just because someone has an accent does not make them stupid. Being stupid makes someone stupid, ie. Not signing the Kyoto treaty or giving law enforcement free range to trample anyone's civil rights á la the Patriot Act.
>4- You call us liberals; I call us progressives. Note the root 'progress'.
>Any amendment banning same sex marriage is institutional religious beliefs forced upon the public at large because our elected official thinks that way. Constitutional Amendments guarantee and define our freedoms, not limit and control them. This is flagrant burning of the Constitution, namely the 1st and 14th Amendments-
>
>Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... (this is where "Separation of Church and State" comes from)
>
>Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (also known as the "Civil Rights Amendment")
>
>Either way, there is still no legal justification for banning same sex marriages, other than "it's odd and strange to me". Much like white-black marriages, blacks attending public schools, and blacks serving in integrated units in the military. "It's odd and strange to me".
>And don't even try the "polygamy", "pedophilia", or "bestiality" arguments: Marriage is the loving union of two consenting adults. That is it, concisely.

Therein lies the rub, to me and most Americans, marriage is the loving union between a man and a woman. Where did the "two consenting adults" come from ?


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:25:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Therein lies the rub, to me and most Americans, marriage is the loving union between a man and a woman. Where did the "two consenting adults" come from ?

Because of issues like the international sex slave trade (oh yes, A major revenue for much of Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia). Also waking in Vegas with a hefty bar tab, a ring on your finger, and with someone who is coyote ugly (you wake up with your arm under the head of someone who is coyote ugly and you would rather gnaw it off than wake the person up), that really is not consenting and should not considered so. Also, it disolves the sanctity of marriage.
>Marriage is the loving union of two
>consenting adults
Note the words "loving union".


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 26 12:30:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm definitely not a Communist. Partly because I don't like what I see in countries that have become communist because the ideal situation never works out, and I don't really like the idea anyway.
I am a socialist though. I see the genius in captalism though, and I do see our government as being a pretty good one, when its in the right hands. But business and politics are far too intertwined, and everyone has their own agenda.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:45:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Therein lies the rub, to me and most Americans, marriage is the loving union between a man and a woman. Where did the "two consenting adults" come from ?
>
>Because of issues like the international sex slave trade (oh yes, A major revenue for much of Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia). Also waking in Vegas with a hefty bar tab, a ring on your finger, and with someone who is coyote ugly (you wake up with your arm under the head of someone who is coyote ugly and you would rather gnaw it off than wake the person up), that really is not consenting and should not considered so. Also, it disolves the sanctity of marriage.
>>Marriage is the loving union of two
>>consenting adults
>Note the words "loving union".

But that still ignores the fact that marriage has been defined as the loving union between a man and a woman, the term consenting adults was never considered until recently.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 26 14:10:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>But that still ignores the fact that marriage has been defined as the loving union between a man and a woman, the term consenting adults was never considered until recently.

And 400 years ago, the world was defined as a flat disk created 4000 years ago, with Heaven calculated at seventeen miles above the Earth. Or: So what?
>...between a man and a woman...
The words "loving union" is the most important part of it. Then the "consenting" part. Then the "adults" part. Then "between two" part.
Consent implies both parties are equal in the relationship, including in the eyes of the law, socially, economically, ability to raise children, and to love each other with the all their hearts.
To deny these rights to a loving devoted couple is legal discrimination (see: Amendment XIV, above).


 
trogdor57 Posted: Thu Feb 26 14:17:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wow, big argument. I think I'll take a stab at it.

I don't agree with same sex marriages. In my opinion, marriage serves two very important points.

1) It allows for the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.

2) Procreation, having a baby, etc.

I suppose I am against it because it is a little wierd. Honest. But that's not the issue. The point is that about 300 years ago, our country was formed in the interest of leaving tyranny and forming a place of freedom, of press, religion, petition, etc. But however hard people try, utopia's are always off in the distance. People push more and more. Lower drinking age, death penalty, and now this. I guess the point I'm making is that the freedom's are being disturbed in some way, and it's not going to end well. I agree with simonvii, there's got to be a line, or we're going in the shatter.

Just my two cents.


