Ahnold for president! who didn't see this coming? [Archive]

shartley

02-23-2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Vendetta
I find it awfully hypocritical that he wants two amendments, one to give immigrates equal rights, and one to take them away from homosexuals.
One could argue quite affectively that Homosexuals never HAD the right in the first place, thus no rights have been taken away.

That would be like passing a law that stated that dogs can not marry cats…. Someone would pop up and proclaim that their (dogs and cats) “rights” have been taken away… even though they never HAD the right to marry in the first place.

Civil Unions have been recognized for both Heterosexuals AND Homosexuals for quite some time… but they are NOT called “marriage”, nor should they be. Yet Civil Unions give the “couples” the same protection under the law as a marriage does. So this “homosexual marriage” issue to me is simply one of wanting to be CALLED something that they simply are NOT by definition of the term by LAW, Cultural Beliefs and Standards, and even Religious Standards.

The term Marriage covers ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (in most industrialized nations and cultures). If you want to expand it to ONE MAN and ONE MAN, or ONE WOMAN and ONE WOMAN so that you are not “discriminating against anyone”, you are changing what most societies recognize as Marriage. But heck, why stop there? Some places recognize marriage to be between ONE MAN and MANY WOMEN…..

HEY! Let’s do that too! Heaven knows we don’t want to infringe upon anyone’s “rights”. And while we are at it, there are some cultures that have ONE WOMAN married to MANY MEN as well! Woo Hoo! Now we are cooking with fire!

But let’s not stop there either! Why limit it to that, why not allow multiple men and women to get married? IE 3 men and 4 women all married to each other.

And furthermore, why limit marriage to our own species? Animals have made GREAT companions throughout history. And we lavish them with love and affection. So why shouldn’t we be allowed to marry them? Procreation reasons? Bah, two Gay Men can’t procreate, and neither can two Gay Women. ONE of them can, or they can adopt. Same thing if a Human was to marry an animal!

How far do we want to go with this? I say that is all depending on what group you are talking to. The lines are conveniently drawn to benefit those doing the drawing… in spite of what the cultural and legal definition of Marriage has been in the US (as well as most of the industrialized world).

And while we are at it, I could probably think of a good dozen or more other terms/definitions that I would like changed or expanded upon as well. Heck, if I could be considered a homosexual black woman I could possibly end up ruling the world….. Even though by definition I am FAR from being what I would now be called.

Would anyone else like to add a request for term/definition change as well?

Sorry… this is NOT about “rights”… it is about something else… and that I will leave for everyone to determine for themselves.

Restola

02-23-2004, 12:21 PM

This is one issue where the "slippery slope" scenario really comes into play. As sam pointed out, at some point everyone will say "well thats just not right".

The pro-gay marriage people are always quick to judge the other side as hateful, or discriminatory. But the fact is they also have drawn a line somewhere, probably just past themselves, that has no logical basis except history and morals to back it up.

Vendetta

02-23-2004, 12:32 PM

That slippery-slope arugument just plain silly. In today's society it won't happen, but lets say that our culture changes and we find multiple partern "marriges" ok. So what? Just because we find it repugnent today, does not mean we would 50 years from now. 50 years ago, many states had laws banning the "un-natural" union of blacks and whites. Does anyone expecpt the KKK still belive this?

How many years were women in this country not allowed to vote? They never had the right to begin with either. That made it right?

One possible solution is the make it "civil unions" for everyone. If you want to be "married", you go through a church of your choice. No more fly-by-night Vegas marriges.
This is the way it is done in many countries.

shartley

02-23-2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Vendetta
That slippery-slope arugument just plain silly. In today's society it won't happen, but lets say that our culture changes and we find multiple partern "marriges" ok. So what? Just because we find it repugnent today, does not mean we would 50 years from now. 50 years ago, many states had laws banning the "un-natural" union of blacks and whites. Does anyone expecpt the KKK still belive this?

How many years were women in this country not allowed to vote? They never had the right to begin with either. That made it right?

One possible solution is the make it "civil unions" for everyone. If you want to be "married", you go through a church of your choice. No more fly-by-night Vegas marriges.
This is the way it is done in many countries.
I have to point out that the RIGHT to VOTE is not something defined by a term, it is an action “VOTE”. Now if you want to change what VOTE means, then you can use that analogy… if not…. sorry, you can’t.

And “Civil Unions” ARE for everyone who wants them, according to its definition. You can not have a “civil union” between a person and an animal… but why not? Because it is not in it’s definition of the term.

I will also point out that your examples and not being a slippery slope were the same ones used when THOSE law and definitions were changed… yet here we are TODAY. ;)

Again, if you want to bring up the past to support change, you CAN NOT say that anything else I posted could not, nor would not be “acceptable” 50 to 100 years from now. Because folks said the same thing 50-100 years ago about your examples.

Restola is correct, it all depends on where folks want to draw the line… and nothing more. It IS a slippery slope.

1stdeadeye

02-23-2004, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Vendetta
How many years were women in this country not allowed to vote? They never had the right to begin with either. That made it right?

Yet, they went and legally change the constitution to allow them to vote. They changed the law the right way. They did not have publicity seeking mayors flout the law and do what they FEEL is right rather then what was legal. Women didn't burst into voting booths and just vote! Whereas the G&L lobby is trying to force their wants onto the rest of us instead of doing it through the legislature as it should be done. I don't think VT has had much of a problem with their civil unions. That was done the right way. The people's elected representatives passed a law the people wanted.

As for Arnold, tough luck. He knew the Constitution when he became a citizen. Whether he feels it is right or wrong, it is constitutional.

Vendetta

02-23-2004, 01:49 PM

Yet, they went and legally change the constitution to allow them to vote. They changed the law the right way. They did not have publicity seeking mayors flout the law and do what they FEEL is right rather then what was legal. Women didn't burst into voting booths and just vote!

The suffragettes did commit all kinds of civil disobedience to get their point across. Some states allowed them to vote, some didn’t.

-=Squid=-

02-23-2004, 02:04 PM

I think that they should not change the consitution, but just allow arnold to run for president anyways. We can pretend he was born here, right? :D

1stdeadeye

02-23-2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Vendetta
I find it awfully hypocritical that he wants two amendments, one to give immigrates equal rights, and one to take them away from homosexuals.

Sam is right. Gays NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!! Their lobby is trying to frame the issue that way. If they want the right, get the current laws changed by the legislature. Don't invent law!

Jack_Dubious

02-23-2004, 02:26 PM

Arnold can always say that he was born in America...in 2029, and that he was sent back in time to kill Sarah Conner.

Zygote

02-23-2004, 03:18 PM

I wonder if being manufactured in the US is the same as being born here.

p8ntball1016

02-23-2004, 03:26 PM

If Ahhhnold gets elected I'm moving to Australia. I don't want to be on the same continent as him if he has control over our nuclear stockpile.

Kevmaster

02-23-2004, 04:30 PM

i think he'd be ahalf decent prez...but i dont think i'd want to change the constitution for him...

aaron_mag

02-23-2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
Arnold can always say that he was born in America...in 2029, and that he was sent back in time to kill Sarah Conner.

Oh man.....still laughing!!!!

As for the other issue....they can change it for all I care. Shouldn't we (as voters) want to give ourselves whatever options are available? If we feel the person running is a jerk that wants to allow Canada to annex us why wouldn't we just NOT vote for them?

Should be easy enough.....

impostal22

02-23-2004, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by aaron_mag

Oh man.....still laughing!!!!

As for the other issue....they can change it for all I care. Shouldn't we (as voters) want to give ourselves whatever options are available? If we feel the person running is a jerk that wants to allow Canada to annex us why wouldn't we just NOT vote for them?

Should be easy enough.....

it's called the constitution..and it's called messing with the constitution...and that's a big no-no, not matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.

RoadDawg

02-23-2004, 11:10 PM

I'm not all that suprised that Orrin Hatch would be the senator trying to pass this. That guy has made some severe bonehead decisions. Wish the people of Utah (my home state) would realize that and vote him out, which I doubt as Utah is very republican. Either way, I feel it shouldn't be changed.

Gay Marriage, I was wondering when this would come up here. I say let the Gays marry. I have no problem with them doing so. They should be able to be joined in marriage just like any straight couple. It wouldn't change the "meaning" of marriage or anything. The divorce rate alone is changing the face of marriage. If anything I think the gays would stay true to their vows and would be less likely to divorce. Hard to say though.

Kai

02-23-2004, 11:11 PM

Gay marriage.

