Politics

ITT: Democrats.

 

I don't know why people would celebrate in frount of the White House. No wonder they were nuts, they were mental. Maybe because they can. Oh Glory.

 

no, just a moderate conservative who feels cheated by bible thumping neocons stealing the presidential ticket year after year.

the republican party is a mess dude- it has been since bush's re-election (have we already forgotten why they lost the majority in congress?). they need to re-invent themselves to appeal to the center right (and even the center left) if they want to win another election in the next century.

 

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll234/leodamine/johnmccainhillaryclintopi7.gif

Quite hilarious!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

 

Keith Olbermann on prop 8:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652443#27652443

 

^Whoa... I'm not gay and I don't have anybody in my family (that I know of) that's gay either but what Keith Olbermann said was deep. I use to make gay jokes like "that's gay" or "you're gay" but now those jokes seem really wack. I feel bad for them and the way they get treated reminds me of that old show Alien Nation /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Here's something to lighten the mood up a bit: Obama supporters, the aftermath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=218L2OcM-og

 

Thank you for that link Jerky, I think Keith Olbermann hit the nail on the head when he said "What is it to you?!". A very eloquent message that I would like someone who voted for propersition 8 to dispute.

 

Shit, well there's my answer to the Sweden thing:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506030007

 

I think if you should ban same sex from getting married, you should also removed marriage from any legal aspects. Make it so marriage is just the ceremony but if you want any of the legal benefits, whether your same sex of not, you have to get "mutual partnership".

 

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXpsT3e8UsM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXpsT3e8UsM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


The end.

BTW, why is "tradition" a better argument then "religion"?

 

Voting wasn't created for women in the first place. . .

The issue is, basically the same != legally the same.

http://www.queerty.com/report-nj-civil-unions-equal-second-class-status-20080217/

http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/s...s-3541108.shtml

This sums it up: "Civil unions do not provide the 1,138 federal incidents of marriage, from social security to immigration to tax equity or assure families that their legal relationship will be respected outside their home state."


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I actually met a gay once, and thought that he was a great guy.</div></div>

Chances are good that you have met "a gay" more than just once . . .

 

Since you believe in the tradition of male and female unions, I don't think your belief is so fragile that it could be damaged by two women or men (that you've never even heard of) getting married.

I don't understand why you want to impose your belief on people you know or don't know. Would you walk up to a gay couple or person and state "you should not be allowed to marry"? Wouldn't it be a little bizarre if someone walked up to you and said the same sentence? If someone said that to me, I think my response would be "OK. You can think that if you want. I don't see why you're so concerned about personal things outside your own life."

Also, male-female marriages have about a 50% success rate. That's an F. Even a D is passing. 50% is an F. I would think that could shake your belief in the tradition. The best way to improve upon that statistic is to find a person, marry them, and love them for the rest of their lives. Fight for your belief of tradition through acceptance and inclusion.

 

I highly doubt this is going to change your mind but yes marriage is practiced around the world and there was a time black people weren't allowed to marry other black people or whites it didn't matter. Now if your argument for why that was wrong because there were other countries that allowed blacks to marry who they wanted right? In some cultures/tribes around the world homosexuality is practiced and they along with straight couples get married just like everyone else does in their culture. So aren't we practicing the same bigotry as we were back when race was a reason to not let people marry. This whole argument just screams intolerance, and tolerance of intolerance isn't tolerance at all.

Honestly the whole birth rate dropping is not a problem we have too many god damn people in this world anyway if we can drop our population down by not having to tell straight couples they can't have children like they do in china then great. I also think it's great for homosexuals to be allowed to adopt, however I am much more on the fence about lesbian couples getting having babies with planted sperm. The idea does kinda freak me out a bit, but if straight couples can do it I don't really see a reason why they can't, I just like the idea of them adopting more like males have to, but who am I to tell them they can't do something cuz it grosses me out lol.

 

Couldn't have said better myself. Great post. Cheers.

 

Well, personally if gay marriage is ever legalized I'm not going to throw a shit fit over it and tell them that they shouldn't be able to get married. Yeah, I'm a traditionalist but if the American people vote on them getting married that's the way it's going to be. It seems as though the majority of people in this country favor tradition so that's how it's going to be for now. I'm much more concerned with ending the schism in this country between those who favor gay marriage and those who don't. I haven't had much time to think about it, but cuz's suggestion didn't seem to be all that bad. I'm willing make changes as long as everyone is satisfied.

I was talking more about what marriage entails than its success rate. I'm kind of worried about the effect on children that are adopted by gay couples. I don't think that children are going to turn gay or anything, but I worry about their experiences growing up. I can tell you that I've had many experiences as a child where I wanted to discuss certain things with my mother and certain things with my father. I'm thinking that every child deserves to grow up with a male and female parent to help them develop. Isn't that what's natural? I'm not saying that gay couples can't be good parents, but it just seems like having a male and female figure would be better for them.

