|
Author
|
Topic: President Bush has proposed an amendment for which there is not one rational argument
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 06:56 PM
Discuss.
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 07:17 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.ht ml
Holy crap. He actually did it.
I thought this was something that would just remain in the shadows for eternity, like the don't burn the flag amendment and the we all speak english amendment.
There is a rational basis though. I mean, if you've been taking it on the chin over economic and national security issues, might as well shift the dialouge to somewhere you have a chance at winning.
Anyways, this should be a fun test for democrat backbones.
[ 02-24-2004, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 07:57 PM
I applaud Bush for this...
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 08:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
I applaud Bush for this...
yeah and you'd probably support an amendment to get Arnold in the white house
- - - - -
Hade ni ikuze!
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 08:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
I applaud Bush for this...
I applaud your lack of shame for your complete lack of intelligence.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 08:49 PM
Does MK support a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages too?
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slade_64
chipmunk pr0n author
Member # 804
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 09:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Does MK support a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages too?
Next stop, ten page tl;dr war.
I'm just curious on what cfalcon has to say. Not interested, just curious.
- - - - -
Bucket.
From: Funky Town Texas | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 09:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Does MK support a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages too?
Hell no. Interracial is fine. I mean, there's NO crime and/or sin there...
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 09:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Does MK support a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages too?
If it lets me marry my boyfriend, then I will.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mewtwo Master
Farting Nudist
Member # 2257
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 10:20 PM
Alright!! G.W. Bush rocks!!! He may be a bit of an idiot sometimes, but I'm gonna vote for him this fall, unless I think he REALLY screws up something by then.
- - - - -
Guys in the army should wear a helmets and codpieces, to protect both heads.
From: USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-24-2004 10:53 PM
Banning gay marriages will not kill the fag disease. It won't stop fags from living with each other and it won't stop people from being homophobic. So what is the problem?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
BigCheese
Farting Nudist
Member # 1479
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-24-2004 11:49 PM
If the gay's didn't ask for more benefits, I'd say fuck it, let them get married. But if they start asking for more, not equal rights, that's crap.
- - - - -
I have a nice butt!
From: The land of milk and honey...and cheese | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atma
Farting Nudist
Member # 689
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 12:04 AM
Nah, the solution is to ban people who use the term "fag" in reference to anyone they don't like.
- - - - -
"My name is Atma...
I am pure energy... and as ancient as the cosmos.
Forgotten in the river of time...
I've had an eternity to ponder the meaning of things...
And now I have an answer..."
From: Cinnabar Isle, Long Island, NY | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr.E
Farting Nudist
Member # 696
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 01:33 AM
fag
Edit: furry
- - - - -
MickHale18: nevermind, I'll pull out for a second
MickHale18: *pulls out finger*
From: Munchkin Land, Oz | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 03:44 AM
yeah and you'd probably support an amendment to get Arnold in the white house
The more I think about that amendment (amend the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to be president), the more I'm in favor of it. Not because of Arnold, but because it's just not that great of an idea these days. Originally, it was so that the US didn't fall under foreign influence (especially royal foreign influence, which was common back then- the US was determined to not make the same mistakes that Europe had made [pls no wiseass Indian comments]). But now, who cares?
It's funny to see Republicans in favor of greater immigrant rights with Democrats opposed. Attn assholes: why didn't you fix this ten years ago?
I applaud Bush for this...
Please don't attack MK too bad for this one. I think we can reason this one out, and show MK (and the other guys who buy this) why he's wrong.
I'll start with the best argument:
-MK, why do you think gay marriage should be prohibited?
Ultimately, you'll at some point say that it's morally wrong. My strong argument is that the government isn't here to stop us from doing things that are morally wrong. There are lots of things that are morally wrong and are legal- and you wouldn't want to change that. Should getting drunk be illegal? How about smoking tobacco? Your morals are derived from God, right? So shouldn't blasphemy be illegal? I mean, it's morally wrong, isn't it? And aren't all sins equal in the eyes of the Lord?
You can do a lot of this. Is it immoral to waste gas? Immoral to not give a ride to someone who needs it? Should all of these things be mandated by the government?
Murder is illegal because it hurts people. You will have to fabricate some "It hurts society" argument to try to shephard in "No gay marriage" under this logic, and then you'll fail for similar reasons (lots of things hurt society).