I really CANNOT believe that you people can be opposed to this. It's the kind of thing that, 50 years from now, when gay marriage is (hopefully) legal... People will look back and be ashamed at how we are acting.

I have yet to see a non-religion based argument that doesn't seem homophobic.

Also... Slippery-slope. You conseratives don't accept our SS argument against the Patriot Act. Why should we accept yours about this? Gimme a real reason.

MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata

02-23-2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Kai
Gay marriage.

I really CANNOT believe that you people can be opposed to this. It's the kind of thing that, 50 years from now, when gay marriage is (hopefully) legal... People will look back and be ashamed at how we are acting.

I have yet to see a non-religion based argument that doesn't seem homophobic.

Also... Slippery-slope. You conseratives don't accept our SS argument against the Patriot Act. Why should we accept yours about this? Gimme a real reason.

Amen to that

shartley

02-24-2004, 08:13 AM

Homophobic… interesting term. But it is WRONG most of the time it is tossed out.

Not agreeing with something does not make you AFRAID of it.
Not liking something does not make you AFRAID of it.
Not wanting to be exposed to or around something does not make you AFRAID of it.

Are there people who ARE Homophobic? You bet! But the amount of times that term is assigned to people, it loses all merit for credibility.

And for those who think allowing homosexuals to get married does not change the “meaning” of the action…. Wrong. Sorry. It may make others feel good to include someone into a certain group, but that does not mean they really ARE. That is like saying my youngest daughter is a Pro Paintball Player. But she is only 4 (in July), never fired a paintball marker, and in fact only likes being around paintball and paintball players.

But what the heck, why NOT call her a Pro Paintball Player. It will not change the “meaning” of the term right?

My arguments are not about what is right or wrong, what is moral or not, etc. It is about following an established definition for a term, or group. And if you are going to start changing what terms mean or their group definition, why even HAVE the term or group? You take away all meaning.

Now do I feel that divorce is a serious problem? YES! But it is a problem that fits within the definition of the institution of marriage. It is not an expansion of the institution of marriage.

And you know what? I feel the SAME about when churches expand their “beliefs” to allow certain groups to feel comfortable about their actions and become active members. If you can’t follow the doctrine, DON’T BECOME A MEMBER. Find a church or religion that you CAN follow the doctrine.

Same with marriage. The doctrine and definition of marriage has been established. If you can’t (or don’t) fit the requirements of that definition or doctrine, so be it. And like I have posted, CIVIL UNIONS are the alternative for those who either don’t fit the criteria for marriage, or don’t WANT to.

I will never fit the criteria for being homosexual, black, Hispanic, Asian, a woman, and a whole lot of other things. Are MY rights being violated because I can not take advantage of certain things that any one (or group) of those things would entitle me to? I wonder what would happen if I refused to use the “men’s room” but demanded that I be allowed the use of all “women’s rooms”. I guess those who would want to point out differences and reasons why I should not be able to would be “manphobic”?

Sorry, it is all about redefining things so that a fringe group can somehow push their alternative life style in everyone else’s face.

I have NO problems with people doing what they want behind closed doors. But when they start wanting to change the fabric of society and constantly push their way of life in my face I have a problem with it. “Gay Pride” stickers, t-shirts, and even behavior that they KNOW makes people uncomfortable is what causes the Anti-Gay backlash.

It is about culture and what any given culture feels about an activity. And OUR culture and nation has draws some lines on this matter. And like it or not, the MAJORITY of our nation believes these lines should STAY. But so much for a Democracy right? We have become a nation of “special interests”, “agendas”, and giving the MINORITY more power than the majority.

But you know what? You either get it, or you don’t. And this has nothing to do with “fear” or “hate”. But that is what is tossed out at everyone who disagrees with any given moral, cultural, or legal line that is set different than what they want. We ALL have lines we make. And that my friends, is a GOOD thing. A society with no lines is no society at all……

impostal22

02-24-2004, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by shartley
But so much for a Democracy right?

since when is america supposed to be a democracy?

shartley

02-24-2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by impostal22

since when is america supposed to be a democracy?
Well... it is a “representative democracy”…. And a Republic.

But if you want to argue that that means truly means and the reason for it, I am the wrong man to do that with. And thus I will not. ;)

Restola

02-24-2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by shartley
But if you want to argue that that means truly means and the reason for it,
impostal22 is just pw'ing pointless sound-bits.

shartley

02-24-2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Restola

impostal22 is just pw'ing pointless sound-bits.
I can not argue with that…. ;)

On another note… WOW I messed up my typing/editing with that post. LOL I meant to say “But if you want to argue what that truly means and the reason for it,…” LOL

Trigger_Happy

02-24-2004, 11:54 AM

Homosexuality used to be considered a metal disorder rooted in childhood sexuality issues. A few years of well-funded activist groups later, the "mental disorder" gets taken off the list as offered as another "sexual alternative". It turns out, we just misunderstood gays all along.

Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder rooted in childhood sexuality issues. Some well-funded activist groups are trying to change that right now. A few years down the road, I’m sure we’ll all realize that sleeping with kids is another sexual alternative, and that pedophiles have just been misunderstood.

You can say this won’t happen, but NAMBLA would beg to differ. The fact is, we allow everybody to do anything in the name of tolerance. There’s no stopping it, because a single judge can now create...err...interpret laws. You get one nut in a robe who agrees with NAMBLA, and you’ll be seeing this discussion all over again on AO. Some will call it sick, others will call it the progressive future.

Why should we have laws about marriage in the first place? To strengthen marriages. Why should lawmakers care whether or not marriages are strong? You can’t have strong families without strong marriages. Why should lawmakers care whether or not families are strong? Because families produce kids. They shelter and nurture them and teach them how to be good. If that goes well, then the kids grow up, take on social responsibilities, get married and form new families. If it goes badly, then either they don't grow up, or they grow up to be irresponsible and have dysfunctional families. Either way, everyone suffers. The society might even die out. Ultimately, then, the reason we have marriage laws is the building up of society, generation by generation, through procreation. Children need mothers and fathers, and that's just what husbands and wives become.

Now homosexual unions are irrelevant to that purpose. We're not talking about whether they're bad or good. You may think they're abominable, or you may think they're the best thing since sliced bread. The point is that they have nothing to do with the purpose for giving legal recognition to marriage; they don’t keep the great wheel of the generations turning.

In a sense, you can get around sterility — by adoption, or maybe by sperm donation. Someone might say “See? Homosexual unions aren't irrelevant to the purposes of marriage laws after all. Gay couples can't produce children, but they can raise them.” The problem with a pair of homosexuals raising children is that Moms and Dads are different, and children need one of each. Having 'two Moms' or 'two Dads' just isn't the same. This is common sense, but a large and growing body of sociological research backs it up.

I have little doubt that both homosexual marriage and marriage to consenting minors will both be legalized. Most of America’s people are against it. Most of America’s lawmakers are against it. But America’s system of checks and balances was destroyed by judges taking up the belief that interpretation of law could involve the writing of law; something that was only meant for the legislative branch to be doing. Legislating no longer requires the consent of the masses through their elected representatives, it only requires a judge who agrees with the activist minority.

I think it sucks, but I have no say. America’s current workings have taken my voice, that is my vote, away from me.

shartley

02-24-2004, 12:42 PM

Good post.

1stdeadeye

02-24-2004, 01:27 PM

Great post Trigger Happy!

jdev

02-24-2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by shartley
Homophobic… interesting term. But it is WRONG most of the time it is tossed out.

Not agreeing with something does not make you AFRAID of it.
Not liking something does not make you AFRAID of it.
Not wanting to be exposed to or around something does not make you AFRAID of it.

sorry to go OT here. but, if you aren't afraid of what it may do, then why is there an arguement against it? (specifically homosexual marriages.)

back on topic. no, constitution should not be changed to allow arnold to run for president. it was written as a foundation for the customer. when you start chipping away at foundations, the house is bound to collapse sooner or later.

shartley

02-24-2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by joey d
sorry to go OT here. but, if you aren't afraid of what it may do, then why is there an arguement against it? (specifically homosexual marriages.)

I think you use the word “afraid” too liberally. I am not afraid that my 3 ½ year old child would hurt me, but I do not allow her to punch me in anger. I am not afraid of my dog going to the bathroom in the house, but I don’t allow it to do so. I don’t allow my children to swear in front of me, but I am far from “afraid” of them swearing.

The examples can go on and on.

Not agreeing with an action, and not thinking it should be allowed (for any number of reasons) does not in itself denote FEAR.

