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

[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.

[impostal22]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I stand corrected!

[1stdeadeye]

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]

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.



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.



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?



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?



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]

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

Did everyone get it that time?

Good!

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]

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

Still formulating though.

[cphilip]

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]

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]

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=FA0915FC3F5E0C7A8CDDA10894DA404482

"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...=article&sid=5

[Restola]

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]

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.