 
Malik Posted: Thu Feb 26 14:25:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I am not a communist. I like my property very much. I hate government assistance. Keep the three branches, the local police force, put the army into the hands of the states, keep the treasury dept, and then privitize the rest. The government is too bloated. Screw social security, and medacaid, it's not the governments job. I am not a communist. But I still think of my self as a liberal

There are different styles of liberalism. Not all liberals are communists. Some truly are. Some just belive in government assistance. Some don't. You can't divide the world into "liberals" and "conservatives", because there is almost no way to be always liberal or always conservative on every issue. And, there is no way for you to completely agree with your political party all of the time (unless your defination of what is right IS what your party thinks).

Oh, and you want to preserve the sanctity of marrage? What sanctity is there in marrage anymore? You can get married when you're drunk, screw around, get it anulled the next day, and still not go to Hell for adultry. You can divorce as many times as you want, as often as you want. There are even television and billboard ads from lawyers claiming how cheap they can divorce someone! And then, you can get married again by someone who got their power to sanctify off the internet. What sanctity is there left for gay marrage to take away from?


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 26 14:26:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  trogdor57 said:
>I don't agree with same sex marriages. In my opinion, marriage serves two very important points.
>
>1) It allows for the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.
>2) Procreation, having a baby, etc.
>
>I suppose I am against it because it is a little wierd. Honest. But that's not the issue. The point is that about 300 years ago, our country was formed in the interest of leaving tyranny and forming a place of freedom, of press, religion, petition, etc. But however hard people try, utopia's are always off in the distance. People push more and more. Lower drinking age, death penalty, and now this. I guess the point I'm making is that the freedom's are being disturbed in some way, and it's not going to end well. I agree with simonvii, there's got to be a line, or we're going in the shatter.

Okay, but why? Where in the Law does it say "a man and a woman" and why should it? Because some people think it's weird? That's not a good reason.
And the argument about procreation falls through as well. There thousands upon thousands of couples who don't have children, some because they do not want to and some because cannot have children. Marriage is about love.

Oh, and that line has alreaedy been set. About 300 years ago.
Thomas Jefferson said:
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Freedom isn't freedom if only certain people have it.


 
simonvii Posted: Thu Feb 26 14:35:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  trogdor57 said:
>Wow, big argument. I think I'll take a stab at it.
>
>I don't agree with same sex marriages. In my opinion, marriage serves two very important points.
>
>1) It allows for the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.
>
>2) Procreation, having a baby, etc.
>
>I suppose I am against it because it is a little wierd. Honest. But that's not the issue. The point is that about 300 years ago, our country was formed in the interest of leaving tyranny and forming a place of freedom, of press, religion, petition, etc. But however hard people try, utopia's are always off in the distance. People push more and more. Lower drinking age, death penalty, and now this. I guess the point I'm making is that the freedom's are being disturbed in some way, and it's not going to end well. I agree with simonvii, there's got to be a line, or we're going in the shatter.
>
>Just my two cents.

heck yeah


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 26 14:39:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i just have one thing to say...

Go rosie!


 
Iamjustdancing. Posted: Thu Feb 26 14:40:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>Freedom isn't freedom if only certain people have it.

homosexuals can get married just the same as everyone else, as long as its between a man and a woman.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 14:45:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>But that still ignores the fact that marriage has been defined as the loving union between a man and a woman, the term consenting adults was never considered until recently.
>
>And 400 years ago, the world was defined as a flat disk created 4000 years ago, with Heaven calculated at seventeen miles above the Earth. Or: So what?
>>...between a man and a woman...
>The words "loving union" is the most important part of it. Then the "consenting" part. Then the "adults" part. Then "between two" part.
>Consent implies both parties are equal in the relationship, including in the eyes of the law, socially, economically, ability to raise children, and to love each other with the all their hearts.
>To deny these rights to a loving devoted couple is legal discrimination (see: Amendment XIV, above).

Dude, you are confusing science with traditional values.
traditional values are just that, and until the majority of the people who share those values have a change of heart nothing is going to happen.
I can promise you that the framers of our constitution were not thinking of "consenting adults" at the time.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 26 15:00:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Dude, you are confusing science with traditional values.
>traditional values are just that, and until the majority of the people who share those values have a change of heart nothing is going to happen.
>I can promise you that the framers of our constitution were not thinking of "consenting adults" at the time.