Of course assigning “fear” as a reason does make some people feel better about it. It gives them some sort of perceived power over those they feel are somehow treating them unjustly. “They don’t want me to do this because they are “afraid” of me somehow”…. When actually the reason may be far from that.

RoadDawg

02-24-2004, 02:10 PM

Basically marriage is the joining of two people. Now yes they do say man and wife but it's two people none the less. So Shartley... what is the problem with them being allowed to do it? This reminds me of a previous history event and that was black segregation. It was right to do back then but morally it wasn't. Allow the gays to get married, they aren't diseased and prefer the company of their significant other. Shartley your example of your daughter being called a pro player is totally different. Here is why. They want it to be an OFFICIAL marriage. Not one another title. Let them have the title and it won't change anything. Instead of saying "you may kiss the bride", or whatever they will find something else to say. I'll admit I don't agree with their lifestyle choices but to each their own. That's what individualism is. Let people do what they wanna do.

I'm yet to hear a good "un religious" reason to why they shouldn't be allowed. They walk amongst you everyday and you wouldn't know it til they did something. Even then they could be pretending. Let them rejoin society and treat them as equals. After all it's what the gov't has declared before. Oh wait that's only if your white, rich and religious. My bad. :rolleyes:

Trigger_Happy

02-24-2004, 02:52 PM

Please note that my post had nothing to do with religion or morality. I only addressed the purpose of marriage law in a society and argued that homosexuals do absolutely nothing that would encourage lawmakers to legislate on their behalf.

It's also not true that changing the marriage laws wouldn't take any skin off society's nose. The law is a school. For better or for worse, it teaches. What principle would the marriage laws teach if they did offer the legal status of 'marriage' to homosexual unions? The principle that marriage and procreation have nothing to do with each other. That is detremental to us as a society.

I argue all this with full knowledge that my views won't win in the nation's courtrooms and legislative sessions. I only wish people were more educated and less sentimental about laws they are trying to edit. It is serious business with serious implications. Gay marriage will lead to other things such as marriage to children as I proposed before. All this is very bad, and adds up to something I wish I didn't have to deal with in my lifetime.

Sir_Brass

02-24-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

Sam is right. Gays NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!! Their lobby is trying to frame the issue that way. If they want the right, get the current laws changed by the legislature. Don't invent law!

actually, that's not true.

A gay man has the perfect legal right to marry a woman. He just doesn't have the right to marry another man, because the DEFINITION across the board in this country(except to the Gays and Lesbians) of MARRIAGE is the union between ONE mand and ONE woman.

Our social definition defines it this way, our "general" morals define marriage this way, and the majority of religions (especially Christianity) define it this way.

Civil unions . . . ok, I guess I can live with that, but when you want to go against religion in that regard, then you shouldn't be allowed a religious ceremony. Why should a gay couple be allowed to marry in a church of their choice if the church says that homosexuality is a sin?

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS term in it's roots, NOT civil. Gays have NO RIGHT to go about messing with it when they refuse to follow the religion which DEFINED it.

impostal22

02-24-2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Restola

impostal22 is just pw'ing pointless sound-bits.

youuuuuuuuuuu betcha!

impostal22

02-24-2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Sir_Brass

actually, that's not true.

A gay man has the perfect legal right to marry a woman. He just doesn't have the right to marry another man, because the DEFINITION across the board in this country(except to the Gays and Lesbians) of MARRIAGE is the union between ONE mand and ONE woman.

Our social definition defines it this way, our "general" morals define marriage this way, and the majority of religions (especially Christianity) define it this way.

Civil unions . . . ok, I guess I can live with that, but when you want to go against religion in that regard, then you shouldn't be allowed a religious ceremony. Why should a gay couple be allowed to marry in a church of their choice if the church says that homosexuality is a sin?

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS term in it's roots, NOT civil. Gays have NO RIGHT to go about messing with it when they refuse to follow the religion which DEFINED it.

you're assuming they want to get married in a church that denounces homosexuality. tsk tsk.

Sir_Brass

02-24-2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by impostal22

you're assuming they want to get married in a church that denounces homosexuality. tsk tsk.

name me a church that unilaterally supports or doesn't oppose homosexuality and I will tell you with 100% certainty that the devil is shoveling snow off his front step.

RoadDawg

02-24-2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
Please note that my post had nothing to do with religion or morality. I only addressed the purpose of marriage law in a society and argued that homosexuals do absolutely nothing that would encourage lawmakers to legislate on their behalf.

It's also not true that changing the marriage laws wouldn't take any skin off society's nose. The law is a school. For better or for worse, it teaches. What principle would the marriage laws teach if they did offer the legal status of 'marriage' to homosexual unions? The principle that marriage and procreation have nothing to do with each other. That is detremental to us as a society.

I argue all this with full knowledge that my views won't win in the nation's courtrooms and legislative sessions. I only wish people were more educated and less sentimental about laws they are trying to edit. It is serious business with serious implications. Gay marriage will lead to other things such as marriage to children as I proposed before. All this is very bad, and adds up to something I wish I didn't have to deal with in my lifetime.
I truely do believe that gay marriages will not have as large of an effect as you think. Homosexuality will not lead to kids being married. Hell the law in some states says (Utah being one) that a teen of 14 can get married but only with parental consent. I say rather then making a whole U.S ban leave it to the states. The gov't really has no rights to say that two grown adults can't marry if they want to. Even if it is a man and a man. Treating these people as outsiders doesn't solve any issues either. Let them marry, it won't change any meaning of marriage. Like I had said earlier the meaning of Marriage is already changing with the divorce rate sky rocketing to 50%. People rush to get married and end up ending it at the drop of a hat. Now in order to protect myself, I'm thinking of having my fiance sign a prenupt. Anyways. Time for me to go to work so I'm done for now.

Trigger_Happy

02-24-2004, 03:03 PM

Interesting point, but marriage is controlled by the state, not the church. If you decide to dance around a banana tree as a sign of your marriage, that's fine, but you won't get reconized as married by the state. That said, in Minnesota all you have to do to become a pastor is get "called by your congregation". In other words, if I get a few people together who decide to vote me as their "pastor", I can legally marry them.

It's wierd. We are on the same side of this issue, I just wanted to point out that marriage has definate civil ties.

Trigger_Happy

02-24-2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by RoadDawg

I truely do believe that gay marriages will not have as large of an effect as you think. Homosexuality will not lead to kids being married. Hell the law in some states says (Utah being one) that a teen of 14 can get married but only with parental consent. I say rather then making a whole U.S ban leave it to the states. The gov't really has no rights to say that two grown adults can't marry if they want to. Even if it is a man and a man. Treating these people as outsiders doesn't solve any issues either. Let them marry, it won't change any meaning of marriage. Like I had said earlier the meaning of Marriage is already changing with the divorce rate sky rocketing to 50%. People rush to get married and end up ending it at the drop of a hat. Now in order to protect myself, I'm thinking of having my fiance sign a prenupt. Anyways. Time for me to go to work so I'm done for now.

I think you oversimplify marriage and marriage law. Marriage is much more than a title. If it were only a peice of paper, I'd print one out for myself and my guitar right now. I mean, I really love that thing, and I do have two nice printers with high-quality ink.

No, I can't do that. Why? Marriage is not that simple both on a personal level and a civil level.

RoadDawg

02-24-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy

I think you oversimplify marriage and marriage law. Marriage is much more than a title. If it were only a peice of paper, I'd print one out for myself and my guitar right now. I mean, I really love that thing, and I do have two nice printers with high-quality ink.

No, I can't do that. Why? Marriage is not that simple both on a personal level and a civil level.

Believe me I know it's more then a title. It's a union of two people for a lifetime. My fiance wants to get married in her church but me being "non" religious could care less where it is held. I've seen marriages in courts as my older brother was married by a Judge that my mom works for, and my other bro in a Mormon church. So I've seen state and I've seen religious sides. Either way a marriage is only recognized by the state if it is man and woman. I for one think it is wrong. It should be any two couple that have the blessing of families and for each other to be unionized and deemed married. Not handed a certificate that says they are. Plus have it recognized by the state as a "real" marriage. Anyways time for work.

impostal22

02-24-2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy

Why should we have laws about marriage in the first place? To strengthen marriages. Why should lawmakers care whether or not marriages are strong? You can’t have strong families without strong marriages. Why should lawmakers care whether or not families are strong? Because families produce kids. They shelter and nurture them and teach them how to be good. If that goes well, then the kids grow up, take on social responsibilities, get married and form new families. If it goes badly, then either they don't grow up, or they grow up to be irresponsible and have dysfunctional families. Either way, everyone suffers. The society might even die out. Ultimately, then, the reason we have marriage laws is the building up of society, generation by generation, through procreation. Children need mothers and fathers, and that's just what husbands and wives become.