My other arguments aren't as good as that one:
-Do you really want "marriage is between one man and one woman" in our Constitution? Have you read that document? That was written by some seriously enlightened motherfuckers. Those guys were considered raving radicals for their suggestions- for instance, it was widely known that God appointed kings and queens to rule, right (even though no one really believed it, that was the schtick)? So how is it for men to cast aside their divine rulers and propose to rule themselves? Preposterous!
And so on. The Constitutional amendments are meant to preserve the rights of men against the potential tyranny of government.
Not to say "FUK U FAGZ!!!11".
-What's the issue? Why does anyone care what gays do? I mean, they can marry. Whoopdedoo. They aren't marrying me against my will, right? So who cares? Why would you wake up and go VOTE, go mark a box, that specifically will hurt a chunk of the population? Why? Do you hate them? Do you think your religion should be law? Are you just fucking mean? Do you want the government saying other things "for the common good", like "no home schooling" or "no teaching of illogical things like religion"?
Hell no. Interracial is fine. I mean, there's NO crime and/or sin there...
MK, interracial *used* to be a crime. The law doesn't define morality, or morality is a very fickle thing. You're a Christian, so to you right and wrong is an eternal thing, right?
Christians have a pretty good argument for opposing homosexuality in general: the Bible speaks out against it once almost certainly (Leviticus, I think) and a second time probably (Soddom and Gomorrah, which could actually be about failing to love your neighbor, or xenophobia, or a desire to rape, all of them more likely than homosexuality).
But again, we're allowed to work Saturday, right? Would you want to change that?
Do you want to make sin illegal? Don't you realize where that would lead our society?
And one final thing that might tick off any of the hardcore conservatives: seventy years ago, interracial marriage was looked down upon as being horrible. The point is, all of society disapproved of it, and now I don't know *anyone* who opposes it in principle. Not even the most right wing motherfuckers.
How could the conservatives have been SO WRONG about something for SO LONG... and be right about this? Their track record when it comes to tolerance is horribly shitty, and EVERY TIME they have been wrong.
Just given their track record, what's the odds that they're right THIS TIME, that it's ok to do this to the latest group?
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 04:19 AM
Although I'm personally somewhat leaning towards being in favor in gay marriage, I have some strange urge to play the devil's advocate.
Here's an interesting question. Once you start to allow people to get married based only on that they 'love each other', whats to stop friends from saying "Hey, lets get married for some tax benefits"? Or cousins getting married? Or a son and a mother, or a son and a father? Maybe an eldery person wants to marry their kid because then they can get health benefits. They can just say they 'love each other', now that marriage can successfully be defined as "anything goes".
I still think it wont be as bad as this... but then again people will do crazy things for tax breaks. I think this is why people are talking about preserving some sort of 'sanctity of marriage' thing - they don't want it to become a casual means to get governmental benefits by those who would abuse it.
I'm rather split on the issue, although I would love to see homosexual people find a happy way to... express themselves, and not have to deal with the degrading compromise of a "civil union".
[ 02-25-2004, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: Charmeleon42 ]
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 04:51 AM
whats to stop friends from saying "Hey, lets get married for some tax benefits"?
Nothing stops them now.
Oh, except that they have to be of different gender.
But you *CAN* marry a chick for that purpose, right this minute.
Or cousins getting married?
Cousins can marry in most states.
Additionally, why shouldn't cousins be able to marry, period?
And don't talk about genetics until you have AT LEAST googled this shit up: the famous inbred royal families, for instance, took many generations of seriously close inbreeding to develop their problems. The odds of a birth defect are only a little higher with cousins... and, more importantly, we now have the technology to detect many more possible birth defects that would result from two people marrying- and no one has been trying to get the government to mandate that, now have they?
Or a son and a mother, or a son and a father?
Well, both of these are illegal because of the incest laws you mention earlier- right now, that's the only reason why a mother and a son can't marry.
Perhaps some Democrat or gay rights activist can come around and explain how homosexuality is somehow magically different than incest or polygamy* or other "deviant" practices that involve consensting adults. I don't give a shit. You and your pop want to marry? Fine, here you go.
No skin off my teeth!
Gross as shit, though, but that's not what this is about.
but then again people will do crazy things for tax breaks.