Again, So what? The Constitution is a living document that was given the ability to change with the evolution of culture. Half of the Framers were slave owners and most (in not all) recognized a black man (not a woman) as 3/5 of a white man (not a woman). But the Framers did know that things change, and made the Law of the Land flexible to reflect that.
And just because the majority wants one thing does not make it right. In the 1950s, the majority wanted a nuclear strike on the USSR and segregation. That still did not make it the right thing to do.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 26 15:18:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose
Are you a plonker (guy)or a plinker(girl)? I know it has nothing to do with this thread, but just curious before I pull another mesh and confuse your gender.
: )


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 15:22:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>DanSRose
>Are you a plonker (guy)or a plinker(girl)? I know it has nothing to do with this thread, but just curious before I pull another mesh and confuse your gender.
>: )


*grumble grumble mutter grumble god damn christophe mutter grumble*


:)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 15:45:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Dude, you are confusing science with traditional values.
>>traditional values are just that, and until the majority of the people who share those values have a change of heart nothing is going to happen.
>>I can promise you that the framers of our constitution were not thinking of "consenting adults" at the time.
>
>Again, So what? The Constitution is a living document that was given the ability to change with the evolution of culture. Half of the Framers were slave owners and most (in not all) recognized a black man (not a woman) as 3/5 of a white man (not a woman). But the Framers did know that things change, and made the Law of the Land flexible to reflect that.
>And just because the majority wants one thing does not make it right. In the 1950s, the majority wanted a nuclear strike on the USSR and segregation. That still did not make it the right thing to do.

Oh, but I disagree. In some cases your argumnent has merit, but when you are talking about traditional values, the majority will always rule. Right or wrong is a relative term here and cannot really be applied to traditional values.
Suppose you went into downtown Tehran and declared that women must not be allowed to wear veils simply because it made some women feel dis-included for not wearing them ?


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 26 15:56:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not a plinker. I'm just new. Wave hi to the new guy.

ifihadahif said:
>Oh, but I disagree. In some cases your argumnent has merit, but when you are talking about traditional values, the majority will always rule. Right or wrong is a relative term here and cannot really be applied to traditional values.
>Suppose you went into downtown Tehran and declared that women must not be allowed to wear veils simply because it made some women feel dis-included for not wearing them ?

That's not a democracy: what you said and what is going on in Tehran. You are talking about mob rule, where there are no laws. This is a democracy, where the rights of the minority are protecting under the eye of the Law. If the majority wanted slavery back, then tough patoot to the majority. All citizens (and residents) of this nation are protected under the law.
Science is a good thing. It brings reason and rules to a world of mob rule.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:12:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I'm not a plinker. I'm just new. Wave hi to the new guy.
>
>ifihadahif said:
>>Oh, but I disagree. In some cases your argumnent has merit, but when you are talking about traditional values, the majority will always rule. Right or wrong is a relative term here and cannot really be applied to traditional values.
>>Suppose you went into downtown Tehran and declared that women must not be allowed to wear veils simply because it made some women feel dis-included for not wearing them ?
>
>That's not a democracy: what you said and what is going on in Tehran. You are talking about mob rule, where there are no laws. This is a democracy, where the rights of the minority are protecting under the eye of the Law. If the majority wanted slavery back, then tough patoot to the majority. All citizens (and residents) of this nation are protected under the law.
>Science is a good thing. It brings reason and rules to a world of mob rule.

If Tehran were a democracy would it make any difference? would it then be ok to demand that they order their women not to wear their veils any longer simply because it made the other women who did not wish to wear their veils feel dis-included ?
Of course not, because one must respect the traditional values that have existed there for centuries.

And what the fuck does science have to do with traditional values ?




 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:22:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I'm not a plinker. I'm just new. Wave hi to the new guy.

LOL Hi new guy!
It's okay to be new. We've all had newbieitus here at one time and won't hold it against you. I'm not so new and have been called Addison, old fart, addi, Sheeplover, Sex Machine, and many other terms of endearment. My native American name is "stud who walks with three legs", but it's so long most don't refer to me that way.