In a sense, you can get around sterility — by adoption, or maybe by sperm donation. Someone might say “See? Homosexual unions aren't irrelevant to the purposes of marriage laws after all. Gay couples can't produce children, but they can raise them.” The problem with a pair of homosexuals raising children is that Moms and Dads are different, and children need one of each. Having 'two Moms' or 'two Dads' just isn't the same. This is common sense, but a large and growing body of sociological research backs it up.

very informative and well thought out post. i only have two real problems...

number one...you're stating that making laws regarding marriage strengthens the institution. it can be argued (pretty solidly) that making laws regarding marriage (most of which are fiscal in nature) actually detracts from the institution. you're arguing that laws are made to strengthen marriage and therefore strengthen families. by throwing money into the scheme of marriage, it complicates things greatly. look at the extreme marriage and divorce rate of our country. one must wonder why it's as high as it is. the obvious response would be that people are rushing into getting married, without thinking of all that it implies. now we must wonder what makes people rush into getting married? it is VERY obvious that by making fiscal law regarding marriage that money becomes a big factor in getting married; i think we can all agree to that. so if it's a very big factor in the decision, it can be assumed that a good percentage of marriages decisions are pushed into action through monetary persuasion. so in the end, fiscal rewards for marriage actually detract from the institution, and at least help raise the number of divorces in this country.

number TWO, you're saying that raising a kid with two moms or two dads is different, well OBVIOUSLY it is. but is it necessarily different for the worse? being raised by one mom or one dad probably has a MUCH more adverse affect on the child than being raised by two of the same. so then with that logic, shouldn't divorce be illegal too? since it completely undermines the institution of marriage, not to mention the family unit and the lives of the children that are oh so important?

and in the first part of your post you said that lawmakers care about families being strong, so the kids can grow up and become good kids etc. who are you to say that two homosexuals cannot raise a child and have the SAME broad effect on society? if that was what lawmakers TRULY cared about, they wouldn't make it unlawful for gays to marry. why? because they are JUST as capable of contributing to society in that sense as heterosexuals.

sooooooo then we must wonder what actually drives lawmakers to disallow gay marriages? religion quite blatantly plays a huge role in this debate. according to christianity, the dominant religion in america, homosexuality alone (not even marriage) is BAD. and if the majority of the nation feels that something is bad, it isn't about to become legal in the traditional way. i'll therefore only justify judicial activism because everybody knows that the legislature is corrupt beyond belief with ties to special interests, etc. judges become judges independent of special interests, so i trust them a little more than i do legislators. while it is probably a bad precedent to set, there are plenty of other precedents we're setting that you guys aren't complaining about. for instance...reneging out of foreign treaties simply because we don't care anymore, INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE UN. think about that last one. any other country can now use our precedent as an excuse for invading a country. russia could go invade whoever they wanted, using our precedent as a crutch. and if we try to stop them, how hypocrticial do we look? and hypocrites don't have too many friends. i think THAT precedent is far more grave than judicial activism.

Trigger_Happy

02-24-2004, 03:30 PM

I like that line of thought. Very good argument. I'd like to a bit of research, but I need to get my communications homework done before class. I'll pretent to be on-topic by closing with: "I'll be bach" ;)

Really quickly, please don't even make me think about the UN and all of its communist ties. I wish we'd pull out and stop funding that socialistic load of crap of an organization. Did you know that during the founding of the UN a couple of the delegates the united states sent were later found to be russion spies and convicted of treason!?! Those were OUR delegates! Not to mention all the other openly communist countries that worked to found the UN! Some other time in some other thread we'll have to talk about the UN and its utter worthlessness, but not here. We've got enough on our hands.

jdev

02-24-2004, 03:55 PM

hey

is anyone here old enough to remember the emotional charge that interracial marriages caused? we sure got over that pretty quickly :rolleyes:

**edit**

i also want to nominate this thread for the best thread hijack ever. i love this board for the reason people can talk about a subject like this on such a rational level. :)

impostal22

02-24-2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by joey d
i also want to nominate this thread for the best thread hijack ever. i love this board for the reason people can talk about a subject like this on such a rational level. :)

LOL i was thinking the same thing...my thread was seriously hijacked...but i think this is far more interesting/contraversial anyway...

shartley

02-24-2004, 04:33 PM

I will not debate this issue (although some arguments were presented). If you want GAYS to be legally married, CHANGE THE LAW.

This is not a religious stand point, but a legal one. As it stands now, if your State does not allow GAY Marriages, then you can’t DO them. Under current society standards Gays do not qualify for “marriage”. PERIOD.

There is a right and a wrong way to do things. Folks can toss out all sorts of “moral”, “ethical”, “societal”, etc. arguments but they don’t matter. They are just side issues to divert from the REAL issue. Like it or not, marriage is not defined as anything other than one man and one woman in MOST States. And like it or not, that may be the legal definition for the ENTIRE COUNTRY here soon.

So folks can argue all they want, or try to justify what they want…… have at it. I am secure in MY beliefs, standards, and religious convictions. I don’t need to “justify” my opinions… those BREAKING THE LAW as it stands now DO. ;)

Kai

02-24-2004, 04:47 PM

Trigger. I liked your post. Although I don't agree with it, at least it was well thought out, and not religion-based.

Sam. What about democracy? A majority of the people would have opposed the abolition of slavery. A majority of people hated to see segregation go the way of the dinosaur. Sometimes, it takes the intervention of someone with a clear head to do what's right. (And yes, I know the above could be abused. Don't bother to point that out.)

A large majority of people I know are homophobic. (Lemme give you an up to date definition. It not only encompasses fear, but hate, and a lack of understanding.) I hate to see the general population opposed to gay marriage because of ignorance, but that IS why a MAJORITY of them support a ban.

How is two gay people getting married IN YOUR FACE? How can you fault them for wishing to lead as normal a life as possible, and pursuing what they (and all heterosexuals)have been raised to believe is a neccessary step in the road of life? You act as though they CHOOSE to be gay, and so should not be allowed to join the party.

Civil Unions are NOT the same as marriage. Sam, would YOU be content being united civilly with your wife, as opposed to being married? Anyone else?

Marriage is no longer exclusively religious, as was pointed out earlier. It is something that people of all religions, sexual orientations, etc... strive for. Why should they settle for a second rate imposter?

Also, on a side note... Are homosexuals allowed to adopt?

RoadDawg

02-24-2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Kai

Also, on a side note... Are homosexuals allowed to adopt?

I believe they are able to. Whether or not it actually happens is hard to say. Kai I agree with you 100% on your above post. Hit home the point I was trying to make.

shartley

02-24-2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Kai
Sam. What about democracy? A majority of the people would have opposed the abolition of slavery. A majority of people hated to see segregation go the way of the dinosaur. Sometimes, it takes the intervention of someone with a clear head to do what's right. (And yes, I know the above could be abused. Don't bother to point that out.)
Sorry, but you may want to look at how that all came about. ;) You are being over simplistic to a complex change in laws.

A large majority of people I know are homophobic. (Lemme give you an up to date definition. It not only encompasses fear, but hate, and a lack of understanding.) I hate to see the general population opposed to gay marriage because of ignorance, but that IS why a MAJORITY of them support a ban.

Ignorance or not, you either follow the law or you BREAK the law. If you want to do something legally, and you can’t do it legally NOW, you change the law. I am not ignorant, I KNOW how marriage is defined NOW for the majority of states. Tossing in all the other issues are BS. Want Gays to be able to marry legally? CHANGE THE LAW.

You don’t have judges making rulings, or mayors breaking the laws….. simply because they don’t agree with it.

How is two gay people getting married IN YOUR FACE? How can you fault them for wishing to lead as normal a life as possible, and pursuing what they (and all heterosexuals)have been raised to believe is a neccessary step in the road of life? You act as though they CHOOSE to be gay, and so should not be allowed to join the party.

LOL You are brining up other arguments that have been successfully argues in BOTH directions.

Again, if you want to argue THAT crap, do so. But it has NOTHING to do with what “marriage” is defined as by the majority of states. Again, if you want to change the law and the definitions, DO SO. Don’t make BS excuses or weak arguments attacking moral or religious standpoints.