Don't men and women do this already? If there's a hole in the system that everyone is ok with, why not allow it to everyone, then?
The bigger issue is- why do the tax laws do what they do? Why the implicit assumption that married people pay different taxes? pkthunder nailed this arguement right on the head in no time the last time it came up- her line was something like "Then it sounds like the problem is with the tax system."
I hate it when people come up with a bad idea, implement it, and then use it as an argument against good ideas. "But it would make the bad idea work wrong!"
Of course it would.
Is the purpose of tax benefits in a marriage to encourage people to marry? That's not the role of the government. Is the purpose to help you raise kids? Then make the benefits kick in when you are raising kids (adopted or your own, doesn't matter).
Can anyone come up with a reason why the government is all up in marriage anyway?
I mean a good one.
And of course, yall know my opinions on taxes in general, so whatever.
* Reminder that multiple girls is really, really hot.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slade_64
chipmunk pr0n author
Member # 804
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 05:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
Perhaps some Democrat or gay rights activist can come around and explain how homosexuality is somehow magically different than incest or polygamy* or other "deviant" practices that involve consensting adults. I don't give a shit. You and your pop want to marry? Fine, here you go.
No skin off my teeth!
Gross as shit, though, but that's not what this is about.
Marriage is supposed to be sacred. Who really defines marriage and sacred in this situation is unfortunately up to the government. If morality is not ya'lls cup of tea, then why don't we throw everything "indecent" into this "we don't give a damn" hype. Like nudity/indecent exposure, televised censorship, public drunkenness, etc...
There is a such thing as too much. Balance is starting to clash with "fairness". Yes we used to be a lot stricter in the past with certain things; we've learned from those mistakes and have moved on, at least most of us and at least most situations. We have become more open minded. But where do we draw the line? Are you proposing that there shouldn't be one? Total freedom can also cause chaos if there is no abstinence to certain things. The government is not implemented to please all our whims to how we see fit.
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
but then again people will do crazy things for tax breaks.
Don't men and women do this already? If there's a hole in the system that everyone is ok with, why not allow it to everyone, then?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yes, lets make the hole bigger; that's smart. This is like the whole parents and their cliff analogy.
And not everyone is ok with it. It's just not as big of news as gay marriages, therefore not shown/discussed as much.
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
The bigger issue is- why do the tax laws do what they do? Why the implicit assumption that married people pay different taxes? pkthunder nailed this arguement right on the head in no time the last time it came up- her line was something like "Then it sounds like the problem is with the tax system."
I hate it when people come up with a bad idea, implement it, and then use it as an argument against good ideas. "But it would make the bad idea work wrong!"
Of course it would.
Is the purpose of tax benefits in a marriage to encourage people to marry? That's not the role of the government. Is the purpose to help you raise kids? Then make the benefits kick in when you are raising kids (adopted or your own, doesn't matter).
I don't think taxes are the bigger issue exactly; at least I don't think so...
People always abuse the system. The thing is I don't necessarily think that a change in the system is what we need to do. In my opinion, it's the lack of morals and respect towards our policies which is making them obsolete, not the policies themselves. We shouldn't have to change every single little thing over people who take an arm when given a hand.
I'm Hispanic, and as a minority I could be abusing the benefits I could receive from the government. But I don't; I'm grateful enough that the government has that available but I can support myself. But just because others do abuse the benefits, should we take those benefits away completely, affecting those who actually do need it and can't support themselves in the process?
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
Can anyone come up with a reason why the government is all up in marriage anyway?
I would like to know too. I thought marriage was a religious practice that the government decided to play with also. I thought that there was supposed to be separation of church and state, not adopting policies of the church and making it its own. Because now people are able to abuse a once sacred act, whether it is because of taxes, gay marriages, or otherwise.
 Edit: Changed for cfalcon.
[ 02-25-2004, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Slade_64 ]
- - - - -
Bucket.
From: Funky Town Texas | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 05:58 AM
Who really defines marriage and sacred here is unfortunately up to the government.
GO DIRECTLY TO SCHOOL. DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boodabonzi
like a virgin
Member # 2958
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 11:24 AM
guys is this the one about gay marriage?
- - - - -
OK, I know I'm probably not the nicest Pokemon Trainer when it comes to giving advice, and if I get flamed on this, it is probably well deserved. So here goes...