If we are trying to appease both sides here and help bring this country together, wouldn't the solution be to fix civil unions/domestic partnerships? We can preserve the traditional aspect of marriage by keeping it between a man and a woman, while at the same time having civil unions that offer equal rights to both gay and heterosexual couples. Or you could do as cuz suggested and make marriage just the ceremony.

That's a good point BTW about voting not being created for women. I just think that my suggestion would be better.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chances are good that you have met "a gay" more than just once . . . </div></div>

Yeah, probably. It's just that this guy was blatantly gay. LOL.

 

Good that you won't freak out. I'm not sure why it has to be legal for you to accept it. I think the majority of people fear change rather than favor tradition. Tradition is very safe: "It's ALWAYS been this way." My adhesion to it doesn't require thought outside of knowing what it means to me.

My part to end the schism is to help convince you that it's not your business to worry about two adults who want to marry, much less try and prevent it. The schism diminishes by one person at a time. How will two women getting married affect your life? If you WANT to be greatly affected by it, then that's your responsibility and not theirs.

Let's go back a little. Marriage doesn't require the raising of children. My wife and I never really wanted kids so we didn't have any. We still love each other and are really happy that we're married. I couldn't see denying other people what she and I share. The ability to parent is unrelated to the sexual orientation of care-givers.

 

What about people raised by a single parent? There's an ideal world and then there's reality... Not everyone has a mother and a father. Not everyone's mother or father are good parents. It's a case by case situation. It's just not good to make sweeping, general laws that shut everyone of one type out in the cold. Specificity is better.

There are a lot of dogmatic people out there that want to interpret certain "documents" literally, whether or not they were written for our time or hundreds, even thousands of years ago. Even the Catholic church has had to admit that the big bang fits within their doctrine and beliefs. The proof is overwhelming, the world was not made in 7 days.

I have pressed a friend of mine, who is basically a creationist, on this issue. He is a very intelligent person and has read the entire bible at least twice. He chooses to interpret it much more loosely, thinking of 7 "cosmic" days (still billions of years). However, I think he is still bending his "theory of everything" to fit the information as it comes in; as opposed to forming his theory around the evidence.

There are people who believe that there are judges who interpret the Constitution too loosely; they call them "activist judges." But, if you ask any lawyer, they will tell you, "mandatory sentences are no good." A judge is in his position because he is trusted to interpret the constitution fairly and without bias. What's the point if all he can do is sit there and bang his gavel like a monkey, but can't make any "real" decisions because he has to stick strictly to a 200+ year old document? It's senseless. I say the same about making gay marriage illegal. It's too general AND it has little to no effect on those that oppose it.

You don't let just anyone adopt a kid, period. Whether they're gay, straight, a-sexual or celibate. If they are going to be a shitty parent, they're not getting a kid, end of story. If they won't be a shitty parent and they'll raise a happy, healthy person, it shouldn't matter. If anyone discriminates against they child for having gay parents, who's fault is that really??? It's the other kid's parents who raised a real brat of a kid.

I just want people to think about the effect of making huge, all-encompassing laws that don't fit the actual situation at least 50% of the time. It's prideful and short-sighted to think you're so right you can regulate the behavior of everyone else. Look at freaking Ted Haggart! That guy ran around disparaging gays and was secretly smoking crystal meth and doing gay prostitutes. Kinda makes you wonder what's really going on with these kind of people...

Larry Craig too.

 

I don't know much about the law surrounding marriage, but something tells me there are some pretty hairy federal vs. state issues involved in fixing this situation one way or the other.
Trying to invent 2 different "separate but equal" terms for what should be exactly the same benefit is only going to complicate matters.

This is basically what you're saying:

If we're trying to appease both sides, and promote racial equality, wouldn't the solution to be to have black-only Public Service Transportation Devices instead of making blacks give up their seats on the bus? We can preserve the traditional aspects of white culture by keeping buses for whites only, while at the same time having P.S.T.D.s that offer equal rights to blacks. Same routes & schedules, same fares, only they're painted black (so you can tell them apart, you know). Oh, and you're not allowed to call them 'buses', you have to call them P.S.T.D.s. And you're not allowed to say "I'm riding the bus", you have to say "I'm catching the P.S.T.D."

 

I'm glad that vid sparked some intelligent conversation - pro or con.

Keith's statement could be summed up in one sentence:

"What is it to you?"

Please give me a good reason because denying gays/lesbians the right to marry is no different to me than any of the other civil injustices that have existed in this country.

 

His idea sounds nothing like segregation. And this is also not an argument of tradition for most of the people who do not want it. The original idea of marriage in this country was formed from Christian beliefs. Yes some people have a hard time accepting homosexuality. But for many its something that directly goes against what they have great faith in.

Marriage has a broad history but in America it was something practiced by Christians. The same Christians who formed the constitution. So its not hard to understand why many have a problem with it.

Having two titles could simply mean one was married by a priest while the other union needs a Judge or something of similar legal merit. Both having the same tax benefits. That's not segregation at all, its simple compromise.