Civil Unions are NOT the same as marriage. Sam, would YOU be content being united civilly with your wife, as opposed to being married? Anyone else?

There are many things that I do not qualify for. So I deal with it. As it stands I DO qualify to be married. So those who DON’T must deal with THAT. If I was not qualified for marriage, but a civil union gave me and my partner protections also granted to married couples I would DO IT. There are plenty of heterosexuals who are not married but are joined in a Civil Union.

Simply put, it does not matter what people have, they will want what they can NOT have. Gays want the “title”. Well guess what? I can’t have the “title” of WIFE. Why not? Because I do not meet the criteria for that title. But does that give me any less legal protection under the law? Nope.

Marriage is no longer exclusively religious, as was pointed out earlier. It is something that people of all religions, sexual orientations, etc... strive for. Why should they settle for a second rate imposter?

Again, if you want to make it simply a legal issue STOP BRINING IN RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS. You can’t have it both ways. And legally NOW, the LAW does not define marriage (in most states) as being anything other than one man and one woman. If you want to change that, there are legal ways of doing so. But be prepared to face the MAJORITY of the nation who does not want it changed.

Also, on a side note... Are homosexuals allowed to adopt?

I believe so.

jdev

02-24-2004, 05:15 PM

on another note. has anyone ever spoken to a person who is homosexual on the issue? ever get their point of view? anyone have parents that are? care to admit it?

:raises hand:

i will come out full heartedly and admit that my mother is homosexual. she was once married, had the family thing going, got divorced from her husband, and is STILL an excellent mother. are you trying to tell my me, that my mother, is now denied the right to marry again, to another person she loves?

(now, before you use the divorce against my mother. know that there was an infidelity on her husbands part with resulted in the divorce. so, you can't say that she wouldn't love the person she is with now. which, from being around both of them, i know she does very much so.)

so, I ask you. who are you to tell my mother that she cannot marry her girlfriend. (also, she has more insight on all of this than any of us. for starters, well, she is part of the gay community. and second, she is a lawyer, with a PhD.)

shartley

02-24-2004, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by joey d
on another note. has anyone ever spoken to a person who is homosexual on the issue? ever get their point of view? anyone have parents that are? care to admit it?

:raises hand:

i will come out full heartedly and admit that my mother is homosexual. she was once married, had the family thing going, got divorced from her husband, and is STILL an excellent mother. are you trying to tell my me, that my mother, is now denied the right to marry again, to another person she loves?

(now, before you use the divorce against my mother. know that there was an infidelity on her husbands part with resulted in the divorce. so, you can't say that she wouldn't love the person she is with now. which, from being around both of them, i know she does very much so.)

so, I ask you. who are you to tell my mother that she cannot marry her girlfriend. (also, she has more insight on all of this than any of us. for starters, well, she is part of the gay community. and second, she is a lawyer, with a PhD.)
Then your mother should know full well about THE LAW. And how to CHANGE IT. ;) What Education she has makes NO difference in whether she is RIGHT or WRONG. I would think you would know that.

Hitler had GREAT insight into a lot of things but that didn’t make him correct in his decisions. I am not saying gays are equal to Hitler, only pointing out that “insight” does not make “right”.

It is getting to the point where nothing anyone can say on the matter in this forum will make a difference.

I am glad you are comfortable with your Mother’s chosen lifestyle (and I will NOT debate if it is a choice or not…. call me ignorant or whatever, I don’t care). And if my son, daughter, mother, or father was Gay I would not disassociate myself with them… but I would not agree with their choice.

For you this is a personal issue, not a logical one. I will state again, leaving all personal beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. out of the issue….. if you or anyone else wants to make ANYTHING legal, you change the LAW. And sorry Charlie, not everything everyone will want to do will be made legal.

This to me is nothing more than wanting what you can’t have…. no matter WHY you can’t have it.

jdev

02-24-2004, 05:33 PM

not really personal to me. I do not care whether the law changes or not. It would be nice to see that it does to include homosexuals, as they are, afterall human like you and me (though some people may disagree)

also, we are worried about laws whereas that would allow gay couples to marry. what about states that have passed laws for cousins to marry?

shartley

02-24-2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by joey d
not really personal to me. I do not care whether the law changes or not. It would be nice to see that it does to include homosexuals, as they are, afterall human like you and me (though some people may disagree)

also, we are worried about laws whereas that would allow gay couples to marry. what about states that have passed laws for cousins to marry?
Well, now we are going further off topic… LOL But okay…..

I think the important thing to point out is “have passed laws”. ;) I do not agree with those laws either, but at least they ARE laws. And THAT was my entire point. :)

We don’t have to agree on everything, and never will. And I don’t form a hatred or even dislike for anyone based on one or two issues that we don’t agree on. And with that… I leave this thread.

jdev

02-24-2004, 05:53 PM

sam, i think you missed it. what I am saying is that, those laws were passed. as asenine as it sounds (to some, others, not so much...) on that same token, what would stop this law from being passed? again, we are worried about passing a law that would allow homosexuals to get married, but lawmakers have already passed one to allow cousins to be married in certain states.

impostal22

02-24-2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by shartley
I will state again, leaving all personal beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. out of the issue….. if you or anyone else wants to make ANYTHING legal, you change the LAW. And sorry Charlie, not everything everyone will want to do will be made legal.

you really REALLY need to stop using the "it isn't a law, so they can't do it" idea. ESPECIALLY if you supported the invasion of iraq, which was completely and totally ILLEGAL. BUT, let's not delve into that, considering how hijacked this thread is already.

the point is, the legislature is no longer a reliable place to get laws changed, whether you like it or not. if you don't have money (influence), then you won't get anything changed. the creators of the system of checks and balances did NOT intend for one of the (all of the) branches of government to become corrupted by money. so things have changed, and to get things done, you can no longer rely on the system of checks and balances.

people argue that the u.s. had to act illegally by ignoring the UN because the UN is no longer effective in this day and age. well guess what, NEITHER is our system of checks and balances. and here's the best part! if the law that judges create is unconstitutional, it will be challenged in court and if it is a big enough blunder, it will go to the supreme court and be decided on the federal level. so quit whining about judicial activism, because if the laws are SO unlawful, then they'll eventually be shot down anyway.

things are changing, and that's why judicial activism is REQUIRED to change the laws of our country. if you think for a second you can have any influence whatsoever on legislators without money, you need to wake up.

RoadDawg

02-24-2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by impostal22

you really REALLY need to stop using the "it isn't a law, so they can't do it" idea. ESPECIALLY if you supported the invasion of iraq, which was completely and totally ILLEGAL. BUT, let's not delve into that, considering how hijacked this thread is already.

the point is, the legislature is no longer a reliable place to get laws changed, whether you like it or not. if you don't have money (influence), then you won't get anything changed. the creators of the system of checks and balances did NOT intend for one of the (all of the) branches of government to become corrupted by money. so things have changed, and to get things done, you can no longer rely on the system of checks and balances.

people argue that the u.s. had to act illegally by ignoring the UN because the UN is no longer effective in this day and age. well guess what, NEITHER is our system of checks and balances. and here's the best part! if the law that judges create is unconstitutional, it will be challenged in court and if it is a big enough blunder, it will go to the supreme court and be decided on the federal level. so quit whining about judicial activism, because if the laws are SO unlawful, then they'll eventually be shot down anyway.

things are changing, and that's why judicial activism is REQUIRED to change the laws of our country. if you think for a second you can have any influence whatsoever on legislators without money, you need to wake up.

SIDE NOTE* impostal have you ever read "Best Democracy that Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast? Just wondering cause I'm reading it now and it's really quite interesting. I also just finished reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History of The United States", which was also a great book. If not I through out the suggestion of reading them. *back to topic*

MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata

02-24-2004, 06:32 PM

First off gays are allowed to adopt.

Well to somewhat dismiss the arguement that gay marriage, should be illegal based on it does nothing for procreation.

Then shouldn't someone who isn't able to concieve children not be able to marry.

impostal22

02-24-2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by RoadDawg

SIDE NOTE* impostal have you ever read "Best Democracy that Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast? Just wondering cause I'm reading it now and it's really quite interesting. I also just finished reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History of The United States", which was also a great book. If not I through out the suggestion of reading them. *back to topic*

i read parts of howard zinn's book, and i'm not sure about the first one, i think i may have. if you're implying that the country was built based upon the minority (wealthy) ruling, i am well aware. i am, however, going with the assumption that this country was designed to be a representative democracy with everyone getting a say. i was disproving this assumption, for obvious reasons. even with the assumption that the country was designed to have the wealthy rule, it still proves my point, which is that the legislature ain't the way to get things done.

impostal22

02-24-2004, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
First off gays are allowed to adopt.