Anywho i'll let you and hif get back to it. I appreciate the reasoning and point of view in your posts so far.
Of course if you were a stinkin' conservative I would have left this last paragraph out : )





 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:26:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>DanSRose said:
>>I'm not a plinker. I'm just new. Wave hi to the new guy.
>
>LOL Hi new guy!
>It's okay to be new. We've all had newbieitus here at one time and won't hold it against you. I'm not so new and have been called Addison, old fart, addi, Sheeplover, Sex Machine, and many other terms of endearment. My native American name is "stud who walks with three legs", but it's so long most don't refer to me that way.
>
>Anywho i'll let you and hif get back to it. I appreciate the reasoning and point of view in your posts so far.
> Of course if you were a stinkin' conservative I would have left this last paragraph out : )
>
back off addie ! I'm having lamb chops for supper !
>


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:29:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>And what the fuck does science have to do with traditional values ?

I believe Galileo asked that same question to the Holy Inquisitors right before they threatened to ex-communicate and kill him.

Science and values, beliefs, traditions, have been intertwined for centuries.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:31:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose, I welcome you to GT. May your stay here be a good one.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:34:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>DanSRose, I welcome you to GT. May your stay here be a good one.

Let's drink to that


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:37:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>meshuggah said:
>>DanSRose, I welcome you to GT. May your stay here be a good one.
>
>Let's drink to that

I got some stoli right here at my side.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:41:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>And what the fuck does science have to do with traditional values ?
>
>I believe Galileo asked that same question to the Holy Inquisitors right before they threatened to ex-communicate and kill him.
>
>Science and values, beliefs, traditions, have been intertwined for centuries.

not in this context.
it seems that religion has actually been the one true enemy of science over the centuries.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:49:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  and if you step back a bit, it's actually the same type of people who believe in religion that have been the enemy of science and reason


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:55:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>and if you step back a bit, it's actually the same type of people who believe in religion that have been the enemy of science and reason

i agree, but religion and traditional values, while they do go hand in hand, are not necessarily the same thing.
I am not a religious person, but I do believe in traditional values.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 26 17:04:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>i agree, but religion and traditional values, while they do go hand in hand, are not necessarily the same thing.
>I am not a religious person, but I do believe in traditional values.

and you believe that one's traditions are not to be taken up by any other's and that one's tradition has anything to do w/ anyone but oneself? like, if i don't want to celebrate x-mas... should anyone give a fuck?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 26 18:07:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>i agree, but religion and traditional values, while they do go hand in hand, are not necessarily the same thing.
>>I am not a religious person, but I do believe in traditional values.
>
>and you believe that one's traditions are not to be taken up by any other's and that one's tradition has anything to do w/ anyone but oneself? like, if i don't want to celebrate x-mas... should anyone give a fuck?

absolutely not, couldn't care less what you celebrate.



 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Feb 26 23:11:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>meshuggah said:
>>DanSRose, I welcome you to GT. May your stay here be a good one.
>
>Let's drink to that

L'Chaim.

Yes, tradition is a super great thing, like this sign I saw in a museum from a diner from the 60's: "No Blacks." Upstanding, traditional morals. Just what was needed, the majority telling the minority what to do, because the minority is wrong and follow them and whatever they say.

If Tehran were a democracy, then the rule of law would apply. Much of what happens in fundamentalist states (not only Islamic ones) is that the government feeds on the situation of the masses, which includes extreme poverty, the sex trade, weapon and drug trafficking, and all sorts of illegal funness. This is the prime locale for religious fanatics to preach to the hopelessly hopeful for anything other then their current situation. The government, to survive, uses that to stay in power. That's off-topic, sorry. The point was that Tehran is not governed by laws that ensure that equal civil rights for all minority be acknowledged, accepted, and not used for political advantage.

Science has been a threat to traditional values as it encourages all people to evaulate situations using their minds and not to simply accept what is forced upon them.

>absolutely not, couldn't care less what you celebrate.

You shouldn't. You also shouldn't force what you think on others. Neither should the law, especially the body of law that promises freedom and equal rights for all minority groups.