From: Hitchin - biggest little shanty town in all of England | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 11:59 AM
Yes, lets make the hole bigger; that's smart. This is like the whole parents and their cliff analogy.
People always abuse the system. The thing is I don't necessarily think that a change in the system is what we need to do. In my opinion, it's the lack of morals and respect towards our policies which is making them obsolete, not the policies themselves. We shouldn't have to change every single little thing over people who take an arm when given a hand.
So, basically, in the first instance we shouldn't give gay people some rights everybody else has because they would be abused, whereas in the second instance we shouldn't blame other policies that already exist for their abuse because it's the fault of the people who abuse them. Gotcha.
I thought marriage was a religious practice that the government decided to play with also. I thought that there was supposed to be separation of church and state, not adopting policies of the church and making it its own. Because now people are able to abuse a once sacred act, whether it is because of taxes, gay marriages, or otherwise.
I understand that hunting is sacred to some Native American tribes.
[ 02-25-2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Rolken ]
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 01:05 PM
I'm getting kind of curious. Can someone other than cflaccid state, one sentence per item (this would exclude him anyway), reasons for banning gay marriage?* MK's given two:
- It (gay marriage) is a crime.
- It is a sin.
I guess Bush gave a few:
- It weakens the good influence of society. (wtf)
- It changes the meaning of marriage.
In all fairness, I thought that the arguments quoted by those opposed to the amendment were also fairly moronic.
*Let's separate the two questions: should gay marriage be banned? should gay marriage be banned by the Constitution? I'm curious about the first one first.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slade_64
chipmunk pr0n author
Member # 804
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 01:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rolken:
So, basically, in the first instance we shouldn't give gay people some rights everybody else has because they would be abused, whereas in the second instance we shouldn't blame other policies that already exist for their abuse because it's the fault of the people who abuse them. Gotcha.
I don't see how giving them rights to marriage is beneficial in the big picture. So why should we give it to them if it's a lose-lose (in my opinion; not trying to say that this is a fact or anything) situation. You don't give an known abuser of rights more rights, just because others do it un-noticed. Why would you, what kind of logic is that?
There is three things that can be done to solve this: give out more rights, regulate them better, or take them away completely. I just think that we would be taking the easy way out (and not exactly the right way) by just giving away more rights.
And again the policies are there for the people who need it, it's just unfortunate that most abuse it. I just think that we need to regulate better who and how much benefits are given out.
quote:
Originally posted by Rolken:
I understand that hunting is sacred to some Native American tribes.
So I guess sense defiling one belief in the past is ok, why don't we do it again? Again, wtf??
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
- It (gay marriage) is a crime.
- It is a sin.
- Pfft. I don't believe so.
- To me, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
I guess Bush gave a few:
- It weakens the good influence of society. (wtf)
- It changes the meaning of marriage.
*Let's separate the two questions: should gay marriage be banned? should gay marriage be banned by the Constitution? I'm curious about the first one first.
- Eh, yes and no.
- Yes it does.
Well, in most churches, gay marriage is already banned. I think marriage itself should not be distributed by the government. Now, call it something else (civil union) sure why not. Should they be given tax benefits that regular married people have? No. Why not? Cause to me, civil union and marriage are two different things. Should they be given any tax benefits for their civil union? I donno, depends if they will be supporting children or not or other reasons. How many gay unions will actually be bringing up a child/ren? Should the age of both parties in the union be of any concern when giving them adopting rights? Their total income? How stable of a home? I think that if we allow this, there will have to be a lot of questions to be answered to regulate their rights as a joined couple.
All in all I guess what I'm saying is yes, I don't mind them getting civil unions. But if it's described as marriage in any way, then no I wouldn't recognize it as such cause to me marriage is a religious act, not a governmental right.
Kinda how atheism isn't a religion; civil union isn't a religious act. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[ 02-25-2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Slade_64 ]
- - - - -
Bucket.
From: Funky Town Texas | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 01:52 PM
So you should have a constitutional amendment banning stringent atheists from getting married?
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slade_64
chipmunk pr0n author
Member # 804
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 01:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Psybro:
So you should have a constitutional amendment banning stringent atheists from getting married?
Our regular civil unions have been working well so far. I just won't recognize them as married.
Again, just my point of view, my opinion; don't take it the wrong way/personally.