Well to somewhat dismiss the arguement that gay marriage, should be illegal based on it does nothing for procreation.

Then shouldn't someone who isn't able to concieve children not be able to marry.

i'm pretty sure we covered that earlier...i'm not certain, but for some reason i have a feeling we did.

spantol

02-24-2004, 06:46 PM

This varies from state to state. Gays are not allowed to adopt in Mississippi and Florida, for example.

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
First off gays are allowed to adopt.

RoadDawg

02-24-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by impostal22

i read parts of howard zinn's book, and i'm not sure about the first one, i think i may have. if you're implying that the country was built based upon the minority (wealthy) ruling, i am well aware. i am, however, going with the assumption that this country was designed to be a representative democracy with everyone getting a say. i was disproving this assumption, for obvious reasons. even with the assumption that the country was designed to have the wealthy rule, it still proves my point, which is that the legislature ain't the way to get things done.
Well first chapter is basically about the florida election and how Jeb used his power to sway the voting process, and one of the following chapters is how Bush scored 26 out of 100 on his Texas Air Guard test and still managed to skip over other applicants with better scores so he wouldn't go to nam. All in all it's really quite interesting, it has it's on agenda but it's good reading if your anti bush, much like I am. Zinn's was just interesting , as it was the first time I got to see the other view outside of Euro style text books.

1stdeadeye

02-24-2004, 07:43 PM

1stdeadeye

02-24-2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by impostal22

you really REALLY need to stop using the "it isn't a law, so they can't do it" idea. ESPECIALLY if you supported the invasion of iraq, which was completely and totally ILLEGAL. BUT, let's not delve into that, considering how hijacked this thread is already.

Please stop trying to push this load of crap! Congress authorized the invasion. As did the Oct 2002 UN security Council resolution. So you are wrong-Deal with it!

the point is, the legislature is no longer a reliable place to get laws changed, whether you like it or not. if you don't have money (influence), then you won't get anything changed. the creators of the system of checks and balances did NOT intend for one of the (all of the) branches of government to become corrupted by money. so things have changed, and to get things done, you can no longer rely on the system of checks and balances.

Yes it is. The Constitution was pretty specific on that. Just because you are not in the majority doesn't mean you can circumvent the majority's will. Otherwise we don't have a democracy do we?

people argue that the u.s. had to act illegally by ignoring the UN because the UN is no longer effective in this day and age. well guess what, NEITHER is our system of checks and balances. and here's the best part! if the law that judges create is unconstitutional, it will be challenged in court and if it is a big enough blunder, it will go to the supreme court and be decided on the federal level. so quit whining about judicial activism, because if the laws are SO unlawful, then they'll eventually be shot down anyway.

You are so wrong. Again the US actions were legal!

things are changing, and that's why judicial activism is REQUIRED to change the laws of our country. if you think for a second you can have any influence whatsoever on legislators without money, you need to wake up.

Sounds more like an oligarchy then a democracy!

Kai

02-24-2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by shartley

A large majority of people I know are homophobic. (Lemme give you an up to date definition. It not only encompasses fear, but hate, and a lack of understanding.) I hate to see the general population opposed to gay marriage because of ignorance, but that IS why a MAJORITY of them support a ban.

Ignorance or not, you either follow the law or you BREAK the law. If you want to do something legally, and you can’t do it legally NOW, you change the law. I am not ignorant, I KNOW how marriage is defined NOW for the majority of states. Tossing in all the other issues are BS. Want Gays to be able to marry legally? CHANGE THE LAW.

And that is what they are trying to do. It isn't easy with a theocracy-desiring president in office, with the backing of a conservative congress.

Do I think they are going about this the right way? No.
Does that change that they DESERVE this right? No.

How is two gay people getting married IN YOUR FACE? How can you fault them for wishing to lead as normal a life as possible, and pursuing what they (and all heterosexuals)have been raised to believe is a neccessary step in the road of life? You act as though they CHOOSE to be gay, and so should not be allowed to join the party.

LOL You are brining up other arguments that have been successfully argues in BOTH directions.

Again, if you want to argue THAT crap, do so. But it has NOTHING to do with what “marriage” is defined as by the majority of states. Again, if you want to change the law and the definitions, DO SO. Don’t make BS excuses or weak arguments attacking moral or religious standpoints.

As much as I appreciate your derogative LOL's, they don't make me respect your argument any more. I didn't choose to argue that "crap." You brought up the fact that gays getting married was IN YOUR FACE... And I mean to question HOW YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION.

Civil Unions are NOT the same as marriage. Sam, would YOU be content being united civilly with your wife, as opposed to being married? Anyone else?

There are many things that I do not qualify for. So I deal with it. As it stands I DO qualify to be married. So those who DON’T must deal with THAT. If I was not qualified for marriage, but a civil union gave me and my partner protections also granted to married couples I would DO IT. There are plenty of heterosexuals who are not married but are joined in a Civil Union.

Simply put, it does not matter what people have, they will want what they can NOT have. Gays want the “title”. Well guess what? I can’t have the “title” of WIFE. Why not? Because I do not meet the criteria for that title. But does that give me any less legal protection under the law? Nope.

I thinks it is rediculous that you can compare you wanting the title of wife to gays wanting the title of marriage. That is such a far stretch that it holds no credibility. Of course I am sure you will argue otherwise...

Marriage is no longer exclusively religious, as was pointed out earlier. It is something that people of all religions, sexual orientations, etc... strive for. Why should they settle for a second rate imposter?

Again, if you want to make it simply a legal issue STOP BRINING IN RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS. You can’t have it both ways. And legally NOW, the LAW does not define marriage (in most states) as being anything other than one man and one woman. If you want to change that, there are legal ways of doing so. But be prepared to face the MAJORITY of the nation who does not want it changed.

Umm... Read what I said? I stated that it SHOULD NOT be a religious matter. And you even admit above, that some states DO NOT interpret it as "one man and one woman." Of course you want to choose the definition that fits your side, but that should open your eyes to the fact that the definition IS STILL OPEN TO DEBATE.

shartley

02-24-2004, 08:38 PM

Either some people can't read, they just don't WANT to, or they may have missed what I wrote. So I will post it again so that there is no confussion....

Originally posted by shartley
We don’t have to agree on everything, and never will. And I don’t form a hatred or even dislike for anyone based on one or two issues that we don’t agree on. And with that… I leave this thread.

Did everyone get it that time? ;)

Good! :D

Now if you want to debate this with OTHERS, feel free to do so. Just don't waste your time addressing ME about it. :)

nippinout

02-24-2004, 08:43 PM

I like reading these little debates. Helps me formulate an opinion I guess.

Still formulating though.

cphilip

02-24-2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Kai

Civil Unions are NOT the same as marriage. Sam, would YOU be content being united civilly with your wife, as opposed to being married? Anyone else?

Marriage is no longer exclusively religious, as was pointed out earlier. It is something that people of all religions, sexual orientations, etc... strive for. Why should they settle for a second rate imposter?

Well essentialy they indeed are the same. As long as its legaly recognized it matter not what you call it. Marrage was in its root a legal proceedure back when property laws were evolving. And sure they were based on old Jewish law and practice primarily. Some other religeons had similar ways of assigning property and survivor rights. Some used ceremonies and some did not. Some were just simply legal recordings. It's often mistaken for a religeous proceedure but in fact gets its roots in old developing law. It's more legal than anything. And any kind of union is "a Marrage" if you want to call it that.

I personaly have no issue with Gay Marrages. I do have an issue with portraying Homosexuality as normal family life style. It is not. Its a abversion of what sexual reproduction is inbreed in us on the animal side. However its a "normal" abnormality. And should not be prosecuted for being so. But it should never be portrayed as normal. It should be accepted as a fact. And allowed. But beyond that it is a far stretch to portray it as normal. For instance if you have 90 plus % of the people doing one thing and less than 10% doing another then the minority is abnormal compared to the majority. Nothing wrong with the minority. But they are abnormal. Simply because they are a large minority. No biggie just the simple facts is all.