 
Sheoul Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:13:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Malik said:
>I am not a communist. I like my property very much. I hate government assistance. Keep the three branches, the local police force, put the army into the hands of the states, keep the treasury dept, and then privitize the rest. The government is too bloated. Screw social security, and medacaid, it's not the governments job. I am not a communist. But I still think of my self as a liberal
>
>There are different styles of liberalism. Not all liberals are communists. Some truly are. Some just belive in government assistance. Some don't. You can't divide the world into "liberals" and "conservatives", because there is almost no way to be always liberal or always conservative on every issue. And, there is no way for you to completely agree with your political party all of the time (unless your defination of what is right IS what your party thinks).
>
>Oh, and you want to preserve the sanctity of marrage? What sanctity is there in marrage anymore? You can get married when you're drunk, screw around, get it anulled the next day, and still not go to Hell for adultry. You can divorce as many times as you want, as often as you want. There are even television and billboard ads from lawyers claiming how cheap they can divorce someone! And then, you can get married again by someone who got their power to sanctify off the internet. What sanctity is there left for gay marrage to take away from?

Just because the sanctity of some marriages is not held sacrosanct and is destroyed does not mean that marriage has become meaningless. You choose to look only at the failures. By your logic, life has lost its sanctity... what with the number of muderers running around and all.


 
Sheoul Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:21:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>trogdor57 said:
>>I don't agree with same sex marriages. In my opinion, marriage serves two very important points.
>>
>>1) It allows for the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.
>>2) Procreation, having a baby, etc.
>>
>>I suppose I am against it because it is a little wierd. Honest. But that's not the issue. The point is that about 300 years ago, our country was formed in the interest of leaving tyranny and forming a place of freedom, of press, religion, petition, etc. But however hard people try, utopia's are always off in the distance. People push more and more. Lower drinking age, death penalty, and now this. I guess the point I'm making is that the freedom's are being disturbed in some way, and it's not going to end well. I agree with simonvii, there's got to be a line, or we're going in the shatter.
>
>Okay, but why? Where in the Law does it say "a man and a woman" and why should it? Because some people think it's weird? That's not a good reason.
>And the argument about procreation falls through as well. There thousands upon thousands of couples who don't have children, some because they do not want to and some because cannot have children. Marriage is about love.
>
>Oh, and that line has alreaedy been set. About 300 years ago.
>Thomas Jefferson said:
>>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>
>Freedom isn't freedom if only certain people have it.


I posted this in another thread:
The government owes it to the society they serve to preserve the morals/culture of that majority. That's democracy... right? Majority rules? I mean, seriously, it's not like right or wrong was ever a consideration.

In a democracy, freedom is freedom if the majority has it.

Marriage is about love, but it is also about family. What kind of a balance will a child receive being raised by gay parents? Whatever argument you use, that child will never have the love of a father AND a mother. What sort of values will that child be taught while growing up?




 
Sheoul Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:23:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

>And just because the majority wants one thing does not make it right. In the 1950s, the majority wanted a nuclear strike on the USSR and segregation. That still did not make it the right thing to do.

See above post.


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:29:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sheoul said:

>What kind of a balance will a child receive being raised by gay parents? Whatever argument you use, that child will never have the love of a father AND a mother. What sort of values will that child be taught while growing up?

Addison counts to ten and walks away from keyboard so he doesn't commit cybercide

1...2....3....4....5...



 
Sheoul Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:33:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

> You also shouldn't force what you think on others. Neither should the law, especially the body of law that promises freedom and equal rights for all minority groups.

Ok, I get that. But like simonvii said, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

What happens when you have some cult that believes in ritual human sacrifice demanding rights - because, dammit, in their society that's perfectly aceptable? Surely, the values of the majority must be preserved.


 
Sheoul Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:36:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Sheoul said:
>
>>What kind of a balance will a child receive being raised by gay parents? Whatever argument you use, that child will never have the love of a father AND a mother. What sort of values will that child be taught while growing up?
>
>Addison counts to ten and walks away from keyboard so he doesn't commit cybercide
>
>1...2....3....4....5...
>

Aw, come on...

Don't go away.


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:38:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>Marriage is about love, but it is also about family. What kind of a balance will a child receive being raised by gay parents? Whatever argument you use, that child will never have the love of a father AND a mother. What sort of values will that child be taught while growing up?
>
>
What did somebody call Al Franken a few weeks ago? Oh yeah an Ass Clown, i liked that insult

Sheoul you're an Ass clown


 
antartica Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:41:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  why'd i feel that Koff found the vowels on the keyboard and changed his name... Heh heh


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:43:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  antartica said:
>why'd i feel that Koff found the vowels on the keyboard and changed his name... Heh heh


heh heh heh


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:46:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey, I just noticed that Koff spelled backwards is
FFok

SPOOKY!


 
mat_j Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:53:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Hey, I just noticed that Koff spelled backwards is
>FFok
>
>SPOOKY!