Edit: Italics!!
[ 02-25-2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Slade_64 ]
- - - - -
Bucket.
From: Funky Town Texas | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-25-2004 03:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Slade_64:
Again, just my point of view, my opinion; don't take it the wrong way/personally.
I'm not taking it personally. But Some people want you to know that you are wrong.
How is that you quoted a question and then managed not to answer it (right above?)
[ 02-25-2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: ceoalex316 ]
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 03:09 PM
Can someone other than cflaccid state, one sentence per item (this would exclude him anyway), reasons for banning gay marriage?
I honestly don't know what they are. My dad didn't come out all angry about it, so I asked him to let me know how he came to his incorrect conclusions. He brought up points like:
- Marriage, as a word, has always meant between a man and a woman.
(he corrected this a second later, because polygamy breaks that, and marriage has quite often meant polygamy)
- People define what marriage is, not the government; it's legal definition is supposed to be based on how people conceive of marriage, not the other way around.
- A constitutional amendment is needed because right now, if one state recognizes gay marriage, the constitution requires *all* states to.
(this is why he's ok with an amendment instead of just a law: he recognizes, correctly, that the law wouldn't be good enough unless it banned it at a federal level)
I'm sure there are a bunch of other reasons.
In all fairness, I thought that the arguments quoted by those opposed to the amendment were also fairly moronic.
What? It's moronic to say "The government shouldn't ban things that hurt no one."? I'm pretty sure none of my arguments were moronic, and I haven't seen anyone else step up to the plate yet.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jman
Farting Nudist
Member # 618
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 03:34 PM
I hope this doesn't pass so Dweedle and I can get married.
I mean, shit.
From: da burgh | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 04:07 PM
someone other than cflaccid
other than cflaccid
other than
other...
- Marriage, as a word, has always meant between a man and a woman.
Already said that one.
- People define what marriage is, not the government; it's legal definition is supposed to be based on how people conceive of marriage, not the other way around.
Wait, is this a reason to ban gay marriage, or a reason not to?
What? It's moronic to say "The government shouldn't ban things that hurt no one."? I'm pretty sure none of my arguments were moronic, and I haven't seen anyone else step up to the plate yet.
The arguments quoted in the CNN article, numbnuts.
Though, I'm not sure it's that they're moronic so much as pitched at a mostly emotional level - just like Bush is doing. They look silly in the article, next to Bush's quotes, because if that's all he's got it could be demolished in the blink of an eye. You don't need to get all handwringey about discrimination and gay bashing.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 04:15 PM
Wait, is this a reason to ban gay marriage, or a reason not to?
He meant it as a reason to ban it- as long as that's what the people want.
He doesn't have a huge problem with gay marriage or gays in general, he just thinks it's ridiculous that the courts are interpreting laws in ways that (in his opinion) have less than popular support.
Basically his opinion is that gay marriage should come from the people, not interpretations of existing laws that probably weren't written with gays in mind.
But I didn't bring that up above, because it's not really relevant to the discussion.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atma
Farting Nudist
Member # 689
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 06:01 PM
Topic: President Bush has proposed an amendment for which there is not one rational argument
When did he propose soemthing that DID have a rational argument?
And no, proposing to give the US a $500 billion deficit isn't rational.
- - - - -
"My name is Atma...
I am pure energy... and as ancient as the cosmos.
Forgotten in the river of time...
I've had an eternity to ponder the meaning of things...
And now I have an answer..."
From: Cinnabar Isle, Long Island, NY | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 06:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Atma:
Topic: President Bush has proposed an amendment for which there is not one rational argument
When did he propose soemthing that DID have a rational argument?
No Child Left Behind?
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-25-2004 06:59 PM
Healthly forest made some sense.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-25-2004 07:11 PM
Topic: President Bush has proposed an amendment for which there is not one rational argument
I do not understand why Gay people want to get married? Their union condemned in almost every religion. Legal rights will not get their union excepted in the name of god.
So you would have to look at it from a legal point of view. That is the tax benefits that they might receive. And I’m going to ass/u/me cfalcon is right that the government wants more people to marry.
Studies have shown that families with out a mother and a father are worst than if you have both. So it would be natural for the government to be against gay marriage. Is that rational enough?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 07:33 PM
I do not understand why Gay people want to get married?