Kai

02-24-2004, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by cphilip

Well essentialy they indeed are the same. As long as its legaly recognized it matter not what you call it. Marrage was in its root a legal proceedure back when property laws were evolving. And sure they were based on old Jewish law and practice primarily. Some other religeons had similar ways of assigning property and survivor rights. Some used ceremonies and some did not. Some were just simply legal recordings. It's often mistaken for a religeous proceedure but in fact gets its roots in old developing law. It's more legal than anything. And any kind of union is "a Marrage" if you want to call it that.

I personaly have no issue with Gay Marrages. I do have an issue with portraying Homosexuality as normal family life style. It is not. Its a abversion of what sexual reproduction is inbreed in us on the animal side. However its a "normal" abnormality. And should not be prosecuted for being so. But it should never be portrayed as normal. It should be accepted as a fact. And allowed. But beyond that it is a far stretch to portray it as normal. For instance if you have 90 plus % of the people doing one thing and less than 10% doing another then the minority is abnormal compared to the majority. Nothing wrong with the minority. But they are abnormal. Simply because they are a large minority. No biggie just the simple facts is all.

Technically yes, they are the same. They offer the same benifits and whatnot. That isn't really the point. People want to be married, they don't want to enter a union. There's alot in a name.

And I don't know if anyone can disagree with your second paragraph.

impostal22

02-25-2004, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by impostal22

Please stop trying to push this load of crap! Congress authorized the invasion. As did the Oct 2002 UN security Council resolution. So you are wrong-Deal with it!

i really couldn't care less that congress authorized the invasion, because no matter HOW MANY americans agree that invasion was good..it doesn't matter. IF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WAS UNIFIED IN BELIEVING IRAQ SHOULD BE INVADED, it doesn't MATTER, because we are acting as a rogue state that disobeys laws that we helped establish and EXPECT others to adhere to.

my very favorite republican, dick armey, had a bunch to say back before the invasion...like..for instance..THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0915FC3F5E0C7A8CDDA10894DA4044 82

"States are prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations from using or threatening to use force in international relations unless in individual or collective self defense against armed attack, under authority of the United Nations, or by invitation of the state in whose territory force is to be used."

(United Nations Charter Art. 2 (1, 4), 24, 39, 48, 51. For limitations on the last see below note 47 and Quincy Wright, The Role of International Law in the Elimination of War, Manchester University Press, 1961, p. 59 ff. as quoted in "Non-Military Intervention," an essay by Quincy Wright, which appeared as part of a larger compilation in "The Relevance of International Law: Essays in Honor of Leo Gross", Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1971)

States can use diplomacy and appeals to international organizations, all of which failed so the U.S. acted independent of the United Nations. This act of aggression was a violation of international law.

(See: Ellery Stowell, "International Law," New York, Holt, 1931, p. 72. Also see Wright, op. cit., p. 73 ff.)
No weapons of mass destruction were found to exist. No threat existed against the United States or against Britain, which was erroneous justification for the use of force against Iraq.

"The United Nations Charter, however, requires a different approach. By generally prohibiting the use or threat of force in international relations and intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of states, and in requiring the peaceful settlement of all international disputes and respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of states, it eliminates legal distinction between periods of time in which the use of armed force or intervention is or is not permissible. It does not characterize periods of time in international relations but acts of states. If hostilities occur or are threatened it confers authority on United Nations organs and specifies procedures for preventing or stopping them, if necessary by forcible action, determination of the aggressor, and recognition of the right of the defender and its allies to engage in individual or collective self-defense."

"Consequently, under the Charter, there is only one legal situation in international relations, that of the sovereign equality of states, each entitled to freedom from either aggression against its territory or intervention in its domestic affairs. Acts are to be characterized as legal or illegal according as they are consistent with, or violative of, these conditions of peaceful co-existence established by the Charter. It is true that ceasefire, armistice, or occupation lines may be established by agreement of states or authority of the United Nations, but they constitute provisional international boundaries and do not imply special relations between states except as defined by the agreement. It is also true that if hostilities exist, the forces on both sides are under an international obligation to observe the humanitarian rules of war but insofar as the hostilities constitute a breach of, or threat to, international peace, it is the responsibility of the United Nations to bring them to an end by establishing such a provisional boundary. For this purpose the United Nations is authorized if necessary to intervene with force, utilizing belligerent powers, and to determine the aggressor, thus recognizing the right of the defender and its allies to utilize such powers to restore peace. Hostilities, however, never constitute a "state of war" in the traditional legal sense which equally permitted each side to pursue its policies by the use of force."

(See Quincy Wright, "The Outlawing of War and the Law of War," A.J., July, 1953, Vol. 47, p. 365 ff.; "The New Law of War and Neutrality," Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor International Recht, July, 1959, Vol. 6, p. 412 ff.)
This war of aggression against the sovereignty of Iraq and the leaders thereof, was a flaggrant act of war prohibited by international law and the United Nations had the duty and right to stop U.S. and British hostilities. It failed to do so.

The United Nations now has the responsibility to intervene and prevent any further violation of international law by providing sanctuary to the legal Secretary of the Ba'athst Party and legal President of Iraq: Saddam Hussein, and to further demand that U.S. and British troops stop its illegal war against Iraq and to demand that they, as belligerents in this conflict, immediately withdraw from the sovereign territory of Iraq.

all taken from http://pnews.org/MEP/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5

Restola

02-25-2004, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by impostal22
i really couldn't care less that congress authorized the invasion, because no matter HOW MANY americans agree that invasion was good..it doesn't matter. IF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WAS UNIFIED IN BELIEVING IRAQ SHOULD BE INVADED, it doesn't MATTER, because we are acting as a rogue state that disobeys laws that we helped establish and EXPECT others to adhere to.
The UN refused to do anything for a decade. How many innocent lives did this cost?

We acted.

Tough crap if France or the Democrats (who voted FOR this) don't like it.

Of course you could care less about innocent lives or facts. You are driven by nothing more than your parent's hate for Bush. No matter what the cost.

impostal22

02-25-2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Restola

The UN refused to do anything for a decade. How many innocent lives did this cost?

We acted.

Tough crap if France or the Democrats (who voted FOR this) don't like it.

Of course you could care less about innocent lives or facts. You are driven by nothing more than your parent's hate for Bush. No matter what the cost.

lol yes, i am driven by my parents' hatred for bush, no matter what the cost. great analysis, as to be expected.

edit- i'd bring up the question "why did the UN have to act at all in the first place?" but that's been covered here already. fact of the matter is...we were THE weapons dealer to saddam hussein. that's like...giving your friend a gun to kill his neighbor that you don't care for...then when he decides to actually use it, you attack him for having it and trying to use it.

1stdeadeye

02-25-2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by impostal22
The United Nations now has the responsibility to intervene and prevent any further violation of international law by providing sanctuary to the legal Secretary of the Ba'athst Party and legal President of Iraq: Saddam Hussein, and to further demand that U.S. and British troops stop its illegal war against Iraq and to demand that they, as belligerents in this conflict, immediately withdraw from the sovereign territory of Iraq.

You really have a reading comprehension problem don't you?

First off, you feel that the UN should give Saddam sanctuary? That is just plain sick!

Second, READ THIS LINK!!!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2465463.stm) Security Council resolution 1441 is what Bush used to justify the invasion. It was passed unanimously and thus the invasion was legal no matter how you fell about it!

aaron_mag

02-25-2004, 09:36 AM

Ummmmmm the title of this thread says something about Ahnold. As far as I know is governor of California - not Iraq...am I missing something? :D

I suppose the title should be: This thread will be hijacked into an Iraq thread! who didn't see this coming?

Also I flew to Sacramento recently and was very disappointed. I did not see Arnold once on my trip!

impostal22

02-25-2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

You really have a reading comprehension problem don't you?

First off, you feel that the UN should give Saddam sanctuary? That is just plain sick!

Second, READ THIS LINK!!!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2465463.stm) Security Council resolution 1441 is what Bush used to justify the invasion. It was passed unanimously and thus the invasion was legal no matter how you fell about it!

no i don't think saddam should be given sanctuary, i was posting the text from the link i gave.

sure let's talk about 1441
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm
why don't you go there and refresh your memory about the implications of 1441 and come back to me?

there's nothing about invasion there. it's all about giving inspectors basically full access to everything in iraq. it can be somehow be spun (as all politicians do spin an issue in their favor, like it or not) i'm sure, to justify the invasion of iraq, but if you'll read that...you'll know that it was just political spin.

one clause states that if iraq doesn't comply with the un's demands, then military action is perfectly legal. i guess the way bush spun it was that back in the day he didn't comply, so that justifies invasion. the truth is, however, that he FULLY complied in 2003. and by invading under full iraqi compliance, it was illegal.

impostal22

02-26-2004, 10:44 AM

BUMP, i wanna know what you have to say 1de.