If you break down Addison it turns to Ad dis on- Add this on, just like he does, always with the smart arse comments.

Look at Addison look at him, what is he planning now?


 
antartica Posted: Fri Feb 27 08:53:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Hey, I just noticed that Koff spelled backwards is
>FFok
>
>SPOOKY!

erhm...
no cumment


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 27 09:16:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Christophe said:
>>meshuggah said:
>>>DanSRose, I welcome you to GT. May your stay here be a good one.
>>
>>Let's drink to that
>
>L'Chaim.
>
>Yes, tradition is a super great thing, like this sign I saw in a museum from a diner from the 60's: "No Blacks." Upstanding, traditional morals. Just what was needed, the majority telling the minority what to do, because the minority is wrong and follow them and whatever they say.
>
>If Tehran were a democracy, then the rule of law would apply. Much of what happens in fundamentalist states (not only Islamic ones) is that the government feeds on the situation of the masses, which includes extreme poverty, the sex trade, weapon and drug trafficking, and all sorts of illegal funness. This is the prime locale for religious fanatics to preach to the hopelessly hopeful for anything other then their current situation. The government, to survive, uses that to stay in power. That's off-topic, sorry. The point was that Tehran is not governed by laws that ensure that equal civil rights for all minority be acknowledged, accepted, and not used for political advantage.
>
>Science has been a threat to traditional values as it encourages all people to evaulate situations using their minds and not to simply accept what is forced upon them.
>
>>absolutely not, couldn't care less what you celebrate.
>
>You shouldn't. You also shouldn't force what you think on others. Neither should the law, especially the body of law that promises freedom and equal rights for all minority groups.

it would seem that you would prefer anarchy.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Feb 27 18:24:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sheoul said:
>I posted this in another thread:
>The government owes it to the society they serve to preserve the morals/culture of that majority. That's democracy... right? Majority rules? I mean, seriously, it's not like right or wrong was ever a consideration.
>
>In a democracy, freedom is freedom if the majority has it.
>
>Marriage is about love, but it is also about family. What kind of a balance will a child receive being raised by gay parents? Whatever argument you use, that child will never have the love of a father AND a mother. What sort of values will that child be taught while growing up?

Democracy is majority rule with minority input and rights. Majority rule only is mob law, where anyone could be thrown out or killed because everyone wants to happen. Also, democracy holds tht everyone have certain unalienable rights that cannot be treaded upon because the Mass wants it to happen.

Sheoul said:
>What happens when you have some cult that believes in ritual human sacrifice demanding rights - because, dammit, in their society that's perfectly aceptable? Surely, the values of the majority must be preserved.

That's called murder in the first-degree. Part of natural law (which our body of law is based, not biblical law) is not all human beings have the right and value of being alive and only in extreme circumstances can that right of life be taken away.
The majority must respect the minority opinion and say, as the minority must respect the majority say, but with the claification that civil rights must be upheld and the public at large must be protected. That's the line.
Where is the harm in same-sex marriage? Studies have shown (conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association, separately) that there is no harm. Though some stigmatization was reported, it was not too different then what anyone went through growing up.

I prefer equality and the rule of law and science over majority appeal and mass law.


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 27 18:34:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

> Studies have shown (conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association, separately) that there is no harm. Though some stigmatization was reported, it was not too different then what anyone went through growing up.

Ya know someones (won't mention any names) gonna reply with, "every one of those organizations is liberal biased!"

>I prefer equality and the rule of law and science over majority appeal and mass law.

Damn Progressive! Ya know it's exactly that kinda of sanity that's running our country right into the crapper!


 
Malik Posted: Fri Feb 27 18:52:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sheoul Said:
>Just because the sanctity of some marriages is not held sacrosanct and is destroyed does not mean that marriage has become meaningless. You choose to look only at the failures. By your logic, life has lost its sanctity... what with the number of muderers running around and all.

I do not really belive marrage has lost it's sanctity, it was an extreme use of sarcasm. People just say that homosexual relationships in general are all discusting and bad and will never work.