Same reasons Straight people want to get married.
Their union condemned in almost every religion.
Not the religions that most of them believe in, presumably- or maybe they just want the state (which isn't saying anything about religion) to accept them, hmm?
Legal rights will not get their union excepted in the name of god.
Depending on the faith of the individual person, the union is already accepted by God, never accepted by God, or maybe they just don't believe in God.
Studies have shown that families with out a mother and a father are worst than if you have both. So it would be natural for the government to be against gay marriage. Is that rational enough?
Certainly, as long as you are willing to ban singlemotherhood.
Additionally, those studies are invariably single parent versus two parent homes- so they state nothing whatsoever about how a gay couple would work out. And then, it would have to compare adopted children.
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that a randomly selected gay couple with a kid will, on average, do a worse job than a similarly selected straight couple. Why do I say this? Well, to me, it just doesn't seem like the average is there. After all, the openly gay and married section of the population is much more individualistic than the average member of the sheeple, so you would think that this would contribute- and probably in a negative way, because as all you nerds know, being different from average in either direction tends to create alienation.
But this is no argument for banning marriage!
And I'll bet that when we finally *do* get data on gay families, it will be in *favor* of them, something that will then make headlines everywhere- because only a small section of gays will adopt, and it will probably be very highly slanted toward the most capable section of that population.
Anyway, even if you proved- like, with math- that gay couples are worse parents- even then, you still are denying open and loving homes to tons of kids with NO parents.
Also, this hasn't come up because this issue is gay adoption, and we're talking about gay marriage.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Donald
Bob the Builder
Member # 1551
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 07:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Slade_64:
Next stop, ten page tl;dr war.
Dude, what are the lottery numbers for this weekend? If you're gonna develop psychic powers all of a sudden, you might as well profit from it.
I'll give you 50%. Deal?
From: In your girl's panties | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 07:52 PM
Yea, it's pretty fucked up that we're discussing a prominent and controversial political issue.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 08:14 PM
So, basically, in the first instance we shouldn't give gay people some rights everybody else has because they would be abused
Just to say, because I've been listening to the Lars Larson show and he continually brings up this point: there is no 'right' that gay people are being denied. There is no "equal protection" issue here, because gay man have the right to marry gay women, or straight women. Or gay women to straight men. Homosexuals have the exact same rights that straight people do - what the issue is about is creating new rights.
Also, I've been thinking about the abusal of the whole tax thing, and I think that, believe it or not, the second amendment can shed a bit of light on this. People have the right to buy guns - but a lot of them will go and use them to commit crimes. Should be ban all gun sales to the public, because some people would abuse this system? No. I think the constitution gives a bit of precident in this way when it comes to this sort of thing.
I do not understand why Gay people want to get married?
Ever since you were a little boy, every since we were all children, the thing for loving adults to do is to get married. From the day we are born we learn about the emotions and importance of the day with the churchs, the minister, the "I do's", the flowers, the crying, and the kiss*. Kids grow up knowing that when they love a person, the ultimate thing that they can do to show that to themselves and the other person is to marry them.
Gay people want that. They want the same ceremonies, the same honor, the same meaning that marriage conveys. The meaning of love and partnership. Something a "Civil Union" doesn't necessarily do - for it doesn't conjure up the same emotions that a marriage does. A civil union is cold, dry legalities - not love.
* dont forget honeymoon ;-)
[ 02-25-2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Charmeleon42 ]
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shining Arcanine
Orangutan Spouse
Member # 3585
|
posted 02-25-2004 08:26 PM
There is one key difference. If your parents liked the same sex, you would have never existed.
- - - - -
Webmaster of Pokemon Fan Universe
From: USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-25-2004 09:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Charmeleon42:
Just to say, because I've been listening to the Lars Larson show and he continually brings up this point: there is no 'right' that gay people are being denied. There is no "equal protection" issue here, because gay man have the right to marry gay women, or straight women. Or gay women to straight men. Homosexuals have the exact same rights that straight people do - what the issue is about is creating new rights.
You are forgetting about pursuit of happiness. Remeber the so called inalienable right that is supposed to be self evident.
I do not understand why Gay people want to get married?
Same reasons Straight people want to get married.
I do not understand that either.