1stdeadeye

02-26-2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by impostal22

no i don't think saddam should be given sanctuary, i was posting the text from the link i gave.

So you don't support your own link that you posted as proof of your point. Very interesting!

there's nothing about invasion there. it's all about giving inspectors basically full access to everything in iraq. it can be somehow be spun (as all politicians do spin an issue in their favor, like it or not) i'm sure, to justify the invasion of iraq, but if you'll read that...you'll know that it was just political spin.

one clause states that if iraq doesn't comply with the un's demands, then military action is perfectly legal. i guess the way bush spun it was that back in the day he didn't comply, so that justifies invasion. the truth is, however, that he FULLY complied in 2003. and by invading under full iraqi compliance, it was illegal. [/QUOTE]

How do you feel that Saddam was in full compliance? He was playing the same cat and mouse game he played for Clinton's entire term. He was not in compliance then nor now. THe inspectors stated that all along.

So it allows military action, but doesn't spell out invasion. What should he have expected, more Clinton cruise missles in the keister?

1441 threatened severe repercussions. I think an invasion qualifies!

impostal22

02-26-2004, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

So you don't support your own link that you posted as proof of your point. Very interesting!

How do you feel that Saddam was in full compliance? He was playing the same cat and mouse game he played for Clinton's entire term. He was not in compliance then nor now. THe inspectors stated that all along.

So it allows military action, but doesn't spell out invasion. What should he have expected, more Clinton cruise missles in the keister?

1441 threatened severe repercussions. I think an invasion qualifies!

sigh..i had a very lengthy response and then i accidentally closed the friggin window...

i'll try to sum it up...

i disagree with the guy's opinion. i didn't link you for the guy's opinion. i linked you for the quotes from UN charters, etc.

basically, saddam did not comply under the clinton administration. there are some interesting facts about that whole situation, but they're more or less irrelevant.

under the bush administration, however, saddam was very compliant. he understood the threat he faced, and did everything the UN demanded. this includes allowing UN inspectors anywhere they want to go, and releasing a full dossier of weapons inventory. bush just didn't feel like waiting around for the inspectors to find something. he was also probably pressured by the fact that hans blix (the head un inspector) publicly stated that he did not expect to find anything.

1441 says that military action (such as the invasion) is legal iff (if and only if) saddam does not comply. saddam did comply. the invasion was therefore illegal. the fact that he did not comply under the clinton administration is, again, irrelevant in this case. the united states became a real hypocrite when it violated international law that it not only helped create, but expects other countries to obey. it sets a precedence, allowing any UN country to ignore international law and invade against the UN's wishes. this is a NASTY precedent to set.

some will argue that "oh, the UN is an outdated organization that just needs to be broken up anyway." it's wonderful that you think that, but as long as we as a country agree to be a part of the UN, and expect other countries to listen to the UN, we cannot blatantly say one thing and do another. if a nation, such as the united states, proposes to enforce the policy of 1441, that's wonderful. but as a member of the UN, and as a responsible superpower, it needs to respect the laws it helps create, and only invade once it has the approval of the UN. the UN did NOT approve the invasion, but we ignored the disapproval. again, a very nasty precedent to be setting.

and don't give the "we're a superpower, we don't need anyone's permission" argument, either. too many weak minded individuals use it, because it is just the mindset of a bully. as the most powerful country in the world, we have a responsibility to other countries to not only uphold but ALSO obey the laws and agreements we establish. that's the thing most people don't get, that just because we're the richest nation doesn't mean we're the one that is correct.

aaron_mag

02-26-2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by impostal22
and don't give the "we're a superpower, we don't need anyone's permission" argument, either. too many weak minded individuals use it, because it is just the mindset of a bully. as the most powerful country in the world, we have a responsibility to other countries to not only uphold but ALSO obey the laws and agreements we establish. that's the thing most people don't get, that just because we're the richest nation doesn't mean we're the one that is correct.

Very well put. Anyone who disagrees should watch Fog of War.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/

You will find it very educational. It is all about acting Unilaterally.......

1stdeadeye

02-26-2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by impostal22
basically, saddam did not comply under the clinton administration. there are some interesting facts about that whole situation, but they're more or less irrelevant.

under the bush administration, however, saddam was very compliant. he understood the threat he faced, and did everything the UN demanded. this includes allowing UN inspectors anywhere they want to go, and releasing a full dossier of weapons inventory. bush just didn't feel like waiting around for the inspectors to find something. he was also probably pressured by the fact that hans blix (the head un inspector) publicly stated that he did not expect to find anything.

1441 says that military action (such as the invasion) is legal iff (if and only if) saddam does not comply. saddam did comply. the invasion was therefore illegal. the fact that he did not comply under the clinton administration is, again, irrelevant in this case. the united states became a real hypocrite when it violated international law that it not only helped create, but expects other countries to obey. it sets a precedence, allowing any UN country to ignore international law and invade against the UN's wishes. this is a NASTY precedent to set.

Saddam was not in compliance! That is why Bush went back for the second resolution! It was vetoed by the French and Russians not because Saddam was in compliance, but because they wanted to give him more time to become compliant! So you are wrong!

He gave have completed dossiers, moved things around, delayed and interfered with inspectors, so he DID NOT COMPLY with 1441!

impostal22

02-26-2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

Saddam was not in compliance! That is why Bush went back for the second resolution! It was vetoed by the French and Russians not because Saddam was in compliance, but because they wanted to give him more time to become compliant! So you are wrong!

He gave have completed dossiers, moved things around, delayed and interfered with inspectors, so he DID NOT COMPLY with 1441!

ok 1de, whatever you say. saddam didn't comply:rolleyes:

1stdeadeye

02-26-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by impostal22

ok 1de, whatever you say. saddam didn't comply:rolleyes:

Well maybe you should email your questions to the New Iraqi Government. They could ask Saddam if he was compliant at his trial!:p

impostal22

02-26-2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

Well maybe you should email your questions to the New Iraqi Government. They could ask Saddam if he was compliant at his trial!:p

lol i just might do that.

ERut

02-27-2004, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by shartley

One could argue quite affectively that Homosexuals never HAD the right in the first place, thus no rights have been taken away.

That would be like passing a law that stated that dogs can not marry cats…. Someone would pop up and proclaim that their (dogs and cats) “rights” have been taken away… even though they never HAD the right to marry in the first place.

Civil Unions have been recognized for both Heterosexuals AND Homosexuals for quite some time… but they are NOT called “marriage”, nor should they be. Yet Civil Unions give the “couples” the same protection under the law as a marriage does. So this “homosexual marriage” issue to me is simply one of wanting to be CALLED something that they simply are NOT by definition of the term by LAW, Cultural Beliefs and Standards, and even Religious Standards.

The term Marriage covers ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (in most industrialized nations and cultures). If you want to expand it to ONE MAN and ONE MAN, or ONE WOMAN and ONE WOMAN so that you are not “discriminating against anyone”, you are changing what most societies recognize as Marriage. But heck, why stop there? Some places recognize marriage to be between ONE MAN and MANY WOMEN…..

HEY! Let’s do that too! Heaven knows we don’t want to infringe upon anyone’s “rights”. And while we are at it, there are some cultures that have ONE WOMAN married to MANY MEN as well! Woo Hoo! Now we are cooking with fire!

But let’s not stop there either! Why limit it to that, why not allow multiple men and women to get married? IE 3 men and 4 women all married to each other.

And furthermore, why limit marriage to our own species? Animals have made GREAT companions throughout history. And we lavish them with love and affection. So why shouldn’t we be allowed to marry them? Procreation reasons? Bah, two Gay Men can’t procreate, and neither can two Gay Women. ONE of them can, or they can adopt. Same thing if a Human was to marry an animal!

How far do we want to go with this? I say that is all depending on what group you are talking to. The lines are conveniently drawn to benefit those doing the drawing… in spite of what the cultural and legal definition of Marriage has been in the US (as well as most of the industrialized world).

And while we are at it, I could probably think of a good dozen or more other terms/definitions that I would like changed or expanded upon as well. Heck, if I could be considered a homosexual black woman I could possibly end up ruling the world….. Even though by definition I am FAR from being what I would now be called.

Would anyone else like to add a request for term/definition change as well?

Sorry… this is NOT about “rights”… it is about something else… and that I will leave for everyone to determine for themselves.

I think I'll marry my paintball gun...