Sheoul said:
>Marriage is about love, but it is also about family. What kind of a balance will a child receive being raised by gay parents? Whatever argument you use, that child will never have the love of a father AND a mother. What sort of values will that child be taught while growing up?

Marrage is about love, but it is also about family. What kind of family is a single mother trying to raise three kids because her deadbeat husband up-and-left her for some whore in Vegas? Whatever argument you use, that child will never have the love of a father AND a mother. What sort of values will that child be taught while growing up?


Sheoul said:
>What happens when you have some cult that believes in ritual human sacrifice demanding rights - because, dammit, in their society that's perfectly aceptable? Surely, the values of the majority must be preserved.

If an entire society belived in human sacrifice, it wouldn't be considered wrong. Morality is only what everyone feels is acceptable.

Take the Aztecs. Human sacrifice wasn't wrong at all. Human sacrifice was moral, even good because it saved the society from the wrath of the gods.

>DanSRose said:
>Also, democracy holds tht everyone have certain unalienable rights that cannot be treaded upon because the Mass wants it to happen.

Hah! Like free speech, freedom of the press, and all those other ones? Just see what your lawmakers are doing with the Patriot act, and others.

America is not a democracy. It is a republic. Almost an oligarchy, but technically a democratic republic. The people have no direct power. The people cannot make law, overturn law, or enact law. The only power the public has is to elect officals that appoint officals to govern.

The majority must respect the minority opinion and say, as the minority must respect the majority say,
So pro-war people must respect the opinion of anti-war people and vice versa? What do you mean by respect?

>but with the claification that civil rights must be upheld and the public at large must be protected. That's the line.

Protected from whom? The government, other citizens, foreign enemies, themselves?



 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Feb 27 21:45:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Ya know someones (won't mention any names) gonna reply with, "every one of those organizations is liberal biased!"

Those medical and scientific organizations are as non-biased as they come. They have to be to function.

Malik said:
>I do not really belive marrage has lost it's sanctity, it was an extreme use of sarcasm. People just say that homosexual relationships in general are all discusting and bad and will never work.
>Marrage is about love, but it is also about family. What kind of family is a single mother trying to raise three kids because her deadbeat husband up-and-left her for some whore in Vegas? Whatever argument you use, that child will never have the love of a father AND a mother. What sort of values will that child be taught while growing up?
>If an entire society belived in human sacrifice, it wouldn't be considered wrong. Morality is only what everyone feels is acceptable.
>Take the Aztecs. Human sacrifice wasn't wrong at all. Human sacrifice was moral, even good because it saved the society from the wrath of the gods.
>Hah! Like free speech, freedom of the press, and all those other ones? Just see what your lawmakers are doing with the Patriot act, and others.
>
>America is not a democracy. It is a republic. Almost an oligarchy, but technically a democratic republic. The people have no direct power. The people cannot make law, overturn law, or enact law. The only power the public has is to elect officals that appoint officals to govern.
>The majority must respect the minority opinion and say, as the minority must respect the majority say,
>So pro-war people must respect the opinion of anti-war people and vice versa? What do you mean by respect?
>Protected from whom? The government, other citizens, foreign enemies, themselves?

Okay, I am so confused. You must be an anarchist then. The Patrtiot Act was originated in panic. It's seriously looking like that it's not going to get recertified.
America is a democratic republic, where elected officials act on the will of their constituent and in the best interest of them as well. But, since you wouldn't care about the facts, only that all government is evil, we should rise Rise RISE to the streets and start a New World by the Will of the People (complete with poor grammar), there is nothing else I can say then get into the system fix it like that. Otherwise, you are part of the problem and just wasting useful space á la Nader in this November's election- a person standing in the way of progress because of ego.

Everything else you was gibberish.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 27 21:59:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  can anyone name one instance where any freedoms have been denied by the Patriot Act ?


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Feb 27 22:28:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>can anyone name one instance where any freedoms have been denied by the Patriot Act ?

The Patriot Act reassigns the power from the Judicial Branch to the Executive Branch. They can arrest you, wiretap you, access personal records, search your house without a warrant, etc., then go ahead and deny you access to a judge, jury, and lawyer, detain for an indeterminate amount of time, and file no specific charges.
That's also what they had in the USSR.
Oh and the Justice Department can seal records from the public, making it impossible to get an accurate number on how many times the Patriot Act was used.
It also allows investigatory agencies to open up records, ie. the libray and ISPs in certain cases, without a warrant.


 
Malik Posted: Sat Feb 28 01:14:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>You must be an anarchist then.
No, I'm not an anarchist, but I do believe that the government is a necessary evil, and should recieve as little power as it needs to fufill the duties the constitution said is should do.

>elected officials act on the will of their constituent and in the best interest of them as well.

Hah! In theory, that's what is supposed to happen. And I do care about the facts: the only will that most public officals follow is the will of the corporations (well, at least those who have given them money) and the will of their political party.

>Otherwise, you are part of the problem and just wasting useful space á la Nader in this November's election- a person standing in the way of progress because of ego.

Standing in the way of progress? You think trading liberty for security is progress? If your defination of progress involves denying persons accused of terrorism the right to question both the accuser and to question their own witnesses in the name of security, let me be the first person to stand in the way of it.

And I'm wasting useful space? I should just shut up because your time is better suited to listening to Bush/Kerry/whoever? Hell, I don't agree with Nader on most things, but I'll defend his right to march up there and say whatever he wants.

And, sorry, I can't really get into the system and fix it. First off, I haven't been to Yale or Harvard Law school, don't have the popularity or the daddy to get me into politics. So, I do what I can to oppose the things that our government is doing wrong. Whenever I can. Which means here too.

DanSRose said:

>Everything else you was gibberish.

Hell, that's just funny.


List of Patriot act things from the ACLU:

• 8,000 Arab and South Asian immigrants have been
interrogated because of their religion or ethnic background,
not because of actual wrongdoing.
• Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin,
have been held in secretive federal custody for weeks and
months, sometimes without any charges filed against them.
The government has refused to publish their names and
whereabouts, even when ordered to do so by the courts.
• The press and the public have been barred from immigration
court hearings of those detained after September 11th and
the courts are ordered to keep secret even that the hearings
are taking place.
• The government is allowed to monitor communications between
federal detainees and their lawyers, destroying the attorneyclient
privilege and threatening the right to counsel.
• New Attorney General Guidelines allow FBI spying on religious
and political organizations and individuals without having
evidence of wrongdoing.
• President Bush has ordered military commissions to be set up to
try suspected terrorists who are not citizens. They can convict
based on hearsay and secret evidence by only two-thirds vote.
• American citizens suspected of terrorism are being held
indefinitely in military custody without being charged and without
access to lawyers.

List of Patriot Act 2 provisions that Bush wants to get passed:
* The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation – until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201).
* Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312).
* The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129).
* Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103).
* Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202).
* The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded – individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428).
* Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322).
* Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504).


 
DanSRose Posted: Sat Feb 28 03:31:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Malik said:
>Hah! In theory, that's what is supposed to happen. And I do care about the facts: the only will that most public officals follow is the will of the corporations (well, at least those who have given them money) and the will of their political party.
>
>Standing in the way of progress? You think trading liberty for security is progress? If your defination of progress involves denying persons accused of terrorism the right to question both the accuser and to question their own witnesses in the name of security, let me be the first person to stand in the way of it.
>
>And I'm wasting useful space? I should just shut up because your time is better suited to listening to Bush/Kerry/whoever? Hell, I don't agree with Nader on most things, but I'll defend his right to march up there and say whatever he wants.
>
>And, sorry, I can't really get into the system and fix it. First off, I haven't been to Yale or Harvard Law school, don't have the popularity or the daddy to get me into politics. So, I do what I can to oppose the things that our government is doing wrong. Whenever I can. Which means here too.

Okay, but saying how wrong the government is does not it will change. Words are great, but go only so far.
And with Nader: yes a three party system will be perfect in theory, but practicality has to be taken into mind, especially where a Bible-thumping corrupt businessman is leading the nation and convincing citizen that he is doing a great job. It becomes a question of what's better: the granduer of theory or the shade of reality.
Personally, I think Nader should run. Just not now, when everything is riding on the outcome of this election.

Also, I was attacking, not defending, the Patriot Act. I was celebrating the theory of our nation and when it works, attacking those who bend the law into their designs.

Yale, Harvard, Brooklyn College- it's what you make of it. All college is like that. Either way law & grad school that counts, after college.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]