I read what Char wrote and I sort of get it. But I think the whole thing is stupid.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wizzymoto
Farting Nudist
Member # 60
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 09:17 PM
I'm pretty much for gay marriage, but something I heard on the radio got me thinking:
If you're saying that gay marriage is fine and dandy because everyone has the right to enjoy marriage and all, what would be your argument against polygamy of any kind, or incestuous marriages, or Adam West marrying his hand?
From: Irvine, CA, USA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twinkle
I'm feeling fat and sassy~!
Member # 1690
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 09:27 PM
Yay! Change the Constitution to give people less freedom!
Seriously, though, what's this about it devaluing marriage and making society collapse or whatever? I mean, if some guy gets married to all of his siblings and his pet weasel then how exactly does that affect you personally?
- - - - -
Hich loch faauto noxlattoyen.
From: Brinstar | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-25-2004 09:58 PM
I don't have problems with incestuous marriages.
I think the logical solution on marriage is for the government to butt out entirely. Let churches sanction marriages whenever they want to. If some cult want to let people marry goats, why shouldn't they be able to? As long as there's no bestiality involved, who cares.
Fuck the government trying to recognize marriage as a legal union.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Slade_64
chipmunk pr0n author
Member # 804
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 12:27 AM
Did I call that or what? 50-50 is otay with me.
Heh, everyone said exactly the same thing I did, only in different words.
Props on the Adam West refrence.
Oh yeah, and 27 6 35 18 41. Bonus ball: 25
- - - - -
Bucket.
From: Funky Town Texas | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikuse
Farting Nudist
Member # 3037
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 12:28 AM
I know. Whatever happened to "separation of church and state"?
Besides, even if the government does see marriage as a legal union of two people, I say that whoever wants to get married to whoever, they should be allowed to. It's not going to affect me or anyone else on a physical or economical level, so why should I try to prevent it?
And even if I were against it, just for purely moral reasons, why would I still be trying to prevent it without an actual reason other than "I don't like it."?
From: In my pants. | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 11:16 AM
I might have considered taking part in this thread in a reasonable manner if cflakkin hadn't rushed in and taken a dump all over it.
I'm not steppin' in that...
Maybe Toby's right...might be time to ban him...
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 12:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
And I'll bet that when we finally *do* get data on gay families, it will be in *favor* of them, something that will then make headlines everywhere- because only a small section of gays will adopt, and it will probably be very highly slanted toward the most capable section of that population.
Already found to be the case, I wonder where the headlines were?
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atma
Farting Nudist
Member # 689
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 01:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:
I do not understand why Gay people want to get married? Their union condemned in almost every religion. Legal rights will not get their union excepted in the name of god.
Oddly enough, the religions that condemn same-sex marriages are the same religions that encourage pedophile priests, or crashing planes into buildings, or getting EVERYONE to hate you, or whatever.
- - - - -
"My name is Atma...
I am pure energy... and as ancient as the cosmos.
Forgotten in the river of time...
I've had an eternity to ponder the meaning of things...
And now I have an answer..."
From: Cinnabar Isle, Long Island, NY | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 01:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Atma:
Oddly enough, the religions that condemn same-sex marriages are the same religions that encourage pedophile priests, or crashing planes into buildings, or getting EVERYONE to hate you, or whatever.
There are no organised religions that encourage those things ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Random Loser
Farting Nudist
Member # 1538
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-26-2004 04:40 PM
Just thought I'd point out, since some people seem to be ignoring it (alex), that marriage is no longer purely a religious thing. Atheists get married the same as religious folk. They still do it in a church and all that probably (I honestly don't know, haven't been studying up on the subject), but it's mostly just because that's what's generally accepted in society.
Marriage is now just seen as the next step up in a relationship, making an (occasionally) life-long commitment to your partner, and I can certainly see how gay people would want this the same as anyone else... when a relationship gets to a certain level of seriousness, you get married. If the government IS going to get involved in the process (don't think they should, but they already have), I don't see why they would deny it to gay people - most of the reasons for that being based on religion at some level. If they're involved it should only be at the most secular level.
Blah, this is only a problem because the government got mixed up in a religious issue, marriage should have been left alone. I'd go with the solution of taking all references to marriage out of law period, make them civil unions legally, something that just happens to be done at the same time people get married, and then people can deal with the marriage problem their own personal way.
From: Uni of Virginny | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic